The report of the Economic Botany Subgroup for 1999 focuses on responses to a questionnaire regarding the potential activities of the group and looks forward to how some of the resulting ideas may be taken forward during the next year. This report will be circulated to the Subgroup mailing list, a summary was presented to the TDWG meeting in Harvard in October.

A good response was received; twenty-six questionnaires were returned.

Information on users of the standard was seen as valuable and several requests for this were received. Firstly, this helps evaluate the standard’s success or otherwise and helps potential users decide whether to adopt the standard themselves. Secondly, it provides potential users with possible sources of assistance in the implementation of the EBDCS in future applications. The need for help in creating new useful plant databases emerged as very important.

Respondents described how they had used the EBDCS in databases and publications and any intentions to use the standard in the future. Eleven databases and 4 publications used the EBDCS. These represented a wide geographical range (USA - including New York and USDA, Mexico, Mediterranean, Spain, Russia, UK and international organisations including the FAO, ILDIS). The EBDCS is used in other databases but descriptions were not received from the managers of those databases. The ways the EBDCS was implemented including any modifications made were recorded along with additional standards. Three respondents described their intention to use the EBDCS in the future. This information is summarised in the Tables below.

From the responses to the questionnaire certain suggestions were made that would help with future utilisation of the EBDCS.

• Help in implementation and interpretation of EBDCS.
• Revision of certain aspects of the EBDCS.

Respondents particularly sought help in implementing and interpreting the EBDCS. It was important to those trying to develop databases of useful plants to help avoid duplication of work. There was support for the following suggestions:

Not surprisingly, this was the most popular option and was requested by 11 respondents.

This was popular with 6 respondents.

4 respondents were in favour of this, one most emphatically!

Help avoid problems of duplication of effort - 5 respondents.

Explain perceived inconsistencies - 6 respondents.

More comprehensive glossaries, indexes of terms and explanation of how to code non-standard terms were sought along with recommendations regarding the various merits of multiple coding of terms.

Several respondents emphasised that any reorganisation or revision should have mapping to the 1995 published version. Various suggestions for revisions were made.

Environmental Uses, Social or Religious Uses were recognised as the weaker areas of the standard. Five respondents suggested expansion of terms.

Two respondents would like more detail in Materials. Several respondents felt that Veterinary medicine was not represented sufficiently.

Addition of 'other…..' as a category for most lists included in Level 2 and Level 3 (e.g. other plant parts, other animal food types, other products etc.) to enable any missing terms to be recorded. The full details of which could be included in Notes sections. Ultimately any records in Notes pertaining to other Level 2 and Level 3 uses could be collated and included in future revised versions of the EBDCS.

Where terms are not relevant to a database they could be excluded from the implementation.

It was suggested that Plant parts should always be available and not used as a level. This opinion was also tacitly inferred by both Wiersema and Milliken. They showed preference for Level 3 descriptors over Level 2 descriptors for certain uses in their partial implementations of the standard.

Cultural and technical details should also be linked to the use.

1 respondent was in favour of this but gave no details of suggested changes. Three respondents were actively against this, as it would have major repercussions regarding changes to current data records. Both Wiersema (in the World Economic Plants: a standard reference) and Milliken (in the Flora Celtica database project) however did reorganise LEVEL 1 and Level 2 in their implementations. Examples of the types of changes they made include:

• Addition of LEVEL 1 states (e.g. Harmful Hosts; Weeds) by Wiersema.
• Addition of Level 2 states (e.g. Companion Plants, Graft Stock to Environmental Uses; Biogas to Fuels, several additions to Gene Sources).
• Totally different Level 2 states, e.g. Medicines in Wiersema (i.e. Folklore, Source of Pharmaceutical, Veterinary).
• Name changes to some LEVEL 1 and Level 2 terms.
• Demotion of a LEVEL 1 state to Level 2, e.g. Animal Food became a Level 2 state under Animal Husbandry in Flora Celtica.

