The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is often advocated as a tool to assist decision-making in conservation investment and research focus. It is frequently suggested that research efforts should prioritize species in higher threat categories and those that are Data Deficient (DD). We assessed the linkage between IUCN listing and research effort in DD and Critically Endangered (CR) species, two groups generally advocated as research priorities. The analysis of the change in the research output following species classification indicated a listing effect in DD species, while such effect was observed in only a minority of CR species groups. DD species, while chronically understudied, seem to be recognized as research priorities, while research effort for endangered species appears to be driven by various factors other than the IUCN listing. Optimized conservation research focus would require international science planning efforts, harmonized through international mechanisms and promoted by financial and other incentives.

Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences Institute of Hydrobiology České Budějovice Czech Republic

Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology School of Anthropology and Conservation University of Kent Canterbury United Kingdom

Ecologie Systematique and Evolution Univ Paris Sud CNRS AgroParisTech Universite Paris Saclay Orsay France

Institute for Multidisciplinary Research University of Belgrade Belgrade Serbia

Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Berlin Germany

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole USA

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Bland LM, Collen B, Orme CDL, Bielby J. Predicting the conservation status of data-deficient species. Conservation Biology. 2015;29:250–259. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12372. PubMed DOI

Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode M, Cook C, Game ET, Grantham H, Kark S, Linke S, McDonald-Madden E, Pressey RL, Walker S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP. Is conservation triage just smart decision making? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2008;23:649–654. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.007. PubMed DOI

Brito D. Amphibian conservation: are we on the right track? Biological Conservation. 2008;141:2912–2917. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.08.016. DOI

Brooke ZM, Bielby J, Nambiar K, Carbone C. Correlates of research effort in carnivores: body size, range size and diet matter. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(4):e93195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093195. PubMed DOI PMC

Brooks TM, Collar NJ, Green RE, Mardsen SJ, Pain DJ. The science of bird conservation. Bird Conservation International. 2008;18:S2–S12. doi: 10.1017/S0959270908000427. DOI

Butchart SHM, Bird JP. Data deficient birds on the IUCN Red List: what don’t we know and why does it matter? Biological Conservation. 2010;143:239–247. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.008. DOI

Clark JA, May RM. Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science. 2002;297:191–192. doi: 10.1126/science.297.5579.191b. PubMed DOI

Connena I, Rocha R, Russo D, Cabeza M. Insular bats and research effort: a review of global patterns and priorities. Mammal Review. 2017;47(3):169–182. doi: 10.1111/mam.12090. DOI

De Lima RF, Bird JP, Barlow J. Research effort allocation and the conservation of restricted-range island bird species. Biological Conservation. 2011;144:627–632. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.021. DOI

Donaldson MR, Burnett NJ, Braun DC, Suski CD, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Kerr JT. Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research. Facets. 2016;1:105–113. doi: 10.1139/facets-2016-0011. DOI

Ficetola GF, Bonardi A, Sindaco R, Padoa-Schioppa E. Estimating patterns of reptile biodiversity in remote regions. Journal of Biogeography. 2013;40:1202–1211. doi: 10.1111/jbi.12060. DOI

GEO BON . Group on Earth Observations, Biodiversity Observation Network Secretariat; Leipzig: 2015.

Haddaway NL, Bayliss HR. Shades of grey: two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. Biological Conservation. 2015;191:827–829. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.018. DOI

Holmgren M, Schnitzer SA. Science on the rise in developing countries. PLOS Biology. 2004;2(1):10–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020001. PubMed DOI PMC

Howard SD, Bickford DP. Amphibians over the edge: silent extinction risk of Data Deficient species. Diversity and Distributions. 2014;20:837–846. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12218. DOI

IUCN IUCN Red List categories and criteria. 2001. [June 2016]. Version 3.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org .

IUCN The IUCN Red List of threatened species. 2015. [December 2015]. Version 2015-4. http://www.iucnredlist.org .

Jachowski DS, Kesler DC. Allowing extinction: should we let species go? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2009;24:180. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.006. PubMed DOI

Jarić I, Courchamp F, Gessner J, Roberts DL. Potentially threatened: a data deficient flag for conservation management. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2016a;25:1995–2000. doi: 10.1007/s10531-016-1164-0. DOI

Jarić I, Courchamp F, Gessner J, Roberts DL. Data mining in conservation research using Latin and vernacular species names. PeerJ. 2016b;4:e2202. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2202. PubMed DOI PMC

Jarić I, Knežević-Jarić J, Gessner J. Global effort allocation in marine mammal research indicates geographical, taxonomic and extinction risk related biases. Mammal Review. 2015;45:54–62. doi: 10.1111/mam.12032. DOI

Larsen PO, Von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by science citation index. Scientometrics. 2010;84:575–603. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z. PubMed DOI PMC

