talk · Thursday 24 September · 16:38–⁠16:50 · FORUM

Digitising Plant and Fungal Collections at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Applying International Standards to Support Data Sharing and Geospatial Analysis

Udayangani Liu · From WDSRPD to GeoSchemes: Recording Biodiversity Distributions for Science and Policy

Recording time 8:26:16–8:40:13Open on Vimeo ↗

Summaries and key moments are machine-produced. Check the recording for the speaker’s exact words.

The short versionWGSRPD enables cross-collection geospatial analysis at Kew, but historical, heterogeneous data leave half of records without fine-level assignment.

Overview

What this was about

Udayangani Liu presented how Kew applied WGSRPD in its Integrated Collections Management System after a four-year mass digitisation that imaged over six million herbarium and fungarium specimens. Selecting an ISO country semi-automatically populates TDWG levels, while transcontinental countries, multi-country archipelagos and changed boundaries need level-by-level handling. Analysis of 7.9 million records spanning five centuries showed ISO codes are well captured but only just over 50% have levels three and four, with about 1.5 million records lacking a continent; challenges include historical data, missing hierarchy, language and variable user familiarity with the scheme.

Why it matters. It is a real-world large-scale application of the standard being revised, surfacing practical issues the new version must accommodate.

Key ideas

In the room

  • Kew holds over 8 million items across 12 collections; ICMS manages them in one system following TDWG, Darwin Core and other protocols.
  • Over six million records were added in the mass digitisation project.
  • Choosing an ISO country auto-populates TDWG levels; large countries require state/province choice.
  • About 70% of records capture collecting year; dates span five centuries with dips during the World Wars.
  • Just over 50% of records capture TDWG levels three and four; ~1.5 million (20%) lack continent.
  • Data shared via Kew Data Portal, GBIF, DiSSCo UK, Genesys and the Svalbard Seed Vault.
Jump in

Notable moments

In their words

Transcript

Automatically generated captions can contain mistakes, especially in names and technical terms. Times are relative to the room recording.

Read the transcript ↓
Loading transcript…
Programme abstract

Digitising Plant and Fungal Collections at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Applying International Standards to Support Data Sharing and Geospatial Analysis

Udayangani Liu

RBG, Kew holds over 8 M plant and fungal materials across 12 diverse collections and recently completed a major collection-based initiative to create a comprehensive digital catalogue, implement an Integrated Collections Management System (ICMS), and launch the Kew Data Portal. ICMS enhances data standardisation, curation, accessibility, and interoperability, enabling a strategic opportunity for integrated analysis across collections within a single digital platform. We present our experience in application of WGSRPD standards. Data derive from migrated legacy databases with varying standards, as well as entry of new records. A semi-automated process assigns TDWG levels based on ISO 3166 country codes for original provenance. ICMS currently holds over 7.8 M records linked to physical materials. While some materials are of historical significance dating back to BCE, collection events from original localities range from the late 17th century, with the most from the 19 th century onward. Over 1.44 M records could not be assigned to a country or territory without further investigation, while a high proportion met international data standards: ISO codes - 81.3%; TDWG L1 - 80.4%, L2 - 71.6%, L3 - 53.1%, and L4 - 52.9%. Provenance spans all 249 countries and territories, mainly from Africa, followed by Asia-Tropical and Southern America. Key challenges include missing hierarchical locality data, historical references, geopolitical boundary changes, transcontinental nations, multi-jurisdictional archipelagos, absent geocoordinates, language and translation inconsistencies, and variable user familiarity with the TDWG system. Our results highlight both the value and the limitations of applying contemporary standards to heterogeneous, historically complex biodiversity data.

Submitted to the conference programme before the talk, so the talk itself may differ.