Quantifying research interests in 7,521 mammalian species with h-index: a case study

Low human interest for the most at-risk reef fishes worldwide

Human interest in biodiversity is essential for effective conservation action but remains poorly quantified at large scales. Here, we investigated human interest for 2408 marine reef fishes using data obtained from online public databases and social media, summarized in two synthetic dimensions, research effort and public attention. Both dimensions are mainly related to geographic range size. Research effort is also linked to fishery importance, while public attention is more related to fish aesthetic value and aquarium trade importance. We also found a strong phylogenetic bias, with certain fish families receiving disproportional research effort and public attention. Most concerningly, species at the highest risk of extinction and those most vulnerable to future climate change tend to receive less research effort and public attention. Our results provide a lens through which examining the societal attention that species garner, with the ultimate goals to improve conservation strategies, research programs, and communication plans.

Drivers of species knowledge across the tree of life

Knowledge of biodiversity is unevenly distributed across the Tree of Life. In the long run, such disparity in awareness unbalances our understanding of life on Earth, influencing policy decisions and the allocation of research and conservation funding. We investigated how humans accumulate knowledge of biodiversity by searching for consistent relationships between scientific (number of publications) and societal (number of views in Wikipedia) interest, and species-level morphological, ecological, and sociocultural factors. Across a random selection of 3019 species spanning 29 Phyla/Divisions, we show that sociocultural factors are the most important correlates of scientific and societal interest in biodiversity, including the fact that a species is useful or harmful to humans, has a common name, and is listed in the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. Furthermore, large-bodied, broadly distributed, and taxonomically unique species receive more scientific and societal attention, whereas colorfulness and phylogenetic proximity to humans correlate exclusively with societal attention. These results highlight a favoritism toward limited branches of the Tree of Life, and that scientific and societal priorities in biodiversity research broadly align. This suggests that we may be missing out on key species in our research and conservation agenda simply because they are not on our cultural radar.

Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others

As the number of known and described parasite species grows every year, one might ask: how much do we actually know about these species beyond the fact they exist? For free-living taxa, research effort is biased toward a small subset of species based on their properties or human-centric factors. Here, using a large data set on over 2500 helminth parasite species described in the past two decades, we test the importance of several predictors on two measures of research effort: the number of times a species description is cited following its publication, and the number of times a species' name is mentioned in the scientific literature. Our analysis highlights some taxonomic biases: for instance, descriptions of acanthocephalans and nematodes tend to receive more citations than those of other helminths, and species of cestodes are less frequently mentioned in the literature than other helminths. We also found that helminths infecting host species of conservation concern receive less research attention, perhaps because of the constraints associated with research on threatened animals, while those infecting host species of human use receive greater research effort. Intriguingly, we found that species originally described by many co-authors subsequently attract more research effort than those described by one or few authors, and that research effort correlates negatively with the human population size of the country where a species was discovered, but not with its economic strength, measured by its gross domestic product. Overall, our findings reveal that we have conducted very little research, or none at all, on the majority of helminth parasite species following their discovery. The biases in study effort we identify have serious implications for future research into parasite biodiversity and conservation.

Quantifying research interests in 7,521 mammalian species with h-index: a case study

BACKGROUND

Taxonomic bias is a known issue within the field of biology, causing scientific knowledge to be unevenly distributed across species. However, a systematic quantification of the research interest that the scientific community has allocated to individual species remains a big data problem. Scalable approaches are needed to integrate biodiversity data sets and bibliometric methods across large numbers of species. The outputs of these analyses are important for identifying understudied species and directing future research to fill these gaps.

FINDINGS

In this study, we used the species h-index to quantity the research interest in 7,521 species of mammals. We tested factors potentially driving species h-index, by using a Bayesian phylogenetic generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). We found that a third of the mammals had a species h-index of zero, while a select few had inflated research interest. Further, mammals with higher species h-index had larger body masses; were found in temperate latitudes; had their humans uses documented, including domestication; and were in lower-risk International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List categories. These results surprisingly suggested that critically endangered mammals are understudied. A higher interest in domesticated species suggested that human use is a major driver and focus in mammalian scientific literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has demonstrated a scalable workflow and systematically identified understudied species of mammals, as well as identified the likely drivers of this taxonomic bias in the literature. This case study can become a benchmark for future research that asks similar biological and meta-research questions for other taxa.