Digitization workflows for flat sheets and packets of plants, algae, and fungi

Gil Nelson; Patrick Sweeney; Lisa E Wallace; Richard K Rabeler; Dorothy Allard; Herrick Brown; J Richard Carter; Michael W Denslow; Elizabeth R Ellwood; Charlotte C Germain-Aubrey; Ed Gilbert; Emily Gillespie; Leslie R Goertzen; Ben Legler; D Blaine Marchant; Travis D Marsico; Ashley B Morris; Zack Murrell; Mare Nazaire; Chris Neefus; Shanna Oberreiter; Deborah Paul; Brad R Ruhfel; Thomas Sasek; Joey Shaw; Pamela S Soltis; Kimberly Watson; Andrea Weeks; Austin R Mast

doi:10.3732/apps.1500065

Digitization workflows for flat sheets and packets of plants, algae, and fungi

Appl Plant Sci. 2015 Sep 10;3(9):apps.1500065. doi: 10.3732/apps.1500065. eCollection 2015 Sep.

Authors

Gil Nelson¹, Patrick Sweeney², Lisa E Wallace³, Richard K Rabeler⁴, Dorothy Allard⁵, Herrick Brown⁶, J Richard Carter⁷, Michael W Denslow⁸, Elizabeth R Ellwood⁹, Charlotte C Germain-Aubrey¹⁰, Ed Gilbert¹¹, Emily Gillespie¹², Leslie R Goertzen¹³, Ben Legler¹⁴, D Blaine Marchant¹⁵, Travis D Marsico¹⁶, Ashley B Morris¹⁷, Zack Murrell⁸, Mare Nazaire¹⁸, Chris Neefus¹⁹, Shanna Oberreiter²⁰, Deborah Paul¹, Brad R Ruhfel²¹, Thomas Sasek²², Joey Shaw²³, Pamela S Soltis¹⁰, Kimberly Watson²⁴, Andrea Weeks²⁵, Austin R Mast⁹

Affiliations

¹ Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio), Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2100 USA.
² Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
³ Department of Biological Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA.
⁴ University of Michigan Herbarium-EEB, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
⁵ Department of Plant Biology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
⁶ Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
⁷ Biology Department, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, Georgia, USA.
⁸ Department of Biology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA.
⁹ Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
¹⁰ Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
¹¹ School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
¹² Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia, USA.
¹³ Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA.
¹⁴ Burke Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
¹⁵ Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA ; Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
¹⁶ Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, Arkansas, USA.
¹⁷ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA.
¹⁸ Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, California, USA.
¹⁹ Department of Biological Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA.
²⁰ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
²¹ Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky, USA.
²² Department of Biology, University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana, USA.
²³ Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA.
²⁴ William and Lynda Steere Herbarium, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York, USA.
²⁵ Department of Biology and the Ted R. Bradley Herbarium, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.

Abstract

Effective workflows are essential components in the digitization of biodiversity specimen collections. To date, no comprehensive, community-vetted workflows have been published for digitizing flat sheets and packets of plants, algae, and fungi, even though latest estimates suggest that only 33% of herbarium specimens have been digitally transcribed, 54% of herbaria use a specimen database, and 24% are imaging specimens. In 2012, iDigBio, the U.S. National Science Foundation's (NSF) coordinating center and national resource for the digitization of public, nonfederal U.S. collections, launched several working groups to address this deficiency. Here, we report the development of 14 workflow modules with 7-36 tasks each. These workflows represent the combined work of approximately 35 curators, directors, and collections managers representing more than 30 herbaria, including 15 NSF-supported plant-related Thematic Collections Networks and collaboratives. The workflows are provided for download as Portable Document Format (PDF) and Microsoft Word files. Customization of these workflows for specific institutional implementation is encouraged.

Keywords: citizen science; digital imaging; digitization; herbarium; specimen database; workflow.