Inadequate Accession Data Compromises the Conservation Value of Plant Collections

Abstract

The accession data quality and record keeping at 21 botanic gardens, 35 gardens with National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens (NCCPG) collections, and eight other significant gardens in the UK was surveyed in January 2001, with special reference to Hebe.

Nearly half of all the gardens in the survey had no written policies or procedures on accessions. This correlated significantly (p<0.05) with poorer quality accession data. Only 14% of botanic
gardens and 17% of NCCPG gardens recorded all the minimum accession data fields recommended by the Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI). Only a third of all types of garden stored all their data on computer; a third of the botanic gardens updated their data less frequently than every two years, and the information transferred from the accession records to labels was sometimes scant. There was a significant negative correlation between the average number of accessions per member of staff, and accession data quality — more than 250
accessions per member of staff often corresponding to poor data quality.

We challenge the view that botanic gardens should only concentrate on plants from the local indigenous flora (Action Plan for Botanic Gardens in the European Union, BGCI 2000) because
it restricts the educational role and research potential of the garden and limits the world-wide collections of endangered species being kept safe from indigenous hazards. However, with a need to limit the plants in gardens to a manageable number with good records, criteria will be needed to select which species to represent in collections. A list of criteria, developed from a
review of the Hebe collection in the University of Bristol Botanic Garden, is suggested for all plants in botanic and similar gardens.