• Selective inclusion or exclusion of Level 2 states. Both Wiersema and Milliken omitted some of the states for Vertebrate Poisons.
• The second level was often made up of Level 3 terms or a mix of states from Level 2 and Level 3 of the EBDCS.

A requirement for any new TDWG standard is that it is published on the Web. This is obviously a priority for the next year but will depend on whether any major changes to the standard are required. In the meantime the SEPASAL database (which has implemented the EBDCS in its entirety) is available on the web at http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/ceb/sepasal/internet/.

Mark Jackson, the programmer who implemented the EBDCS in the SEPASAL database agrees that the standard does not translate into relational structures easily. However his implementation preserves the printed standard and largely avoids problems of duplication. He is prepared to publish information about the implementation of the standard to help clear up some of the misunderstandings and elucidate some of the complexities of the standard.

The apparent ‘inconsistencies’ in the EBDCS have a purpose. 1) They ensure that information most relevant to each major use is recorded at an appropriate level, 2) they help relate data entry to the type of data that is to be expected and 3) they avoid entry of data that is not relevant, ambiguous or even erroneous.

Furthermore, the level at which data are recorded within a use category varies depending on the major use and the importance of that information in describing that use. But where data items are relevant to several categories of use, a master list of terms ensures that there is consistency in terms, no matter at what level they are applied.

In the current standard the major classes of plant use (13 categories) are described at Level 1. At Level 2 these 13 categories are linked with the next most important piece of information. For instance, the most important information relating to Food plants is the plant part that is used. For Poisons it is the group of organisms affected (e.g. insecticides, fish poisons); for Materials it is the material type (e.g. Wood, Gums/resins); for Medicines it is the the disorder group treated (e.g. Pain, Blood System Disorders). At Level 2 there are 107 states where any plant-use can be pigeon-holed. One of the initial remits of the TDWG Uses Subgroup was to come up with a simple classification of uses. I consider the Level 2 list to serve such a purpose very well. It is more detailed than the simple LEVEL 1 list, but not so expansive as to be offputting. If open ended (or master) lists of specific plant parts or organisms were linked to the LEVEL 1 uses, then such a neat classification would be missed.

Using the food related uses - FOOD, FOOD ADDITIVES, ANIMAL FOOD - as an example, I will try to explain the reasoning behind the ‘inconsistencies’ further. At Level 2 both food and food additives link to the broadest terms of the Master hierarchical list of plant parts [excluding live plants in situ - which is not relevant to these uses, hence was eliminated as an option]. In ANIMAL FOOD some items at the top level of the Master hierarchical list of plant parts have been combined into a broader group (e.g. aerial parts includes Unspecified Aerial Parts, Stems and Leaves). This was done by necessity, as frequently the level of detail available on plant parts used for animal food is extremely restricted. [If the detail is indeed available, this could be recorded in Level 3.] It must be stressed that all groupings relate to one Master List; they just vary to cope better with the type of data that is to be expected for the use type and to help prevent inappropriate or nonsensical data entry. It has been argued that there are inconsistencies regarding vertebrate states available, e.g. different types of vertebrates are in Level 2 in the ‘Vertebrate Poisons’ category to those in Level 3 in the ‘Animal Food’ category.

This criticism is not really valid. At Level 2 of VERTEBRATE POISONS there are links to the broadest terms of the Master list of Vertebrates (i.e. Unspecified Vertebrates, Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals). Any details of specific vertebrates available in the Master list can be recorded at Level 3. As described above, an open ended list of vertebrate terms would not be appropriate at Level 2 as it would upset the comprehensive classification (albeit broad) that will catch all Vertebrate Poison uses. For Animal Food, at Level 3 it is the whole of the Master list of Vertebrates that is available (both the top levels and more specific details). The whole master list is available as this is the only time that the vertebrate user is recorded.

