: 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.

Drivers of species knowledge across the tree of life

Mammola, Stefano
First
;
Adamo, Martino;Calevo, Jacopo;Cardoso, Pedro;Chamberlain, Dan;Chialva, Matteo;
2023-01-01

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.
2023
Inglese
Esperti anonimi
12
1
23
23
Tree of Life; biodiversity; biological conservation; ecology; iEcology; wildlife
   Centro Nazionale Biodiversità - National Biodiversity Future Center
   NBFC
   Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca
   SINISCALCO C. - DD n.1034 del 17-06-2022
1 – prodotto con file in versione Open Access (allegherò il file al passo 6 - Carica)
262
18
Mammola, Stefano; Adamo, Martino; Antić, Dragan; Calevo, Jacopo; Cancellario, Tommaso; Cardoso, Pedro; Chamberlain, Dan; Chialva, Matteo; Durucan, Fur...espandi
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
open
03-CONTRIBUTO IN RIVISTA::03A-Articolo su Rivista
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Mammola et al 2023 - Drivers of species knowledge across the tree of life.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 1.58 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.58 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1948955
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 8
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
social impact