Not all species are created equal (in the eyes of scientific study)

Baby Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Image credit, David L. Jones.Not all species are equally important in the eyes of scientific research. As a new paper in the journal Conservation Biology shows, some types of species are much more commonly studied than others.

Researchers Morgan Trimble and Rudy Van Aarde from University of Pretoria in South Africa looked at the frequency of scientific studies among 1909 at-risk mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles across southern Africa between the years 1994 and 2008. They found a number of patterns that show inequality among species.

Large mammals and reptiles were much more commonly investigated than small mammals, birds and amphibians. Furthermore, certain species received a disproportionately large amount of attention while other species were not studied at all. For example, among threatened reptiles 98% of the scientific efforts focused on just 22% of the species.

This is potentially a big problem. A lack of information about many at-risk species hinders our ability to conserve them. These results highlight the need for greater prioritization of effort when it comes to conservation research. The study authors write,

What should conservation scientists study? How should funding agencies distribute resources? Just as funds are limited for conservation action, funds are also limited for the scientific study that informs conservation decisions."

Yet while numerous approaches have been developed and utilized to prioritize conservation actions, little attention has been given to applying similar mechanisms to conservation science.

In the world of conservation action, much of the debate on how to best allocate resources has centered on whether we should focus on threatened or non-threatened species. Some have argued that endangered species merit the greatest attention so that we can stave of the risk of imminent extinction. Others have countered that focusing on non-threatened species will achieve greater long-term success given the extreme challenges and costs of endangered species conservation.

The research by Trimble and Van Aarde shows that when it comes to conservation studies neither of these philosophies appears to be dominating. They found that among studies of large mammals and reptiles, threatened species received much greater attention. However, among small mammals and amphibians, non-threatened species were more commonly studied.

The authors present a number of possible explanations for the overall patterns observed. Similar to the world of conservation action, the particularly charismatic species may be garnering more attention. For example, the most studied species included chimpanzees, African elephants, western gorillas, and loggerhead turtles - well-known poster species of conservation campaigns.

Meanwhile, in terms of small mammals and amphibians, scientists seem to be focusing on species that have distinctive characteristics - for example, those that are pests (African grass rat) or have interesting social systems (African mole rat). Given the study findings, the authors call for greater assessment of research priorities. They write,

Perhaps the decision-making tools developed to prioritize conservation management projects can be altered so that they apply to the allotment of scientific resources as well…With limited capacity and the likelihood that some species are over-studied and others are understudied, it is time for a proper evaluation of scientific investments.

--Reviewed by Rob Goldstein

TRIMBLE, M., & VAN AARDE, R. (2010). Species Inequality in Scientific Study Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01453.x