Dimension and impact of biases in funding for species and habitat conservation

Adamo, Martino; Sousa, Ronaldo; Wipf, Sonja; Correia, Ricardo A.; Lumia, Alessio; Mucciarelli, Marco; Mammola, Stefano

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109636

Cited by 39 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the long run, this generalization may turn out detrimental for the majority of species and even ecosystem services on which we depend. This practice can misinform and misdirect conservation policies and actions by governments, organizations, and conservation practitioners at local or global scales, misallocating resources (23,31) and perpetuating known biodiversity shortfalls (19). Notably, current biases are not being mitigated by new approaches using big data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Growing evidence exists that research on biodiversity and its conservation is systematically biased in taxonomic, habitat, and geographic coverage, with similar biases operating hierarchically. At the organism level, research interests are often skewed toward vertebrate animals rather than invertebrates (20,21), plants (22,23), or fungi (24,25). Furthermore, for all these groups, research and conservation efforts often correlate with aesthetic features (26)(27)(28), organismal complexity (29), cultural salience (30,31), and phylogenetic proximity to humans (27), rather than extinction risk or ecological and socio-economic importance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How much biodiversity is concealed in the word “biodiversity”?

Mammola¹,

Fukushima²,

Biondo³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amidst a global biodiversity crisis, the word “biodiversity” has become indispensable for practical conservation, including as a normative term. Yet, biodiversity is often used as a buzzword in scientific literature. Resonant titles promoting to have studied “global biodiversity” may then be used to oversell research that is narrow-focused on a limited sample of taxonomic groups, regions, or habitats. We selected a random sample of ~900 papers with the word “biodiversity” in their title to take a long view of the use and misuse of this term. We analyzed the degree to which studies actually consider different taxonomic groups and biodiversity facets and how all of this translates to the impact of a paper. As many as 22% of the articles used the term biodiversity in the title but did not measure it at any level. Among the articles sampling biodiversity directly, the proportion of biodiversity investigated was systematically low. We documented a decrease in the taxonomic scope of articles in recent years, especially those relying on big data. This is in stark contrast with the parallel advances in analytical tools, monitoring technologies, and the availability of data. Importantly, studies with general titles (i.e., using the word “biodiversity” without mentioning any taxa, habitat, or region) attract more citations and online attention (Altmetric), but only when they also have a wider taxonomic scope. Our results have broad ramifications for understanding how the extrapolation from studies with narrow taxonomic scope shapes our view of global biodiversity patterns and poorly informs conservation practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much biodiversity is concealed in the word “biodiversity”?

Mammola¹,

Fukushima²,

Biondo³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is increasingly recognised that conservation implementation is frequently incongruent with conservation priorities [e.g. threatened species (Rodrigues et al, 2006;Mammola et al, 2020;Adamo et al, 2022)]. For example, Waldron et al (2017) found that 32% of threatened mammals are found in the 40 most underfunded countries globally.…”

Section: (C) Knowledge Gapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global‐scale decline of animal biodiversity (‘defaunation’) represents one of the most alarming consequences of human impacts on the planet. The quantification of this extinction crisis has traditionally relied on the use of IUCN Red List conservation categories assigned to each assessed species. This approach reveals that a quarter of the world's animal species are currently threatened with extinction, and ~1% have been declared extinct. However, extinctions are preceded by progressive population declines through time that leave demographic ‘footprints’ that can alert us about the trajectories of species towards extinction. Therefore, an exclusive focus on IUCN conservation categories, without consideration of dynamic population trends, may underestimate the true extent of the processes of ongoing extinctions across nature. In fact, emerging evidence (e.g. the Living Planet Report), reveals a widespread tendency for sustained demographic declines (an average 69% decline in population abundances) of species globally. Yet, animal species are not only declining. Many species worldwide exhibit stable populations, while others are even thriving. Here, using population trend data for >71,000 animal species spanning all five groups of vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fishes) and insects, we provide a comprehensive global‐scale assessment of the diversity of population trends across species undergoing not only declines, but also population stability and increases. We show a widespread global erosion of species, with 48% undergoing declines, while 49% and 3% of species currently remain stable or are increasing, respectively. Geographically, we reveal an intriguing pattern similar to that of threatened species, whereby declines tend to concentrate around tropical regions, whereas stability and increases show a tendency to expand towards temperate climates. Importantly, we find that for species currently classed by the IUCN Red List as ‘non‐threatened’, 33% are declining. Critically, in contrast with previous mass extinction events, our assessment shows that the Anthropocene extinction crisis is undergoing a rapid biodiversity imbalance, with levels of declines (a symptom of extinction) greatly exceeding levels of increases (a symptom of ecological expansion and potentially of evolution) for all groups. Our study contributes a further signal indicating that global biodiversity is entering a mass extinction, with ecosystem heterogeneity and functioning, biodiversity persistence, and human well‐being under increasing threat.

show abstract

“…While theoretical, protected area networks should strive to achieve a comprehensive coverage of multiple biodiversity components and ecosystem services, the reality is that some habitats and taxa are often overlooked in protected areas designation and other conservation actions (Adamo et al, 2022;Cardoso et al, 2011;Donaldson et al, 2016). A clear example of this is in subterranean ecosystems, whose exceptional forms of life continue to be neglected in conservation plans (Fišer et al, 2022;Sánchez-Fernández et al, 2021;Wynne et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dark side of conservation biology: Protected areas fail in representing subterranean biodiversity

Colado

Abellán

Pallarés

et al. 2023

Insect Conserv Diversity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity conservation is a central imperative of the 21st century. Subterranean ecosystems deliver critical nature's contributions to people and harbour a broad diversity of poorly understood specialised organisms. However, the subterranean biome is still largely overlooked in global biodiversity targets. We assessed how well subterranean biodiversity is represented in protected areas (Natura 2000 and Emerald networks) in two global hotspots of subterranean biodiversity (the Pyrenees and the Alps). For this, we used two comprehensive databases of terrestrial subterranean taxa, that is, leiodids (beetles) from the Pyrenees and spiders from the Alps, and identified priority areas in each region using both species richness and geographic rarity patterns. Our results show the incapacity of surface‐protected area networks to represent subterranean biodiversity, as more than 70% and 90% of the identified priority areas (and 40% and 22% of the species) are not effectively covered by protected areas in the Pyrenees and the Alps, respectively. These findings call for developing an urgent plan for subterranean biodiversity conservation within the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.

show abstract

Dimension and impact of biases in funding for species and habitat conservation

Cited by 39 publications

References 68 publications

How much biodiversity is concealed in the word “biodiversity”?

How much biodiversity is concealed in the word “biodiversity”?

More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends

A dark side of conservation biology: Protected areas fail in representing subterranean biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About