Drivers of species knowledge across the tree of life.

Stefano Mammola, Martino Adamo, Dragan Antić, Jacopo Calevo, Tommaso Cancellario, Pedro Cardoso, Dan Chamberlain, Matteo Chialva, Furkan Durucan, Diego Fontaneto, Duarte Goncalves, Alejandro Martínez, Luca Santini, Iñigo Rubio-Lopez, Ronaldo Sousa, David Villegas-Rios, Aida Verdes, Ricardo A Correia
Author Information
  1. Stefano Mammola: Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research Council, Verbania, Italy. ORCID
  2. Martino Adamo: National Biodiversity Future Center, Palermo, Italy. ORCID
  3. Dragan Antić: University of Belgrade - Faculty of Biology, Belgrade, Serbia.
  4. Jacopo Calevo: Royal Botanic Gardens, London, United Kingdom. ORCID
  5. Tommaso Cancellario: Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research Council, Verbania, Italy.
  6. Pedro Cardoso: Laboratory for Integrative Biodiversity Research (LIBRe), Finnish Museum of Natural History (LUOMUS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
  7. Dan Chamberlain: Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Torino, Italy.
  8. Matteo Chialva: National Biodiversity Future Center, Palermo, Italy. ORCID
  9. Furkan Durucan: Department of Aquaculture, Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Isparta, Turkey. ORCID
  10. Diego Fontaneto: Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research Council, Verbania, Italy. ORCID
  11. Duarte Goncalves: CIIMAR, Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Matosinhos, Portugal. ORCID
  12. Alejandro Martínez: Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research Council, Verbania, Italy.
  13. Luca Santini: Department of Biology and Biotechnologies "Charles Darwin", Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
  14. Iñigo Rubio-Lopez: Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA), National Research Council, Verbania, Italy. ORCID
  15. Ronaldo Sousa: CBMA - Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Minho, Minho, Portugal. ORCID
  16. David Villegas-Rios: Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, CSIC, Eduardo Cabello, Vigo, Spain. ORCID
  17. Aida Verdes: Department of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain. ORCID
  18. Ricardo A Correia: Helsinki Lab of Interdisciplinary Conservation Science (HELICS), Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Trends Ecol Evol. 2022 May;37(5):411-419 [PMID: 35181167]
  2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 May 28;116(22):10868-10873 [PMID: 30988189]
  3. Elife. 2023 Oct 17;12: [PMID: 37846960]
  4. Science. 2002 Jul 12;297(5579):191-2 [PMID: 12117005]
  5. Curr Biol. 2023 Jan 23;33(2):R59-R60 [PMID: 36693307]
  6. PeerJ. 2017 Oct 31;5:e3972 [PMID: 29104823]
  7. PLoS Biol. 2022 Jun 7;20(6):e3001640 [PMID: 35671265]
  8. Biodivers Data J. 2014 Sep 17;(2):e1060 [PMID: 25349520]
  9. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021 Oct;96(5):2333-2354 [PMID: 34080283]
  10. Proc Biol Sci. 2020 Dec 9;287(1940):20202166 [PMID: 33290682]
  11. Sci Data. 2017 Sep 05;4:170123 [PMID: 28872632]
  12. PLoS One. 2018 Sep 26;13(9):e0203694 [PMID: 30256838]
  13. Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 20;9(1):19555 [PMID: 31862944]
  14. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2019 Jan;66(1):4-119 [PMID: 30257078]
  15. Evol Psychol. 2014 May 28;12(3):534-48 [PMID: 25299991]
  16. PeerJ. 2016 Jul 19;4:e2202 [PMID: 27547528]
  17. NPJ Biodivers. 2023 Sep 27;2(1):20 [PMID: 39242702]
  18. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2021 Dec 11;17(1):69 [PMID: 34895273]
  19. Nature. 2011 Mar 3;471(7336):51-7 [PMID: 21368823]
  20. PeerJ. 2015 Jan 13;3:e715 [PMID: 25649000]
  21. Front Psychol. 2018 Dec 18;9:2590 [PMID: 30619001]
  22. Mol Biol Evol. 2022 Aug 06;: [PMID: 35932227]
  23. Front Psychol. 2014 May 07;5:411 [PMID: 24847305]
  24. Gigascience. 2022 Aug 13;11: [PMID: 35962776]
  25. PeerJ. 2016 Feb 25;4:e1728 [PMID: 26966663]
  26. Science. 2021 Jul 23;373(6553):403 [PMID: 34437111]
  27. J Hered. 2020 Feb 5;111(1):1-20 [PMID: 31958131]
  28. Sci Data. 2023 May 19;10(1):297 [PMID: 37208398]
  29. Curr Biol. 2021 Dec 6;31(23):R1511-R1512 [PMID: 34875236]
  30. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2022 Apr;97(2):640-663 [PMID: 35014169]
  31. Trends Ecol Evol. 2022 Mar;37(3):203-210 [PMID: 34799145]
  32. Conserv Biol. 2016 Dec;30(6):1192-1199 [PMID: 27109445]
  33. Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Nov;3(11):838-49 [PMID: 12415314]
  34. PeerJ. 2022 Nov 11;10:e14387 [PMID: 36389422]
  35. Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 22;7(1):9132 [PMID: 28831097]
  36. Curr Biol. 2022 Oct 10;32(19):4299-4305.e4 [PMID: 36113469]
  37. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Jan 10;120(2):e2217303120 [PMID: 36595703]
  38. Nat Plants. 2021 May;7(5):574-578 [PMID: 33972712]
  39. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2012 Sep;59(5):429-93 [PMID: 23020233]
  40. Conserv Biol. 2021 Apr;35(2):460-471 [PMID: 33749040]
  41. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:95-120 [PMID: 23808916]
  42. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2020 Apr;80:101227 [PMID: 31883711]
  43. Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Jan;2(1):6-10 [PMID: 30980045]

MeSH Term

Humans
Conservation of Natural Resources
Phylogeny
Biodiversity

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0biodiversitysocietalspeciesscientificTreeLiferesearchconservationhumansdistributedacrosslifeknowledgenumberinterestsocioculturalfactorsbroadlyattentionKnowledgeunevenlylongrundisparityawarenessunbalancesunderstandingEarthinfluencingpolicydecisionsallocationfundinginvestigatedaccumulatesearchingconsistentrelationshipspublicationsviewsWikipediaspecies-levelmorphologicalecologicalAcrossrandomselection3019spanning29Phyla/DivisionsshowimportantcorrelatesincludingfactusefulharmfulcommonnamelistedInternationalUnionConservationNatureRedListFurthermorelarge-bodiedtaxonomicallyuniquereceivewhereascolorfulnessphylogeneticproximitycorrelateexclusivelyresultshighlightfavoritismtowardlimitedbranchesprioritiesalignsuggestsmaymissingkeyagendasimplyculturalradarDriverstreebiologicalecologyiEcologywildlife

Similar Articles

Cited By