In summary, the level where data are recorded within a use category varies depending on the major use and the importance of that information in describing that use. But where data items are relevant to several categories of use, a master list of terms ensures that there is consistency in terms, no matter at what level they are applied.

More suggestions from the Subgroup are needed regarding how the standard can be made user-friendlier. Obviously more comprehensive glossaries, indexes of terms and explanations of recording difficult terms could contribute. For this to happen there needs to be more communication regarding problem terms etc. from the users.

Addition of terms to the standard should not be a problem as long as there doesn’t already exist the means for recording them (i.e. there are not any synonymous terms already in the standard, or the term cannot be made up by a combination of pre-existing terms). Any terms that a user finds missing should be forwarded to Frances Cook for addition to a future version of the standard or for advise on how the current standard can record them.

The addition of 'other…..' as a category for most lists included in Level 2 and Level 3 (e.g. other plant parts, other animal food types, other products etc.) would be a useful interim measure to enable any missing terms to be recorded. The full details of the use should be included in Notes sections in the users’ databases. Ultimately any records in Notes pertaining to other Level 2 and other Level 3 uses should be collated and sent to Frances Cook for addition to future revised versions of the EBDCS.

There should not be a problem over selectivity of terms in the EBDCS. If terms are not relevant to a particular project or database they do not need to be employed. However, skipping levels in the standard is not to be encouraged, as it would be detrimental to exchange of data (i.e. Level 3 shouldn’t be included if Level 2 has not been implemented).

See my comments regarding inconsistencies above (in Provide information regarding inconsistencies), but it might be that this needs to be debated further.

The EBDCS concentrates on describing the use of the plant. Brief suggestions of additional links regarding cultural and technical details have been made. If there are needs for any then more concrete proposals need to be made to the Subgroup.

There were not many suggestions in favour of this from the respondents to the questionnaire, but examination of implementations of the standard do suggest that, in some cases, changes may be useful. Possibilities that do not have wide reaching implications include addition of LEVEL 1 and Level 2 states that are not already available in the standard and name changes. Other possibilities such as changing levels, and alternative Level 2 classifications would be more difficult to support.

In summary, there is much scope for taking the EBDCS forward. On the side of the originators of the Standard there is the good will to help with problems of implementation and interpretation. Revisions and improvements, however, also depend on receiving queries and feedback from users.

The following subjects should be discussed by the Subgroup as potential new standards to be adopted by TDWG. Support or otherwise for these schemes should be sent to Frances Cook who will co-ordinate and disseminate reactions.

The Institute of Economic Botany, New York has proposed the adoption of a credibility rating for economic botany data to attempt to standardise the data collected and evaluate its relative credibility as discussed in

Balick, M.J. 1999. Good botanical practices. Pp 121-125 in M.A. Liebert, Botanical medicine: efficacy,quality assurance, and Regulation. New York: Mary Ann Liebert. (See page 124). This rating was described as an experiment that will certainly be revised over time.

Biographical information or acknowledgement of contributions by informants for data collected should be included in any databases on uses of plants. The Institute of Economic Botany, New York proposed that a standard should be developed for this. They suggested the following fields:

• Full Name
• Cultural Group/Language

Added comments on cultural groups

• Domicile (village, address, whatever is pertinent)
• Age (approximation, if need be)
• Gender
• Occupation/Status (healer, midwife, shaman, etc.)
• Additional Notes as Needed.

These seem comprehensive in describing the source of information on uses, if the source was an informant. Topics relevant to this discussion include the need for standard lists to be developed or adopted for some of these fields e.g. Cultural Group or Language, Occupational status. Furthermore should standards be developed to cover other sources of information: reference citations, voucher specimens etc.

Various topics were raised by respondents to the questionnaire, but so far little substance on which to base discussions have been provided. The topics included

• Cultural Groups,
• Indigenous Knowledge,
• Guidance to the documentation of ethnobotanical notes on herbarium specimen labels,
• Product characteristics,
• Pharmacological activity,
• Production Value and Trade,
• Conservation Status,
• Gene Bank Sources.

