Publication trends in global biodiversity research on protected areas
Entity
UAM. Departamento de EcologíaPublisher
ElsevierDate
2023-03-08Citation
10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109988
Biological Conservation 281 (2023) 109988
ISSN
0006-3207 (print); 1873-2917 (online)DOI
10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109988Funded by
SLC was supported by a FPI predoctoral grant financed by the Autonoma ´ University of Madrid. RJL was supported via the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 854248. AMCS was supported by the Ramon ´ y Cajal program (RYC2020-029407-I), financed by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e InnovacionProject
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/854248Editor's Version
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109988Subjects
Biodiversity knowledge; Conservation; Geographic bias; Literature review; Shortfalls; Taxonomic bias; Medio AmbienteRights
© 2023 The AuthorsAbstract
One of the main strategies to reduce the global loss of biodiversity has been the establishment of protected areas (PAs). High quality biodiversity knowledge is essential to successfully design PAs and PA networks, and to assess their conservation effectiveness. However, biodiversity knowledge is taxonomically and geographically biased. Even though PAs are typically more intensively surveyed than surrounding landscapes, they cannot avoid biodiversity knowledge shortfalls and biases. To investigate this, we performed a systematic literature review to assess publication trends in global biodiversity research taking place in PAs. Our data indicate that animals are more studied than plants, with vertebrates overrepresented in relation to invertebrates. Biodiversity in PAs has been mainly measured taxonomically (species richness or species diversity), while functional and phylogenetic diversity have rarely been considered. Finally, as predicted, there was a geographic bias towards European and USA terrestrial protected areas. These observed trends mirror more general studies of biodiversity knowledge shortfalls and could have direct negative consequences for conservation policy and practice. Reducing these biases and shortfalls is essential for more effective use of limited conservation resources
Files in this item
Google Scholar:Llorente Culebras, Sonia
-
Ladle, Richard J.
-
Santos, Ana M.C.
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.