Small Collections Grant
This page is used to provide assessment scores for the grant. Please use the rubric below the grant details
to enter your assessment score
Mosses of Siberia
Olga Pisarenko
Russia
Database, Process backlog
Cost: $
2000
NSK
Central Siberian Botanical Garden, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences
Objective:
To structure and expand the collection of Siberian mosses in NSK, to make the material available for botanic-geographical analysis.
Plan:
The collection includes about 25,000 samples, but labels of only 8063 samples are registered in my table-database and ~ 6000 from them are available as a part of online-DB in Arctoa-site (http://arctoa.ru/Flora/basa.php). The rest of the collection is heterogeneous, there are: *identified and labelled samples that require entering into the DB and inseration; *identified samples that need labelling and digitizing; *non-identified samples from different regions. Also there are some boxes with identified but disordered samples collected by A. N. Vasiliev, I. M. Krasnoborov, A.V. Kuminova and other Siberian botanists in 1940-1990. I am organizing my own materials, but alone I don't have the ability to organize all the existing collections. It is necessary to delegate to the assistant the work on the labelling samples, sorting and entering into the DB. And there is a person which is able to do the work, but there are no vacancies in the Institute. Also it is needed to organize additional working place for entering information into the DB, printing of labels and wrapping of the samples. Then I can devote the time I have left to treating of undefined collections. In the Botanical Garden there is a GBIF- access point; so there is a possibility make the data available in GBIF.
Timetable:
The designated grant is sufficient to organize additional workplace and to pay for the assistant 20-hours a week for 8 months. For 8 months with the helping it is possible to check, label and database about 2500-3000 samples from the archive disordered collections from mountains of South Siberia with the placement of the labels information into GBIF.
Referee 1:
Mikhail S. Ignatov, MHA
Referee 2:
Vadim A. Bakalin, VBGI
Scoring Rubric
Your name:
Collection Improvement/Maintenance
1. Contribution to the generation of digital herbarium data (digitization: data entry, setting up database structure, purchasing equipment).
2. Contribution to enhancing our understanding of the flora by making new herbarium specimens available (processing of backlog).
3. Contribution to enhancing our understanding of the flora by making new herbarium specimens available (shipping endangered collection to another herbarium).
4. Contribution towards improving conservation status of specimens in herbarium (better folders, protecting covers, mounting paper, labeling, etc.).
This proposal scores:
/120
IAPT community building
5. Herbarium's potential for success.
6. Perceived need, extent to which the project will benefit from IAPT funding.
7. Sharing specimens with other herbaria.
This proposal scores:
/40
Broader Impacts
8. The project will yield durable benefits (specimens, digitized metadata, databases, websites).
9. The proposed project involves outreach/mentoring and broad dissemination.
This proposal scores:
/40
25
Proposal number: