1Criteria required for different types of application of data from the National Vegetation Database of South Africa, and the percentage of plots in the database available for each application. http://sajs.co.za/index.php/SAJS/article/downloadSuppFile/629/3130
ConclusionsA number of lessons were learned in the development of the NVD. The most important was probably to ensure that management of the development of the database was adequately funded. Adequate funding would help to ensure greater consistency and adherence to standards. More comprehensive planning and a clearer implementation strategy with more regular external review would also have been advantageous. We suggest that the further development of the NVD should be purpose driven and should serve current needs of biological survey and sustainable use of the vegetation and flora resources of the subcontinent. The NVD should establish a reputation not only as a source of data for purposes of basic research, but also as an important tool to assist with making informed managerial and political decisions in the fields of environmental planning and management, land use, sustainable use of biological resources and global change scenarios, amongst others. Use of the NVD in multidisciplinary research has been little explored. The NVD should develop to serve diverse needs and therefore its structures should be more flexible up to a point, possibly allowing the storage of vegetation data such as plotless samples, demographic measurements and permanent-plot data series in addition to the classical plot species and environmental data. In addition, the NVD needs to ensure that it abides by exchange standards between vegetation databases such as that for plot-based vegetation data.53Besides the flexible internal structure, major attention should be paid to improving the procedures for updating the species list, which requires adaptation of the current Turboveg model involving stable, yet editable species, but which does not allow for controlled cross-referencing of various taxonomic concepts. In this respect, the US VegBank project should be consulted for a possible solution. Outside the control of the NVD is the creation of new data. The large current imbalance in geographical coverage needs to be addressed. Development of reliable, robust ecological indicators needs much wider sampling than is available in the current NVD. For example, analysis of the rate of floristic change at vegetation ecotones also requires much more intensive sampling than has been done. Control of data quality remains a challenge. Improvements here should include the checking of species identity by cross-referencing with existing flora databases (such as PRECIS). The entry of voucher specimens into the NVD accompanying the plot data should be enabled, thereby allowing more intensive involvement of taxonomic experts. Metadata should include information about the conditions relevant to the sample(s) (e.g. sampling in an abnormally dry year54). As in the case of other, well-established vegetation databases, the NVD should seek to build interfaces with ecologically and economically important data sets on climate, geology, landscape history and ecological traits of species. The Dutch examples – SynBioSys Netherlands55 and SynBioSys Europe (http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/synbiosyseu/) – should serve as inspiration. In fact, several local initiatives have emerged through cooperation of South African ecologists and botanists leading to SynBioSys Kruger (http://www.alterra.wur.nl/UK/newsagenda/archive/news/2006/SynBioSys_Kruger.htm) and SynBioSys Fynbos (http://www.synbiosysfynbos.org/home.html). Each database serves its purpose only when populated with high-quality and a large quantity of data. Collecting new data sets is always very costly and always involves one indispensable ingredient – a well-trained vegetation surveyor. A revitalisation of local training in systematic vegetation survey is required, without which there will be far-reaching negative consequences for science as well as for the sustainable utilisation of natural resources within South Africa. The shortage of sufficient local talent and the lack of a sustained tradition of vegetation survey call for a new approach. Expertise should be imported in order to encourage the acquisition of information about one of South Africa’s most unique national assets – its highly diverse vegetation. We thank all those who contributed data to the National Vegetation Database of South Africa. L.M. acknowledges the long-term support of SANBI, the Universities of Pretoria, the North, the Free State and Stellenbosch, and the National Department of Water Affairs and Tourism over the years of the development and curation of the NVD. Competing interests The corresponding author confirms that there are no personal, employment or commercial affiliations, stock or equity interests or patent-licensing arrangements that could be considered to pose a financial conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript (which may potentially prevent them from executing and publishing unbiased research). Authors’ contributions M.C.R. wrote the first draft for circulation to co-authors; subsequently, L.M. wrote the ‘Introduction’ with contributions from M.C.R.; M.C.R. and L.M. wrote ‘Historical highlights of national vegetation databasing in South Africa’; M.C.R., L.W.P. and L.M. wrote ‘Data availability and geographical coverage’ and ‘Data quality control’; L.M. wrote ‘Problem of the standard species checklist’ with input from L.W.P.; M.C.R. wrote ‘Applications and available data combinations’ with input from L.W.P.; L.M. wrote ‘Classification of vegetation’; M.C.R. wrote ‘Conservation targets’; and L.M. wrote the ‘Conclusions’ with contributions by M.C.R. All statistics, calculations and extractions from the NVD were done by L.W.P. and checked by M.C.R.; M.C.R. devised Table 1; and L.W.P. prepared Figures 1 to 3. 