Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Botanical Monography in the Anthropocene
2021; Elsevier BV; Volume: 26; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/j.tplants.2020.12.018
ISSN1878-4372
AutoresOlwen M. Grace, Oscar A. Pérez‐Escobar, Eve Lucas, Maria S. Vorontsova, Gwilym P. Lewis, Barnaby E. Walker, Lúcia G. Lohmann, Sandra Knapp, Peter Wilkie, Tiina Särkinen, Iain Darbyshire, Eimear Nic Lughadha, Alexandre K. Monro, Yannick Woudstra, Sebsebe Demissew, A. Muthama Muasya, Sandra Dı́az, William J. Baker, Alexandre Antonelli,
Tópico(s)Plant and animal studies
ResumoBotanical monographs have been the gold standard for communicating comprehensive systematic information about plants for over 300 years.Monographs catalyse species discovery, biodiversity documentation and conservation, and facilitate downstream research on wild and cultivated plant species.Increased availability of DNA sequence data and digitised resources now provide powerful resources for a new phase of collaborative efforts in monography, focussed on tackling the largest, most threatened, ecologically important, and economically valuable plant groups in an efficient manner. Unprecedented changes in the Earth’s biota are prompting urgent efforts to describe and conserve plant diversity. For centuries, botanical monographs — comprehensive systematic treatments of a family or genus — have been the gold standard for disseminating scientific information to accelerate research. The lack of a monograph compounds the risk that undiscovered species become extinct before they can be studied and conserved. Progress towards estimating the Tree of Life and digital information resources now bring even the most ambitious monographs within reach. Here, we recommend best practices to complete monographs urgently, especially for tropical plant groups under imminent threat or with expected socioeconomic benefits. We also highlight the renewed relevance and potential impact of monographies for the understanding, sustainable use, and conservation of biodiversity. Unprecedented changes in the Earth’s biota are prompting urgent efforts to describe and conserve plant diversity. For centuries, botanical monographs — comprehensive systematic treatments of a family or genus — have been the gold standard for disseminating scientific information to accelerate research. The lack of a monograph compounds the risk that undiscovered species become extinct before they can be studied and conserved. Progress towards estimating the Tree of Life and digital information resources now bring even the most ambitious monographs within reach. Here, we recommend best practices to complete monographs urgently, especially for tropical plant groups under imminent threat or with expected socioeconomic benefits. We also highlight the renewed relevance and potential impact of monographies for the understanding, sustainable use, and conservation of biodiversity. The Anthropocene [1.Lewis S.L. Maslin M.A. Defining the Anthropocene.Nature. 2015; 519: 171-180Crossref PubMed Scopus (1069) Google Scholar] has already witnessed unprecedented biodiversity loss as a direct consequence of human impacts [2.DÍaz S. et al.Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change.Science (80-.). 2019; 366eaax3100Crossref PubMed Scopus (333) Google Scholar], prompting calls for coordinated responses to the complex interlinked planetary crises affecting biodiversity, climate change [3.Dasgupta P. The Dasgupta Review. Independent Review on the Economics of Biodiversity. Interim Report. HM Treasury, 2020Google Scholar,4.European Commission Bringing Nature back into our Lives. European Commission, 2020Google Scholar], and healthi. Amid alarmingly high rates of species invasions [5.Brenton-Rule E.C. et al.Corruption, development and governance indicators predict invasive species risk from trade.Proc. R. Soc. B. 2016; 283: 1832Crossref Scopus (13) Google Scholar], range shifts (see Glossary) [6.Dawson W. et al.Global hotspots and correlates of alien species richness across taxonomic groups.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017; 1: 1-7Crossref PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar] and extinctions [7.Humphreys A.M. et al.Global dataset shows geography and life form predict modern plant extinction and rediscovery.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019; 3: 1043-1047Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar], there has never been greater urgency to document the estimated 20% of the Earth’s flora that remains to be scientifically described [8.Joppa L.N. et al.Biodiversity hotspots house most undiscovered plant species.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2011; 108: 13171-13176Crossref PubMed Scopus (144) Google Scholar]. Comprehensive syntheses of information about individual plant groups underlie all kinds of research, the conservation of plant diversity [9.Nic Lughadha E.M. et al.Harnessing the potential of integrated systematics for conservation of taxonomically complex, megadiverse plant groups.Conserv. Biol. 2019; 33: 511-522Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar], sustainable and fair use [10.Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011Google Scholar], and science outreach activities to improve awareness of plants [11.Jose S.B. et al.Overcoming plant blindness in science, education, and society.Plants People Planet. 2019; 1: 169-172Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar]. Monographs are a key resource for taxonomists, and are widely used in fields such as ecology, genetics, evolutionary biology, palaeontology, and applied contexts, including horticulture, conservation, natural resource management, and plant breeding. For over 300 years, monographs have also been the standard way in plant sciences to disseminate authoritative scientific information about plant species, genera, and families (Box 1).Box 1What Is a Botanical Monograph?A botanical monograph is a thorough systematic treatment of a plant group drawn from observations of plants in their native habitat, specimens in reference collections, and data generated in the laboratory. These treatments articulate the taxonomic decisions made by experts using multifaceted evidence summarised for species in the group. The research process is similar regardless of the size or scale of the group treated, but the scope varies [13.Marhold K. et al.The future of botanical monography: report from an international workshop, 12-16 March 2012, Smolenice, Slovak Republic.Taxon. 2013; 62: 4-20Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar]: in the traditional sense, a monograph covers all taxa within a family or genus (e.g., The Genus Inga [69.Pennington T.D. The Genus Inga: Botany. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1997Google Scholar]), whereas a regional monograph covers one region (e.g., Palms of Madagascar [14.Dransfield J. Beentje H.J. The Palms of Madagascar. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1995Google Scholar]). A broader view includes formats such as the annotated checklist, Flora or field guide, and treatments of ecological or functional assemblages (e.g., succulent plants [59.Eggli U. Nyffeler R. Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants: Monocotyledons. Springer-Verlag, 2020Google Scholar,60.Eggli U. Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants: Dicotyledons. Springer-Verlag, 2002Google Scholar] or mangroves [70.Tomlinson P. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, 2016Crossref Google Scholar]). With ever-improving resolution in the Tree of Life, it is now conceivable that a monograph covers a clade within a family or even order. Monographs include species names, descriptions, data on distribution and habitat, taxonomic nomenclature, specimens consulted, maps, photographs, and illustrations. Various other data types may be included [13.Marhold K. et al.The future of botanical monography: report from an international workshop, 12-16 March 2012, Smolenice, Slovak Republic.Taxon. 2013; 62: 4-20Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar], such as a Tree of Life (phylogeny) and data pertaining to the genome, cytology, micromorphology, conservation, extinction risk, georeferenced localities, and adaptive traits of the species. Monographs are most frequently consulted for species descriptions and distribution data; photographs, phylogenetic trees, and data describing human uses of plants will be particularly important in addressing users’ needs in future. Most monographs are published as books, or as a series of volumes, or journal articles (e.g., A Taxonomic Monograph of Ipomoea Integrated across Phylogenetic Scales [42.Muñoz-Rodríguez P. et al.A taxonomic monograph of Ipomoea integrated across phylogenetic scales.Nat. Plants. 2019; 5: 1136-1154Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar]), and increasingly, to enhance accessibility, they also become online searchable resources (e.g., Solanaceae Sourcexx). A botanical monograph is a thorough systematic treatment of a plant group drawn from observations of plants in their native habitat, specimens in reference collections, and data generated in the laboratory. These treatments articulate the taxonomic decisions made by experts using multifaceted evidence summarised for species in the group. The research process is similar regardless of the size or scale of the group treated, but the scope varies [13.Marhold K. et al.The future of botanical monography: report from an international workshop, 12-16 March 2012, Smolenice, Slovak Republic.Taxon. 2013; 62: 4-20Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar]: in the traditional sense, a monograph covers all taxa within a family or genus (e.g., The Genus Inga [69.Pennington T.D. The Genus Inga: Botany. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1997Google Scholar]), whereas a regional monograph covers one region (e.g., Palms of Madagascar [14.Dransfield J. Beentje H.J. The Palms of Madagascar. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1995Google Scholar]). A broader view includes formats such as the annotated checklist, Flora or field guide, and treatments of ecological or functional assemblages (e.g., succulent plants [59.Eggli U. Nyffeler R. Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants: Monocotyledons. Springer-Verlag, 2020Google Scholar,60.Eggli U. Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants: Dicotyledons. Springer-Verlag, 2002Google Scholar] or mangroves [70.Tomlinson P. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, 2016Crossref Google Scholar]). With ever-improving resolution in the Tree of Life, it is now conceivable that a monograph covers a clade within a family or even order. Monographs include species names, descriptions, data on distribution and habitat, taxonomic nomenclature, specimens consulted, maps, photographs, and illustrations. Various other data types may be included [13.Marhold K. et al.The future of botanical monography: report from an international workshop, 12-16 March 2012, Smolenice, Slovak Republic.Taxon. 2013; 62: 4-20Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar], such as a Tree of Life (phylogeny) and data pertaining to the genome, cytology, micromorphology, conservation, extinction risk, georeferenced localities, and adaptive traits of the species. Monographs are most frequently consulted for species descriptions and distribution data; photographs, phylogenetic trees, and data describing human uses of plants will be particularly important in addressing users’ needs in future. Most monographs are published as books, or as a series of volumes, or journal articles (e.g., A Taxonomic Monograph of Ipomoea Integrated across Phylogenetic Scales [42.Muñoz-Rodríguez P. et al.A taxonomic monograph of Ipomoea integrated across phylogenetic scales.Nat. Plants. 2019; 5: 1136-1154Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar]), and increasingly, to enhance accessibility, they also become online searchable resources (e.g., Solanaceae Sourcexx). Monographs stimulate species discovery and slow the decline of undescribed biodiversity by providing the baseline information to address the environmental emergencies of the Anthropocene [12.Ripple W.J. et al.World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency.Biosci. Mag. 2019; 2000: 1-20Google Scholar,13.Marhold K. et al.The future of botanical monography: report from an international workshop, 12-16 March 2012, Smolenice, Slovak Republic.Taxon. 2013; 62: 4-20Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar]. The comprehensive classification and comparative data presented in a monograph together allow unidentified specimens to be more readily recognised as a known taxon or confirmed as a species new to science. This is exemplified by the recognition of 38 new species since the publication in 1995 of a comprehensive monograph of the palms of Madagascar [14.Dransfield J. Beentje H.J. The Palms of Madagascar. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1995Google Scholar]. Indeed, this monograph led to a 23% increase in known endemic species, almost all of them at risk of extinction [14.Dransfield J. Beentje H.J. The Palms of Madagascar. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1995Google Scholar,15.Rakotoarinivo M. et al.Comprehensive Red List assessment reveals exceptionally high extinction risk to Madagascar palms.PLoS ONE. 2014; 9e103684Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar]. Monographs of ecologically important lineages are also vital for addressing environmental challenges. A recent monograph of Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae) [16.Brooker M.I.H. A new classification of the genus Eucalyptus L’Hér. (Myrtaceae).Aust. Syst. Bot. 2000; 13: 79-148Crossref Scopus (323) Google Scholar], together with related authoritative information resources (e.g., IUCN Red List extinction assessmentsii and detailed occurrence records in the Atlas of Living Australiaiii), could support the design of ecosystem recovery measures in Australia following the 2019/2020 bushfires that destroyed in excess of 5.8 million hectares [17.Boer M.M. et al.Unprecedented burn area of Australian mega forest fires.Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020; 10: 171-172Crossref Scopus (131) Google Scholar] of vegetation. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020 has further drawn attention to the importance of comprehensive taxon information to support decision-making around how the Earth’s natural resources should be managed to minimise future risk to both humans and biodiversityi, while promoting the economic benefits of biodiversity within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity [2.DÍaz S. et al.Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change.Science (80-.). 2019; 366eaax3100Crossref PubMed Scopus (333) Google Scholar,3.Dasgupta P. The Dasgupta Review. Independent Review on the Economics of Biodiversity. Interim Report. HM Treasury, 2020Google Scholar,10.Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011Google Scholar]. Conversely, the lack of monographs has significant negative effects on downstream research, conservation, and sustainable use of both cultivated and wild plant diversity. The absence of comprehensive taxonomic accounts and phylogenetic frameworks has limited the understanding of plant diversification, to the extent that the closest related species of many major crops remain unknown or contentious (e.g., sugarcane, Saccharum officinarum; Poaceae [18.Welker C. et al.Phylogenetic analysis of Saccharum s.l. (Poaceae; Andropogoneae), with emphasis on the circumscription of the South American species.Am. J. Bot. 2015; 102: 248-263Crossref PubMed Scopus (30) Google Scholar]). Confusion regarding the taxonomic status of crops and their wild relatives can misinform and ultimately mislead crop breeding efforts, conceal historic centres of domestication where undiscovered genetic diversity may yet be found, confound germplasm conservation efforts [19.Chomicki G. Renner S. Watermelon origin solved with molecular phylogenetics including Linnaean material: another example of museomics.New Phytol. 2015; 205: 526-532Crossref PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar, 20.Meyer R.S. et al.Patterns and processes in crop domestication: an historical review and quantitative analysis of 203 global food crops.New Phytol. 2012; 196: 29-48Crossref PubMed Scopus (389) Google Scholar, 21.Aubriot X. et al.Shedding new light on the origin and spread of the brinjal eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) and its wild relatives.Am. J. Bot. 2018; 105: 1175-1187Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar], and limit the use of botanical collections [22.Sherman B. Henry R.J. The Nagoya Protocol and historical collections.Nat. Plants. 2020; 6: 430-432Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. For wild plant groups, the lack of a monograph amplifies the risk that a species becomes extinct before it can be conserved or scientifically described and studied. Over the centuries, monographs have provided the backbone to much of the world’s research on plants. The data compiled in monographs (Box 1) reflect scientific advances in documenting plant diversity [9.Nic Lughadha E.M. et al.Harnessing the potential of integrated systematics for conservation of taxonomically complex, megadiverse plant groups.Conserv. Biol. 2019; 33: 511-522Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar,23.De Carvalho M.R. Al E. Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm.Evol. Biol. 2007; 34: 140-143Crossref Scopus (129) Google Scholar, 24.Heberling J.M. et al.The changing uses of herbarium data in an era of global change: an overview using automated content analysis.Bioscience. 2019; 69: 812-822Crossref Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 25.Cornwell W. et al.What we (don’t) know about global plant diversity.Ecography (Cop.). 2019; 42: 1819-1831Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar] and illustrate trends in the knowledge deemed useful since the first plant monograph was published during the 17th century [26.Morison R. Plantarum Umbelliferarum Distrbutio Nova, per Tabulas Cognationis et Affinitatis ex libro Naturae Observata & Detecta. Oxonii, e Theatro Sheldoniano, 1672Google Scholar]. To meet the needs of today’s users (Box 1), monographs must continue to integrate new data sources and be widely accessible, while also being produced and updated more rapidly: monographs are still needed for most of the world’s plant genera. The advent and expansion of internet and digital technologies (including photography) during the 20th century revolutionised how monographs were undertaken and illustrated. Technologies available during the 21st century must now be harnessed to accelerate progress where it is most urgently needed [27.Orr M.C. et al.Taxonomy must engage with new technologies and evolve to face future challenges.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020; 5: 3-4Crossref Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. Community approaches are strongly recommended because they have demonstrably aided progress [23.De Carvalho M.R. Al E. Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm.Evol. Biol. 2007; 34: 140-143Crossref Scopus (129) Google Scholar,28.Scotland R.W. Wood J.R.I. Accelerating the pace of taxonomy.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012; 27: 415-416Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar], particularly for some of the largest and most economically important plant families, including the daisies (Asteraceae/Compositae) [29.Funk V.A. Systematics, Evolution and Biogeography of Compositae. American Society of Plant Taxonomists, 2009Google Scholar], legumes (Fabaceae/Leguminosae) [30.Legume Phylogeny Working Group A new subfamily classification of the Leguminosae based on a taxonomically comprehensive phylogeny.Taxon. 2017; 66: 44-77Crossref Scopus (426) Google Scholar] and grasses (Poaceae) [31.Vorontsova M.A. et al.Grassroots e-floras in the Poaceae: growing GrassBase and GrassWorld.PhytoKeys. 2015; 48: 73-84Crossref Scopus (8) Google Scholar]. Collaborative efforts have also benefited national and regional Flora projects, giving rise to comprehensive online treatments of highly diverse regions, such as the Flora of Braziliv, Flora of Chinav, and Flora Mesoamericanavi. An integrated, collaborative, and global approach to taxonomy and monography gained momentum during the early 2000s, driven by the aspiration of the international botanical community to compile a complete world flora online and a unified source of plant morphological (trait) information [32.Clark B.R. et al.Taxonomy as an eScience.