Stefano Mammola, Diego Fontaneto, Adrià Bellvert, Matteo Chialva, Martino Adamo
{"title":"我们忽视的生物多样性:一项关于分类学偏见的全球荟萃分析。","authors":"Stefano Mammola, Diego Fontaneto, Adrià Bellvert, Matteo Chialva, Martino Adamo","doi":"10.1007/s13280-026-02479-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As biodiversity decline continues, there is a critical need to document, monitor, and protect species equitably across the tree of life. However, both scientific research and societal perceptions of biodiversity are often biased toward large, colorful, charismatic, familiar, or otherwise \"useful\" species. We conducted a global meta-analysis encompassing 905 effect sizes from 78 studies across three decades of research assessing drivers of taxonomic bias. Positive biases were widespread across study designs, regions, and taxonomic scopes, with plants and invertebrates typically receiving disproportionately less attention than vertebrates. However, the magnitude of bias was generally small (Pearson's r < 0.5), suggesting mild impacts on research agendas. Concerningly, conservation priority emerged as the only dimension not consistently associated with positive bias, suggesting a misalignment between research attention, funding, public interest, and conservation needs. We conclude that while biases are pervasive across taxonomic groups, they are subtle-but their conservation consequences warrant urgent correction.</p>","PeriodicalId":461,"journal":{"name":"Ambio","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The biodiversity we ignore: A global meta-analysis on taxonomic bias.\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Mammola, Diego Fontaneto, Adrià Bellvert, Matteo Chialva, Martino Adamo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13280-026-02479-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As biodiversity decline continues, there is a critical need to document, monitor, and protect species equitably across the tree of life. However, both scientific research and societal perceptions of biodiversity are often biased toward large, colorful, charismatic, familiar, or otherwise \\\"useful\\\" species. We conducted a global meta-analysis encompassing 905 effect sizes from 78 studies across three decades of research assessing drivers of taxonomic bias. Positive biases were widespread across study designs, regions, and taxonomic scopes, with plants and invertebrates typically receiving disproportionately less attention than vertebrates. However, the magnitude of bias was generally small (Pearson's r < 0.5), suggesting mild impacts on research agendas. Concerningly, conservation priority emerged as the only dimension not consistently associated with positive bias, suggesting a misalignment between research attention, funding, public interest, and conservation needs. We conclude that while biases are pervasive across taxonomic groups, they are subtle-but their conservation consequences warrant urgent correction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ambio\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ambio\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-026-02479-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ambio","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-026-02479-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
随着生物多样性的持续下降,我们迫切需要记录、监测和公平地保护整个生命之树的物种。然而,科学研究和社会对生物多样性的看法往往偏向于大型的、丰富多彩的、有魅力的、熟悉的或其他“有用的”物种。我们进行了一项全球荟萃分析,涵盖了三十年来评估分类偏倚驱动因素的78项研究的905个效应量。积极的偏见在研究设计、区域和分类范围中广泛存在,植物和无脊椎动物通常比脊椎动物受到的关注少得多。然而,偏倚的幅度通常很小(Pearson’s r < 0.5),表明对研究议程的影响较小。值得关注的是,保护优先级是唯一一个与积极偏见不一致的维度,这表明研究注意力、资金、公共利益和保护需求之间存在不一致。我们的结论是,尽管偏见在分类学群体中普遍存在,但它们是微妙的,但它们的保护后果需要紧急纠正。
The biodiversity we ignore: A global meta-analysis on taxonomic bias.
As biodiversity decline continues, there is a critical need to document, monitor, and protect species equitably across the tree of life. However, both scientific research and societal perceptions of biodiversity are often biased toward large, colorful, charismatic, familiar, or otherwise "useful" species. We conducted a global meta-analysis encompassing 905 effect sizes from 78 studies across three decades of research assessing drivers of taxonomic bias. Positive biases were widespread across study designs, regions, and taxonomic scopes, with plants and invertebrates typically receiving disproportionately less attention than vertebrates. However, the magnitude of bias was generally small (Pearson's r < 0.5), suggesting mild impacts on research agendas. Concerningly, conservation priority emerged as the only dimension not consistently associated with positive bias, suggesting a misalignment between research attention, funding, public interest, and conservation needs. We conclude that while biases are pervasive across taxonomic groups, they are subtle-but their conservation consequences warrant urgent correction.
期刊介绍:
Explores the link between anthropogenic activities and the environment, Ambio encourages multi- or interdisciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations.
Ambio addresses the scientific, social, economic, and cultural factors that influence the condition of the human environment. Ambio particularly encourages multi- or inter-disciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations.
For more than 45 years Ambio has brought international perspective to important developments in environmental research, policy and related activities for an international readership of specialists, generalists, students, decision-makers and interested laymen.