In a time when the urgency of understanding biodiversity and environmental change has never been greater, a new study published in Nature Communications reveals an alarming and pervasive decline in global sampling efforts across natural history collections. This trend threatens to undermine decades of scientific advancement, potentially crippling our capacity to monitor, understand, and respond to rapid ecological transformations. Natural history collections, long regarded as irreplaceable reservoirs of biological diversity and historical ecological data, are showing signs of neglect that could have profound implications for science, conservation, and policy making worldwide.
The study, conducted by a team led by Forbes, Young, and Thrall, highlights a disturbing reduction in the acquisition and cataloging of new specimens in natural history museums and herbaria around the globe. These institutions have historically functioned as vital repositories, housing millions of specimens that document the Earth’s biodiversity over centuries. By offering a time capsule of genetic, phenotypic, and ecological information, natural history collections have propelled research in evolutionary biology, systematics, conservation, and climate change impact assessments. The decline in new sampling, as revealed in this study, marks a shift that could irrevocably erode this scientific potential.
The researchers employed an extensive data analysis spanning multiple decades and geographic regions, compiling trends on specimen collection rates, institutional acquisition records, and metadata regarding sampling efforts. Their findings are staggering: there is a consistent and widespread falloff in specimen acquisition, ranging from small mammal collections in North America to tropical plant samples in South America and Southeast Asia. This decline is not localized but reflects a systemic and global phenomenon affecting a broad gamut of taxa and habitats.
One of the core drivers identified behind this trend involves shifts in funding priorities. Natural history collections often rely on a combination of public funding, private donations, and sometimes revenue from public engagement activities. Over recent decades, budget cuts and shifting scientific priorities have increasingly marginalized traditional taxonomy and specimen collection, favoring fields perceived as more immediately impactful or technologically cutting-edge. This has led to reduced staffing, fewer expeditions, and a diminished capacity to maintain and enhance collections with new specimens.
Moreover, the rise of molecular techniques and biodiversity informatics, while revolutionizing biological research, has paradoxically contributed to a reduced emphasis on physical collections. Many contemporary researchers lean heavily on DNA barcoding and digital databases, often assuming these tools can substitute direct specimen collection. However, the authors caution that these approaches cannot replace the irreplaceable value of physical specimens, which offer a depth of information from morphology to chemical composition and enable retrospective studies unavailable with genetic snapshots alone.
Another critical element highlighted by the study is evolving regulatory and ethical frameworks around bioprospecting and collection permits. Increasingly stringent national and international regulations aim to safeguard biodiversity, protect indigenous rights, and prevent biopiracy. While these measures are essential, the authors warn that cumbersome permitting processes and legal uncertainties can inadvertently stifle legitimate scientific sampling, further accelerating the decline in collection efforts. The balance between regulation and scientific freedom emerges as a complex but vital conversation.
Technological advances in digitization and specimen imaging, though important, have also introduced complacency regarding physical collections. Instantaneous access to high-resolution images and metadata online is empowering, yet it cannot replace the primary value of specimen acquisition for ongoing scientific discovery. The study explains that digitization complements but cannot substitute the fundamental processes of specimen collection and curation. Without new specimens, collections will stagnate, limiting the capacity to detect emerging biodiversity patterns and evolutionary signals.
The potential consequences of this global sampling decline are far-reaching. Natural history specimens form the bedrock for taxonomic revisions, help identify invasive species, and serve as baselines against which environmental change is measured. Loss of ongoing samples weakens the resolution of temporal datasets crucial for understanding phenomena such as species range shifts, extinction events, and the dynamics of disease vectors. The erosion of this foundational data source imperils a wide array of ecological and biomedical research that depends on historical and contemporary biological material.
In addition to scientific ramifications, the decline in natural history specimen collection threatens educational and outreach functions essential to societal biodiversity awareness. Museums and herbaria serve as hubs for public engagement through exhibitions, citizen science projects, and educational programs. Without fresh collections and updated displays reflecting current biodiversity trends, their ability to inspire and inform the public diminishes, potentially weakening societal support for conservation and scientific research.
The study also underscores how the reduced collecting efforts disproportionately affect underrepresented regions and taxa, particularly in biodiversity hotspots rich in endemic species yet lacking robust institutional infrastructure. Countries in the Global South, which harbor much of the world’s unknown biodiversity, face acute challenges due to limited funding and infrastructure. This exacerbates global inequities in biodiversity data coverage and hampers conservation efforts where they are most urgently needed, risking irrevocable loss of species and evolutionary heritage.
In light of these findings, the authors advocate for a renewed commitment to natural history collections as core scientific infrastructure. They call for increased investment in collection personnel, funding for targeted collecting expeditions, and streamlined but clear regulatory frameworks that balance conservation with scientific inquiry. Such support is critical to enable collections to continue providing the essential baseline data for integrative biodiversity science in the 21st century.
Strong collaborations among museums, governments, indigenous communities, and the broader research community are necessary to confront logistical, ethical, and financial challenges. The study suggests that fostering interdisciplinary approaches where traditional taxonomy and modern molecular methods coexist will maximize the scientific value of collections. Integrating digital data with new physical specimens creates a more resilient and comprehensive understanding of biological diversity.
The authors also emphasize the importance of public engagement and advocacy in raising awareness about the silent crisis facing natural history collections. Effective science communication and education can galvanize public support and political will, ensuring collections receive the recognition and resources necessary for preservation and growth. Highlighting the timely relevance of specimen data for tackling global challenges such as pandemic preparedness, climate adaptation, and food security can attract broader interest and investment.
As we stand at a crossroads where global environmental change accelerates unprecedentedly, the decline in natural history specimen sampling represents a hidden but profound threat to science and conservation. The study by Forbes, Young, and Thrall serves as a clarion call, urging the international scientific and policy communities to recognize and reverse this trend. Without concerted action, the enormous potential embedded in natural history collections to illuminate the past, present, and future of life on Earth risks fading into obscurity.
The preservation and expansion of global natural history collections are essential to safeguard our shared biological heritage and sustain the scientific endeavor that underpins biodiversity understanding and stewardship. Mobilizing resources, modernizing frameworks, and supporting integrative approaches offer a pathway to revitalizing these indispensable scientific repositories. The future of life on Earth—and our ability to chart it responsibly—depends on it.
In conclusion, the global sampling decline eroding natural history collections is not merely an institutional problem but a critical scientific and societal challenge with wide-ranging implications. Addressing it requires a holistic strategy embracing funding, policy reform, community collaboration, and public engagement. This timely study illuminates both the urgency and pathways forward, positioning natural history collections as essential pillars upon which the future of biological science and conservation must rest.
Subject of Research:
The study investigates global trends and impacts related to the decline in specimen sampling efforts in natural history collections and the resultant consequences for biodiversity science and conservation.
Article Title:
Global sampling decline erodes science potential of natural history collections
Article References:
Forbes, O., Young, A.G. & Thrall, P.H. Global sampling decline erodes science potential of natural history collections. Nat Commun 16, 9255 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64303-3
Image Credits: AI Generated
Tags: biodiversity data neglectclimate change research limitationsconservation science implicationsdecline in natural history collectionsevolutionary biology research threatsfuture of natural history researchglobal biodiversity monitoringhistorical ecological data preservationimpact of ecological transformationsimportance of specimen acquisitionnatural history museum challengespolicy making and biodiversity