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A. 2008; 367: 953-966Crossref Scopus (25) Google Scholar,33.Godfray H.C.J. et al.The web and structure of taxonomy.Syst. Biol. 2007; 56: 953-966Crossref Scopus (57) Google Scholar]. Following advances such as the DELTA platform for online structured species descriptionsvii, the European Union invested in an open web platform for taxonomy, Scratchpads [34.Smith V.S. et al.Scratchpads 2.0: a virtual research environment supporting scholarly collaboration, communication and data publication in biodiversity science.Zookeys. 2011; 150: 53Crossref Scopus (34) Google Scholar], as part of the European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy (EDIT) project, while the National Science Foundation of the USA supported Planetary Biodiversity Inventories [35.Rodman J. Cody J. The taxonomic impediment overcome: NSF’s partnerships for enhancing expertise as a model.Syst. Biol. 2003; 52: 428-435Crossref PubMed Scopus (72) Google Scholar]. Online monographs for plant families, such as the Euphorbiaceaeviii, Caricaceaeix, and Sapotaceaex, streamline constant updates, but depend on institutional taxonomic and technical support. e-Taxonomy efforts have helped to deliver cost-efficient, authoritative resources in highly biodiverse but often low-income regions [36.Smith G.F. et al.Taxonomic research in South Africa: the state of the discipline.S. Afr. J. Sci. 2008; 104: 254-256Google Scholar,37.Demissew S. et al.Sub-Saharan botanical collections.in: Friis I. Balslev H. Tropical Plant Collections: Legacies from the Past? Essential Tools for the Future? Proceedings of an International Symposium held by the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters in Copenhagen, 19th–21st of May, 2015. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 2017: 97-115Google Scholar], and to mobilise the global collections held in wealthy countries [38.Self D. Boxshall P.G. UK Taxonomy & Systematics Review - 2010. Natural Environment Research Council, 2011Google Scholar], and will be critical to scaling up monography in the Anthropocene. Advances to resolve the Tree of Life [39.Leebens-Mack J. et al.One thousand plant transcriptomes and the phylogenomics of green plants.Nature. 2019; 574: 679-685Crossref PubMed Scopus (332) Google Scholar] and the revised classification of flowering plants [40.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG) An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV.Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2016; 181: 1-20Crossref Scopus (2546) Google Scholar] have influenced further methodological changes (see later). The ‘foundation monograph’ [41.Wood J. et al.A foundation monograph of Convolvulus.PhytoKeys. 2015; 51: 1-282Crossref Scopus (26) Google Scholar] demonstrated the advantage of simultaneously sequencing specimens consulted during the preparation of a monograph to refine species concepts and identify clades or biological units in need of more detailed study [28.Scotland R.W. Wood J.R.I. Accelerating the pace of taxonomy.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012; 27: 415-416Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar,41.Wood J. et al.A foundation monograph of Convolvulus.PhytoKeys. 2015; 51: 1-282Crossref Scopus (26) Google Scholar,42.Muñoz-Rodríguez P. et al.A taxonomic monograph of Ipomoea integrated across phylogenetic scales.Nat. Plants. 2019; 5: 1136-1154Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar]. Efficient high-throughput sequencing technology now offers the prospect of sequencing the millions of specimens deposited in the world’s herbaria (‘herbariomics’) almost regardless of their age and preservation status [43.Brewer G.E. et al.Factors affecting targeted sequencing of 353 nuclear genes from herbarium specimens spanning the diversity of angiosperms.Front. Plant Sci. 2019; 10: 1-14Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar, 44.McKain M.R. et al.Practical considerations for plant phylogenomics.Appl. Plant Sci. 2018; 6e1038Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar, 45.Johnson M.G. et al.A universal probe set for targeted sequencing of 353 nuclear genes from any flowering plant designed using k-medoids clustering.Syst. Biol. 2019; 68: 594-606Crossref PubMed Scopus (94) Google Scholar]. With these advances, a phylogeny providing the evolutionary framework for a revised classification is no longer the problematic bottleneck in the monographic process that it used to be. A complete phylogeny prepared in advance expedites the subsequent taxonomic revision [46.Tautz D. et al.A plea for DNA taxonomy.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003; 18: 70-74Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (681) Google Scholar] and data synthesis needed to produce an integrated monograph that builds on multiple data sources, as well as providing the evolutionary framework for research beyond the monograph. Complete phylogenies are conceivably within reach for thoroughly sequenced plant genera, such as the aloes (c. 600 species, Asphodelaceae) [47.Malakasi P. et al.Museomics clarifies the classification of Aloidendron (Asphodelaceae), the iconic African tree aloes.Front. Plant Sci. 2019; 10: 1227Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar], entire tribes, such as the Bignonieae (400 species, Bignoniaceae) [48.Taylor C. Lohmann L. A new generic classification of tribe Bigonieae (Bignoniaceae).Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 2014; 99: 348-489Crossref Scopus (111) Google Scholar], and large families, such as the palms (Arecaceae, 181 genera, 2600 species) [49.Baker W.J. Dransfield J. Beyond Genera Palmarum: progress and prospects in palm systematics.Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2016; 182: 207-233Crossref Scopus (59) Google Scholar] for which previous monographs have necessarily focussed on individual genera due to poorly resolved family-level phylogenies. With the availability of reference genomes for model and non-model plant genera likely to improve within the next few years [50.Kersey P.J. Plant genome sequences: past, present, future.Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2019; 48: 1-8Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar], the upward trajectory for incorporating ‘-omics’ data into monography is expected to continue. Monographs unlock the potential of the plant kingdom as a resource to address urgent planetary challenges, from hunger to energy [51.Antonelli A. et al.State of the World’s Plants and Fungi 2020. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 2020Google Scholar]. Progress towards monographing and sequencing the Earth’s c. 346 000xi–351,180 [52.Freiberg M. et al.The Leipzig Catalogue of Vascular Plants (LCVP) – an improved taxonomic reference list for all known vascular plants.Sci. Data. 2020; 7: 416Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar] vascular plant species has often been contingent on the size of the plant group (Box 2). Even species recorded in important global data sources, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIFxii) describing plant occurrences and the TRY Plant Trait Databasexiii, may not have been extensively studied [25.Cornwell W. et al.What we (don’t) know about global plant diversity.Ecography (Cop.). 2019; 42: 1819-1831Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar]. Although numerous, these records are not necessarily taxonomically or geographically representative due to inherent biases in plant distribution data and research [25.Cornwell W. et al.What we (don’t) know about global plant diversity.Ecography (Cop.). 2019; 42: 1819-1831Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar,53.Kier G. et al.Global patterns of plant diversity and floristic knowledge.J. Biogeogr. 2005; 32: 1107-1116Crossref Scopus (351) Google Scholar] and the problems associated with the misidentification of those records [54.Goodwin Z.A. et al.Widespread mistaken identity in tropical plant collections.Curr. Biol. 2015; 25: R1066-R1067Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (104) Google Scholar]. Such issues can affect even the relatively well characterised plant superfamilies, because they support much of the world’s food, fodder, and fuel provision (e.g., legumes, Fabaceae/Leguminosae, 19 500 species [30.Legume Phylogeny Working Group A new subfamily classification of the Leguminosae based on a taxonomically comprehensive phylogeny.Taxon. 2017; 66: 44-77Crossref Scopus (426) Google Scholar]; and grasses, Poaceae, 11 290 species [55.Soreng R.J. et al.A worldwide phylogenetic classification of the Poaceae (Gramineae) II: an update and a comparison of two 2015 classifications.J. Syst. Evol. 2017; 55: 259-290Crossref Scopus (213) Google Scholar]) and are integral to ecosystem and land management strategies for food provision and carbon storage or to reduce CO2 emissions [56.Griscom B.W. et al.Natural climate solutions.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2017; 114: 11645-11650Crossref PubMed Scopus (616) Google Scholar]. Nonetheless, these superfamilies have yet to be comprehensively monographed, despite the efforts of dedicated research teams working at the genus and species levels.Box 2Progress toward Monographing the Earth’s Plant DiversityPhylogenetic trees estimated from DNA sequences are the framework for integrated monography. Larger families of flowering plants tend to be represented by a lower proportion of sequenced species (see Figure 1 in the main text and Figure S1 in the supplemental information online) and are less likely to have been monographed (see Figure 2 in the main text). More sequences are, proportionally, available for genera already treated in a monograph (see Figure 2 in the main text ), reflecting the activities of dedicated research programmes building molecular phylogenies that inform the classifications presented in monographs. These patterns were identified by surveying published monographs and commonly sequenced loci (ITS, Xdh, atpB, matK, nad5, psbA, rbcL, trnL-F, rpl32, and NADH) sequences in GenBankxxi among the angiosperm genera in Plants of the World Onlinexiv. An online literature search for any taxonomic revision or synopsis that treats 80% or more of
Referência(s)