At risk of rehashing what is in this very short paper (open access pdf here), a few colleagues and I have a simple idea for how to encourage natural history in current ecology and evolution. A whole bunch of notable folks, including Harry Greene, Josh Tewksbury, Paul Dayton and more have noted the decline in traditional natural history - the taking of observations, collecting specimens, and classes in zoology and botany - among academics over the last half decade or so. Their papers all deserve a read as they point out very real problems and quantify these declines.
Though these papers draw attention to the issue and make a very convincing case that it is an issue, they don't offer realistic solutions. I'll not overstate our case; our small idea won't bring back botany classes where they once were taught or inspire people to create an insect collection at a college without one. However, we have an idea that may incentivize natural history study, at least a small bit. We propose that ecologists and evolutionary biologists create a natural history supplement with their paper to highlight potentially interesting observations and important natural history data.
We think that there are a few reasons why this small addition would be particularly important and useful. First and most obviously, these observations WILL be useful to someone down the line, somewhere, sometime. Even if it takes 50 years for someone to investigate a particular plant or insect, these observations of behavior, population size, flowering time, etc. in 2016 are an invaluable snapshot of what you saw when. Richard Primack and co.'s wonderful reanalysis of flowering time data which Thoreau gathered in the 1800's are a perfect example of this type of use. Secondly, meta-analyses and comparative studies are commonplace and particularly informative and could use those life history data included in these supplement that wouldn't make it into a paper on another aspect, but are likely data that many folks take instinctively.
Since we have the internet, archiving these sorts of things has never been easier. Many papers have a great deal of supplementary information (especially in short-form journals) and publishers have ways to archive it. While it doesn't need to be done immediately, if this practice is adopted, a database of these natural history supplements could be compiled at any time.
If those sound like good or bad arguments, read the full paper (again, here), there is a good bit more in it. I'll conclude by saying that I've written two of these, both for papers in Ecology (here and here) and they have been easy and enjoyable to write. Has anyone actually read them? I'm not sure (do tell if you have!). Maybe not, but that doesn't seem particularly troubling to me - even if one person reads them and gets inspiration for a study or uses some data in an analysis decades after I'm gone, I'll be happy. Plus, they were more fun to write than the main text of these papers. I focused both of these by describing briefly a great deal of natural history, hoping that someone studying one of these systems (especially the well-known ones, like Mimulus or Petunia or Nicotiana) would think about insect- or sand-entrapment.
On another level completely, I'm sure Ecology wouldn't have let me use the fantastic quote “[Pholisma feels like] a squishy gummy bear covered in fuzzy sand covered hairs” in the main article :) .