Proposals are welcome on any of the above topics and Frances Cook will co-ordinate discussions. (Regarding Conservation Status, possible existing standards are occurrence in CITES Appendix I or II. IUCN conservation status – global and IUCN conservation status – global, pre-1994).

Michael B Thomas, University of Florida has announced that once his GEIRS system is completed he would like to submit to it to TDWG as a standard technology for collaborative research concerning medicinal plants use. GEIRS is a model for a global ethnomedicinal information retrieval system (which retrieves ethnomedicinal data). The interface also allows users to input data. Field data can be entered directly through an internet connection or off-line in a stand alone application.

The success or otherwise of the TDWG Economic Botany Subgroup depends on involvement of those who are interested and knowledgeable. Below are listed some people who have already pledged an interest in active discussions. We need to ensure that we access the relevant expertise so that we can adopt the best standards available. The number on the current mailing list is 68 email addresses. Please forward addresses of any potential new contacts. I feel that discussions by e-mail should be an efficient way to work, please contact me if you have alternative ideas regarding operations.

Institute of Economic Botany, New York Botanic Gardens

CONABIO, Mexico

Manuel Pardo de Santayana, Madrid

Wulf Killmann, Forest Products Division, FAO

Christoph Germeier, Bundesanstalt fur Zuchtungsforschung-Genbank

Steve Davis, SEPASAL, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

John Edmondson, Liverpool Museum

Implications of EBDCS version changes to current users: Steve Davis, SEPASAL, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Indigenous knowledge/culturally significant aspects: Kat Anderson, NRCS, National Plant Data Centre.

Structure of standard, dissemination and computing: Mark Jackson, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Development of an archiving tool for collaborative medicinal plant research, Michael B. Thomas, University of Florida.

Melpo Skoula, MEDUSA project, Crete

Michael B. Thomas, University of Florida

Peter Griffee, FAO

Richard Pankhurst, Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh

Mike Lock, RBG, Kew re ILDIS

1.Name and address of respondent (including email).

2.Please describe any database(s) that you are involved with that include(s) information on the social, cultural and economic value of plants. For instance include

details of name, the range of data included, number of records etc.

3.Do you use the Economic Botany Data Collection Standard to describe the uses of plants in your database?

4.If yes to question 3.

a. How is it implemented? (e.g. in its entirety, or restricted to certain levels of the standard, or used as a list of terms).

b. Do you use the current version or is your implementation based on an earlier prototype?

c. Have you made any modifications in your implementation? If so what changes have you made?

5.If no to question 3.

a. Are you planning to use it in the future?

b. Do you use other methods or standards to record economic botany related data? Please give details.

6.What do you think should be priorities for discussion by the TDWG Economic Botany Subgroup? Below are listed some of the suggestions already received.

Which of the following would be important for you?

a. Regarding the Economic Botany Data Collection Standard:

i. Publishing it on WWW.

ii. Publishing the data model.

iii. Provision of information regarding its implementation in databases (e.g. help in avoiding problems of duplication).

iv. Explanation of perceived inconsistencies.

v. Revision of the standard

1.expansion of terms not covered in the standard, especially at Level 3;

2.expansion of weaker areas e.g. Religious Uses, Environmental Uses;

3.reorganisation of LEVEL 1 and Level 2;

4.producing a more user friendly version.

b. Regarding new standards

i. Adopting or developing new standards pertaining to other aspects of the social, cultural and economic uses of plants,

a. Cultural groups.

b. Production, value and trade.

c. Indigenous knowledge.

d. Etc.

7.What additional aspects should be added to the priorities list.

8.To what extent would you like to be involved in the TDWG Economic Botany Subgroup? All levels of participation are welcome, but it would be useful to know those with particular experience and expertise who could help take some of the agreed priorities to their conclusion.