Search

As a case study of the responses of natural history museums to changing scientific and funding environments, we analysed research publications of Australia's Natural History Museums (ANHMs) 1981-2020. Using Scopus, 9,923 relevant documents 1981-2020 were identified, mainly research papers but with a growing proportion of reviews. The number of documents published increased over tenfold from 39 (1981) to 553 (2020), likely driven by collaborations (rising from 28.5% of documents 1981-1985 to 87.2% of documents 2016-2020), contributions from retired staff, and volunteer support. The mean length of documents (pages) ranged from a low of 15.3 in 2001-2005 to a high of 17.4 in 1991-1995, but this statistically significant result was trivial in practical terms. The sources (i.e., journals, book titles, conference proceedings) in which ANHM authors published changed over time, with growing proportions of publications in journals covering molecular ecology/phylogenetics and biological conservation. We identified the major areas of study canvassed within the corpus of publications by developing structural topic models based on patterns of word use in document titles, abstracts and keyword lists. The topics discovered included study subjects traditional for natural history museums (new taxa, phylogeny, systematics, animal morphology, palaeontology, minerals), new directions (molecular genetics, ecology, biological conservation) and marine biology (probably reflecting Australia's large coastline). Most citations came from Australia, USA and UK, although in 2016-2020 only 27.9% of citing documents included an Australian author. Growth in numbers of documents and collaborations, as well as use of documents internationally over a period of great change in scientific and funding environments, indicate an enduring legacy of ANHM research, grounded on the intrinsic value of the collections.

International differences in practices and attitudes regarding pet cats' interactions with wildlife were assessed by surveying citizens from at least two cities in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the USA, China and Japan. Predictions tested were: (i) cat owners would agree less than non-cat owners that cats might threaten wildlife, (ii) cat owners value wildlife less than non-cat owners, (iii) cat owners are less accepting of cat legislation/restrictions than non-owners, and (iv) respondents from regions with high endemic biodiversity (Australia, New Zealand, China and the USA state of Hawaii) would be most concerned about pet cats threatening wildlife. Everywhere non-owners were more likely than owners to agree that pet cats killing wildlife were a problem in cities, towns and rural areas. Agreement amongst non-owners was highest in Australia (95%) and New Zealand (78%) and lowest in the UK (38%). Irrespective of ownership, over 85% of respondents from all countries except China (65%) valued wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas. Non-owners advocated cat legislation more strongly than owners except in Japan. Australian non-owners were the most supportive (88%), followed by Chinese non-owners (80%) and Japanese owners (79.5%). The UK was least supportive (non-owners 43%, owners 25%). Many Australian (62%), New Zealand (51%) and Chinese owners (42%) agreed that pet cats killing wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas was a problem, while Hawaiian owners were similar to the mainland USA (20%). Thus high endemic biodiversity might contribute to attitudes in some, but not all, countries. Husbandry practices varied internationally, with predation highest where fewer cats were confined. Although the risk of wildlife population declines caused by pet cats justifies precautionary action, campaigns based on wildlife protection are unlikely to succeed outside Australia or New Zealand. Restrictions on roaming protect wildlife and benefit cat welfare, so welfare is a better rationale.