The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

Scientific research on animal biodiversity is systematically biased towards vertebrates and temperate regions: Biases in biodiversity research

Scientific research on animal biodiversity is systematically biased towards vertebrates and temperate regions: Biases in biodiversity research
Scientific research on animal biodiversity is systematically biased towards vertebrates and temperate regions: Biases in biodiversity research
Over the last 25 years, research on biodiversity has expanded dramatically, fuelled by increasing threats to the natural world. However, the number of published studies is heavily weighted towards certain taxa, perhaps influencing conservation awareness of and funding for less-popular groups. Few studies have systematically quantified these biases, although information on this topic is important for informing future research and conservation priorities. We investigated: i) which animal taxa are being studied; ii) if any taxonomic biases are the same in temperate and tropical regions; iii) whether the taxon studied is named in the title of papers on biodiversity, perhaps reflecting a perception of what biodiversity is; iv) the geographical distribution of biodiversity research, compared with the distribution of biodiversity and threatened species; and v) the geographical distribution of authors’ countries of origin. To do this, we used the search engine Web of Science to systematically sample a subset of the published literature with ‘biodiversity’ in the title. In total 526 research papers were screened—5% of all papers in Web of Science with biodiversity in the title. For each paper, details on taxonomic group, title phrasing, number of citations, study location, and author locations were recorded. Compared to the proportions of described species, we identified a considerable taxonomic weighting towards vertebrates and an under-representation of invertebrates (particularly arachnids and insects) in the published literature. This discrepancy is more pronounced in highly cited papers, and in tropical regions, with only 43% of bio-diversity research in the tropics including invertebrates. Furthermore, while papers on vertebrate taxa typically did not specify the taxonomic group in the title, the converse was true for invertebrate papers. Biodiversity research is also biased geographically: studies are more frequently carried out in developed countries with larger economies, and for a given level of species or threatened species, tropical countries were understudied relative to temperate countries. Finally, biodiversity research is disproportionately authored by researchers from wealthier countries, with studies less likely to be carried out by scientists in lower-GDP nations. Our results highlight the need for a more systematic and directed evaluation of bio-diversity studies, perhaps informing more targeted research towards those areas and taxa most depauperate in research. Only by doing so can we ensure that biodiversity research yields results that are relevant and applicable to all regions and that the information necessary for the conservation of threatened species is available to conservation practitioners.
1932-6203
Titley, Mark A.
428de85d-b862-470d-91ad-352cc79fee43
Snaddon, Jake L.
31a601f7-c9b0-45e2-b59b-fda9a0c5a54b
Turner, Edgar C.
eb83e88d-a250-4c65-9b1e-0113d778fdd2
Titley, Mark A.
428de85d-b862-470d-91ad-352cc79fee43
Snaddon, Jake L.
31a601f7-c9b0-45e2-b59b-fda9a0c5a54b
Turner, Edgar C.
eb83e88d-a250-4c65-9b1e-0113d778fdd2

Titley, Mark A., Snaddon, Jake L. and Turner, Edgar C. (2017) Scientific research on animal biodiversity is systematically biased towards vertebrates and temperate regions: Biases in biodiversity research. PLoS ONE, 12 (12), [e0189577]. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189577).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Over the last 25 years, research on biodiversity has expanded dramatically, fuelled by increasing threats to the natural world. However, the number of published studies is heavily weighted towards certain taxa, perhaps influencing conservation awareness of and funding for less-popular groups. Few studies have systematically quantified these biases, although information on this topic is important for informing future research and conservation priorities. We investigated: i) which animal taxa are being studied; ii) if any taxonomic biases are the same in temperate and tropical regions; iii) whether the taxon studied is named in the title of papers on biodiversity, perhaps reflecting a perception of what biodiversity is; iv) the geographical distribution of biodiversity research, compared with the distribution of biodiversity and threatened species; and v) the geographical distribution of authors’ countries of origin. To do this, we used the search engine Web of Science to systematically sample a subset of the published literature with ‘biodiversity’ in the title. In total 526 research papers were screened—5% of all papers in Web of Science with biodiversity in the title. For each paper, details on taxonomic group, title phrasing, number of citations, study location, and author locations were recorded. Compared to the proportions of described species, we identified a considerable taxonomic weighting towards vertebrates and an under-representation of invertebrates (particularly arachnids and insects) in the published literature. This discrepancy is more pronounced in highly cited papers, and in tropical regions, with only 43% of bio-diversity research in the tropics including invertebrates. Furthermore, while papers on vertebrate taxa typically did not specify the taxonomic group in the title, the converse was true for invertebrate papers. Biodiversity research is also biased geographically: studies are more frequently carried out in developed countries with larger economies, and for a given level of species or threatened species, tropical countries were understudied relative to temperate countries. Finally, biodiversity research is disproportionately authored by researchers from wealthier countries, with studies less likely to be carried out by scientists in lower-GDP nations. Our results highlight the need for a more systematic and directed evaluation of bio-diversity studies, perhaps informing more targeted research towards those areas and taxa most depauperate in research. Only by doing so can we ensure that biodiversity research yields results that are relevant and applicable to all regions and that the information necessary for the conservation of threatened species is available to conservation practitioners.

Text
journal.pone.0189577 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (3MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 29 November 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 14 December 2017

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 416665
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/416665
ISSN: 1932-6203
PURE UUID: 633d0948-22a9-4a3e-b5db-f8400f6ca173
ORCID for Jake L. Snaddon: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3549-5472

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 04 Jan 2018 17:30
Last modified: 22 Nov 2021 03:06

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Mark A. Titley
Author: Jake L. Snaddon ORCID iD
Author: Edgar C. Turner

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×