1.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2007.05.004 2.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2007.07.003 3.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02803044 4.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13632.x 5.http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/07-0682.1 6.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01353.x197027487.http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130132 8.DesmetPGCowlingRMUsing the species–area relationship to set baseline targets for conservation.200492119.RougetMReyersBJonasZetalSouth African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004. Technical report10.RougetMJonasZCowlingRMetalEcosystem status and protection levels of vegetation types. In: Mucina L, Rutherford MC, editors. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.11.CowlingRMGibbs RussellGEHoffmanMTHilton-TaylorCPatterns of plant species diversity in southern Africa. In: Huntley BJ, editor. Biotic diversity in southern Africa: Concepts and conservation12.MittermeierRAMeyersNRoblesGPMittermeierGCHotspots: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions13.MucinaLBredenkampGJHoareDBMcDonaldDJA national vegetation database for South Africa20009649749814.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/122083315.O’CallaghanMNational grid of vegetation sites: Reality check20009623123316.RutherfordMCPowrieLWMidgleyGFACKDAT: A digital spatial database of distributions of plant species and plant assemblages.2003699910417.AcocksJPHVeld types of South Africa.198857114618.MucinaLRutherfordMCPowrieLWLogic of the map: Approaches and procedures. In: Mucina L, Rutherford MC, editors19.MucinaLRutherfordMCeditorsThe vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.20.RutherfordMCMucinaLPowrieLWBiomes and bioregions of southern Africa. In: Mucina L, Rutherford MC, editors.21.HennekensSMSchaminéeJHJTURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data.20011258959122.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3235603 23.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3236447 24.RutherfordMCMucinaLIntroduction. In: Mucina L, Rutherford MC, editors. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland25.McDonaldDJVEGMAP: A collaborative project for a new vegetation map of southern Africa.19979342442626.MucinaLRutherfordMCPowrieLWeditorsVegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 1:1 000 000 scale sheet maps27.MucinaLRutherfordMCPowrieLWeditorsVegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 1:1 000 000 scale sheet maps28.DenglerJJansenFGlöcklerFetalThe Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases 1 (GIVD): A new resource for vegetation science. 20112258259729.JoubertJGV[The ecology of the grazing land of the Robertson-Karoo].30.TaylorHCA vegetation survey of the Cape of Good Hope Nature Reserve.31.JürgensNHaarmeyerDHLuther-MosebachJDenglerJFinckhMSchmiedelUeditorsBiodiversity in southern Africa32.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01063.x17594421204022033.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01094.x1784529834.SchulzeRESouth African atlas of agrohydrology and -climatology35.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3236581 36.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00970.x,1697287737.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2010.01209.x 38.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01073.x 39.SchmiedelUDengler JLuther-MosebachJetalPatterns and dynamics of vascular plant diversity along the BIOTA transects in southern Africa40.SchaminéeJHJHennekensSMChytrýMRodwellJS Vegetation-plot data and databases in Europe: An overview20098117318541.RutherfordMCMucinaLPowrieLWNama-karoo veld types revisited: A numerical analysis of original Acocks’ field data.200369526142.Von MaltitzGMucinaLGeldenhuysCJetalClassification system for South African indigenous forests. An objective classification for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.43.MucinaLGeldenhuysCJHow to classify South African indigenous forests: Approach, methods, problems, perspectives. In: Seydack AHW, Vorster T, Vermeulen WJ, Van der Merwe IJ, editors. Multiple use management of natural forests and savanna woodlands: Policy refinements and scientific progress44.GeldenhuysCJMucinaLTowards a new national forest classification for South Africa.45.CampbellBMA classification of the mountain vegetation of the Fynbos biome.198550112146.CampbellBMVegetation classification in a floristically complex area: The Cape Floristic Region.19865212914047.RebeloAGBoucherCHelmeNMucinaLRutherfordMCFynbos biome. In: Mucina L, Rutherford MC, editors. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.48.CowlingRMHolmesPMFlora and vegetation. In: Cowling RM, editor. The ecology of fynbos – Nutrients, fire and diversity49.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00424-X 50.BerlinerDDesmetPMucinaLRevision of forest conservation targets and data preparation for the refinement of SANBI criteria for the listing of threatened forest ecosystems under the Biodiversity Act: Phase 1 and 2.51.HarrisonJAUnderhillLGBarnardPThe seminal legacy of the Southern African Bird Atlas Project.2008104828452.MinterLRBurgerMHarrisonJABraackHHBishopPJKloepferDeditorsAtlas and red data book of the frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland53.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2010.01245.x 54.Van der MerweHVan RooyenMWVan RooyenNVegetation of the Hantam-Tanqua-Roggeveld subregion, South Africa.20085016018355.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2007.tb02560.x