Luiz OJ, Woods RM, Madin EMP, Madin JS. Predicting IUCN extinction risk categories for the world’s data deficient groupers (Teleostei: Epinephelidae) Conservation Letters. 2016;9:342–350. doi: 10.1111/conl.12230. DOI

Martín-López B, González JA, Montes C. The pitfall-trap of species conservation priority setting. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2011;20:663–682. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9973-z. DOI

Meyer C, Kreft H, Guralnick R, Jetz W. Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions. Nature Communications. 2015;6 doi: 10.1038/ncomms9221. Article 8221. PubMed DOI PMC

Moerman DE, Estabrook GF. The botanist effect: counties with maximal species richness tend to be home to universities and botanists. Journal of Biogeography. 2006;33:1969–1974. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01549.x. DOI

Pautasso M, McKinney ML. The botanist effect revisited: plant species richness, county area, and human population size in the United States. Conservation Biology. 2007;21(5):1333–1340. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00760.x. PubMed DOI

Pimm SL. Against triage. Science. 2000;289:2289–2289. doi: 10.1126/science.289.5488.2289. DOI

Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Pergl J, Jarošik V, Sixtová Z, Weber E. Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2008;23(5):237–244. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.02.002. PubMed DOI

Roberts DL, Taylor L, Joppa LN. Threatened or data deficient: assessing the conservation status of poorly known species. Diversity and Distributions. 2016;22:558–565. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12418. DOI

Robertson PA, McKenzie AJ. The scientific profiles of terrestrial mammals in Great Britain as measured by publication metrics. Mammal Review. 2015;45(2):128–132. doi: 10.1111/mam.12038. DOI

Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2006;21(2):71–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010. PubMed DOI

Schipper J, Chanson JS, Chiozza F, Cox NA, Hoffmann M, Katariya V, Lamoreux J, Rodrigues ASL, Stuart SN, Temple HJ, Baillie J, Boitani L, Lacher Jr TE, Mittermeier RA, Smith AT, Absolon D, Aguiar JM, Amori G, Bakkour N, Baldi R, Berridge RJ, Bielby J, Black PA, Blanc JJ, Brooks TM, Burton JA, Butynski TM, Catullo G, Chapman R, Cokeliss Z, Collen B, Conroy J, Cooke JG, Da Fonseca GAB, Derocher AE, Dublin HT, Duckworth JW, Emmons L, Emslie RH, Festa-Bianchet M, Foster M, Foster S, Garshelis DL, Gates C, Gimenez-Dixon M, Gonzalez S, Gonzalez-Maya JF, Good TC, Hammerson G, Hammond PS, Happold D, Happold M, Hare J, Harris RB, Hawkins CE, Haywood M, Heaney LR, Hedges S, Helgen KM, Hilton-Taylor C, Hussain SA, Ishii N, Jefferson TA, Jenkins RKB, Johnston CH, Keith M, Kingdon J, Knox DH, Kovacs KM, Langhammer P, Leus K, Lewison R, Lichtenstein G, Lowry LF, Macavoy Z, Mace GM, Mallon DP, Masi M, McKnight MW, Medellín RA, Medici P, Mills G, Moehlman PD, Molur S, Mora A, Nowell K, Oates JF, Olech W, Oliver WRL, Oprea M, Patterson BD, Perrin WF, Polidoro BA, Pollock C, Powel A, Protas Y, Racey P, Ragle J, Ramani P, Rathbun G, Reeves RR, Reilly SB, Reynolds III JE, Rondinini C, Rosell-Ambal RG, Rulli M, Rylands AB, Savini S, Schank CJ, Sechrest W, Self-Sullivan C, Shoemaker A, Sillero-Zubiri C, De Silva N, Smith DE, Srinivasulu C, Stephenson PJ, Van Strien N, Talukdar BK, Taylor BL, Timmins R, Tirira DG, Tognelli MF, Tsytsulina K, Veiga LM, Vié JC, Williamson EA, Wyatt SA, Xie Y, Young BE. The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science. 2008;322:225–230. doi: 10.1126/science.1165115. PubMed DOI

Sitas N, Baillie JEM, Isaac NJB. What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action. Animal Conservation. 2009;12:231–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00244.x. DOI

Trimble MJ, Van Aarde RJ. Species inequality in scientific study. Conservation Biology. 2010;24(3):886–890. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01453.x. PubMed DOI

Wilson JRU, Procheş Ş, Braschler B, Dixon ES, Richardson DM. The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment. 2007;5:409–414. doi: 10.1890/060077.1. DOI

Zhang H, Hu Y, Zhang Y, Li W. Evidence of the Matthew effect in scientific research on mammals in the Chinese First-class National Protected Animals list. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2015;24:2883–2886. doi: 10.1007/s10531-015-0983-8. DOI

Zobrazit více v PubMed

figshare
10.6084/m9.figshare.5193583.v1