1
|
Mammola S, Adamo M, Antić D, Calevo J, Cancellario T, Cardoso P, Chamberlain D, Chialva M, Durucan F, Fontaneto D, Goncalves D, Martínez A, Santini L, Rubio-Lopez I, Sousa R, Villegas-Rios D, Verdes A, Correia RA. Drivers of species knowledge across the tree of life. eLife 2023; 12:RP88251. [PMID: 37846960 PMCID: PMC10581686 DOI: 10.7554/elife.88251] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Mammola
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research CouncilVerbaniaItaly
- Laboratory for Integrative Biodiversity Research (LIBRe), Finnish Museum of Natural History (LUOMUS), University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
- National Biodiversity Future CenterPalermoItaly
| | - Martino Adamo
- National Biodiversity Future CenterPalermoItaly
- Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of TurinTorinoItaly
| | - Dragan Antić
- University of Belgrade - Faculty of BiologyBelgradeSerbia
| | - Jacopo Calevo
- Royal Botanic GardensLondonUnited Kingdom
- School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia
| | - Tommaso Cancellario
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research CouncilVerbaniaItaly
| | - Pedro Cardoso
- Laboratory for Integrative Biodiversity Research (LIBRe), Finnish Museum of Natural History (LUOMUS), University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
| | - Dan Chamberlain
- Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of TurinTorinoItaly
| | - Matteo Chialva
- National Biodiversity Future CenterPalermoItaly
- Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of TurinTorinoItaly
| | - Furkan Durucan
- Department of Aquaculture, Isparta University of Applied SciencesIspartaTurkey
| | - Diego Fontaneto
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research CouncilVerbaniaItaly
- National Biodiversity Future CenterPalermoItaly
| | - Duarte Goncalves
- CIIMAR, Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of PortoMatosinhosPortugal
| | - Alejandro Martínez
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research CouncilVerbaniaItaly
| | - Luca Santini
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies “Charles Darwin”, Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
| | - Iñigo Rubio-Lopez
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research CouncilVerbaniaItaly
| | - Ronaldo Sousa
- CBMA – Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of MinhoMinhoPortugal
| | | | - Aida Verdes
- Department of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias NaturalesMadridSpain
| | - Ricardo A Correia
- Helsinki Lab of Interdisciplinary Conservation Science (HELICS), Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
- CESAM – Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of AveiroAveiroPortugal
- Biodiversity Unit, University of TurkuTurkuFinland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Nguyen T, Malina R, Mokas I, Papakonstantinou A, Polyzos O, Vanhove MPM. WASP: the World Archives of Species Perception. Database (Oxford) 2023; 2023:7059526. [PMID: 36852842 PMCID: PMC9972524 DOI: 10.1093/database/baad003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2022] [Revised: 01/04/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 03/01/2023]
Abstract
While human perception can play a role in influencing public support for species conservation, the mechanisms underlying human perception remain poorly understood. Some previous studies on perception have focused on a few specific taxa, which makes the understanding of the public perception of species at large a resource- and time-intensive task. Here, we introduce the World Archives of Species Perception project that consists of an animal survey and a plant survey to construct the first systematic database to study the human perception of the floral and faunal diversity at a global scale. We provide a description of our survey method, species selection, survey implementation and a discussion of the potential uses of our databases in multidisciplinary research. In the animal survey, we cover 1980 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)-evaluated species, representing 25 classes, 192 orders, 1037 families and 1705 genera. In the plant survey, we cover 2000 IUCN-evaluated species, representing 13 classes, 93 orders, 386 families and 1968 genera. Data from the survey will be collected and made available 24 months after the publication of the article. Database URL http://wasp-project.net/.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Robert Malina
- Research Group Environmental Economics, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, Hasselt 3500, Belgium
| | - Ilias Mokas
- Research Group Environmental Economics, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, Hasselt 3500, Belgium
| | | | | | - Maarten P M Vanhove
- Research Group Zoology, Biodiversity and Toxicology, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Agoralaan gebouw D, Diepenbeek 3590, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van Tongeren E, Sistri G, Zingaro V, Cini A, Dapporto L, Portera M. Assessing the aesthetic attractivity of European butterflies: A web-based survey protocol. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0283360. [PMID: 37167232 PMCID: PMC10174575 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283360] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 03/07/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Aesthetic attractivity stands as an underestimated yet fundamental feature of species in conservation biology, significantly driving disproportionate protection efforts towards charismatic species. Despite the evidence, few attempts sought to precisely quantify the impact of aesthetic attractivity in defining priority of species for conservation actions (e.g. inclusion in International Union for Conservation of Nature red lists and protection lists). This study protocol describes the setting of an online test (available from April 2022 to April 2023 at www.unveiling.eu) designed to i) quantify the aesthetic attractivity to humans of the 496 European butterfly species and ii) identify which features (both in the perceived animal and in the perceiver) influence the aesthetic attractivity of a given butterfly species. The test is divided in 5 sections (personal data, ranking, single morphological features, emotional engagement, dispositional variables) aimed at profiling the relation each participant has with the species examined. In the long-term, evaluating butterflies' aesthetic attractivity could facilitate the critical assessment of current conservation strategies, such as the process of selection of flag and umbrella species by research institutions, environmental associations and Non Governative Organizations. This is expected to provide the much-needed evidence to set up unbiased biodiversity conservation strategies and counteract the selective anthropogenic pressure which favours the extinction of unattractive species, being no or less protected compared to charismatic species.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elia van Tongeren
- NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center, Palermo, Italy
- Department of Biology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Ginevra Sistri
- Department of Biology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Zingaro
- Department of Humanities and Philosophy, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | | | - Leonardo Dapporto
- NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center, Palermo, Italy
- Department of Biology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Mariagrazia Portera
- Department of Humanities and Philosophy, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|