Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://biore.bio.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/6358
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMammola, Stefanoen_US
dc.contributor.authorAdamo, Martinoen_US
dc.contributor.authorAntić, Draganen_US
dc.contributor.authorCalevo, Jacopoen_US
dc.contributor.authorCancellario, Tommasoen_US
dc.contributor.authorCardoso, Pedroen_US
dc.contributor.authorChamberlain, Danen_US
dc.contributor.authorChialva, Matteoen_US
dc.contributor.authorDurucan, Furkanen_US
dc.contributor.authorFontaneto, Diegoen_US
dc.contributor.authorGoncalves, Duarteen_US
dc.contributor.authorMartínez, Alejandroen_US
dc.contributor.authorSantini, Lucaen_US
dc.contributor.authorRubio-Lopez, Iñigoen_US
dc.contributor.authorSousa, Ronaldoen_US
dc.contributor.authorVillegas-Rios, Daviden_US
dc.contributor.authorVerdes, Aidaen_US
dc.contributor.authorCorreia, Ricardo A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-19T10:40:13Z-
dc.date.available2023-10-19T10:40:13Z-
dc.date.issued2023-10-17-
dc.identifier.urihttps://biore.bio.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/6358-
dc.description.abstractKnowledge 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.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofeLifeen_US
dc.titleDrivers of species knowledge across the tree of lifeen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.7554/eLife.88251-
dc.description.rankM21aen_US
dc.description.impact8.713en_US
dc.relation.issn2050-084Xen_US
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptChair of Animal Development-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-1231-4213-
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

3
checked on May 20, 2024

Page view(s)

25
checked on May 21, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.