Collection Forum最新文献

筛选

英文中文

Seeing is Believing, A Fourteen-Year Study on Efficacy and Economics of Visual Inspections to Protect A Large Mammal Collection from Insect Pests 眼见为实:一项为期14年的关于视觉检查保护大型哺乳动物免受害虫侵害的有效性和经济性的研究

Collection Forum Pub Date : 2018-09-01 DOI: 10.14351/0831-4985-32.1.59

T. Strang, Jeremy P. Jacobs

{"title":"Seeing is Believing, A Fourteen-Year Study on Efficacy and Economics of Visual Inspections to Protect A Large Mammal Collection from Insect Pests","authors":"T. Strang, Jeremy P. Jacobs","doi":"10.14351/0831-4985-32.1.59","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14351/0831-4985-32.1.59","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In response to the cessation of use of in-case fumigants, from 1995–2009 the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History's Division of Mammals (DOM) applied a consistent voluntary visual inspection protocol over a period of 14 years. On average, per-case inspections required about 7 minutes. Inspections categorized case pest activity as clean, soiled, signs of life, and live insects. These categories compartmentalized levels of uncertainty about pest activity and directly led to remedial treatment and cleaning actions performed at a case level. Evidence of recurrent reinfestation led to case renovation or replacement.\u0000 In order for an integrated pest management (IPM) method to be successful, it has to demonstrate a predatory efficacy better than the replacement and recruitment rates of the pests. With at most 1.5% of staff time devoted to IPM, case infestations of Thylodrias contractus (Motschulsky 1839) Coleoptera: Dermestidae and Necrobia rufipes (De Geer 1775) Coleoptera: Cleridae were lowered to near zero within 3 years. Rebound toward initial rates occurred after a forced 3-year hiatus in inspections and was similarly dealt with by a following round of inspections. The hourly investment of time is comparable with that of previous case repellant or fumigation regimes, but without the aggregated loss of access to collections during enclosure and out-gassing of fumigant, thus allowing longer and safer access to collections over a year, and instilling greater knowledge of specimen condition across the collection regardless of current research focus. The study also includes an economic comparison to historical methods of case level pest suppression with fumigants against two other comparably large collections documented within the last half century.","PeriodicalId":10705,"journal":{"name":"Collection Forum","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88876268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Conservation process of water-damaged herbarium specimens at the Harvard University Herbaria 哈佛大学植物标本室水损标本的保存过程

Collection Forum Pub Date : 2014-01-01 DOI: 10.14351/0831-0005-28.1.8

Melinda Peters

{"title":"Conservation process of water-damaged herbarium specimens at the Harvard University Herbaria","authors":"Melinda Peters","doi":"10.14351/0831-0005-28.1.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14351/0831-0005-28.1.8","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In December 2009, following an upgrade of the Harvard University Herbaria's heating and cooling system, a pipe burst in one room, resulting in the soaking of specimens in the adjacent cases. The soaked specimens were removed, and the degree of water damage was assessed. The saturated specimens were placed in plastic bags and immediately transferred to a walk-in freezer set at −20°C. Slightly wet specimens were spread out to air dry. Restoration of the frozen specimens involved tests to determine the most effective method for restoring them to usable condition. Test specimens of no scientific value were intentionally soaked, then dried using two procedures: (1) silica gel desiccation and (2) vacuum freeze drying. Freeze-dried specimens did not adhere to each other as much as did those that were dried with silica gel and was the method chosen. Upon their return, the dried specimens were sorted into groups: (1) those that were immediately ready to be returned to the collection, (2) those requiring minor repair, such as reattaching detached labels or plant parts, and (3) those requiring major repair. All specimens were annotated to indicate that they were water damaged and the method of restoration used and then they were returned to the collection.","PeriodicalId":10705,"journal":{"name":"Collection Forum","volume":"28 1-2","pages":"8-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147905844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

首页上一页