Culturomics is an emerging field of study that seeks to understand human culture through the quantitative analysis of changes in word frequencies in large bodies of digital texts. Culturomics research can help practitioners in nature conservation respond to cultural trends, building and reinvigorating its societal relevance. We identify five areas where culturomics can be used to advance the practice and science of conservation: (1) recognizing conservation‐oriented constituencies and demonstrating public interest in nature, (2) identifying conservation emblems, (3) providing new metrics and tools for near‐real‐time environmental monitoring and to support conservation decision making, (4) assessing the cultural impact of conservation interventions, and (5) framing conservation issues and promoting public understanding. More generally, culturomics opens up an exciting new area of research, equipping conservationists with novel tools to explore and shape human interactions with the natural world.

Scientific knowledge of species and the ecosystems they inhabit is the cornerstone of modern conservation. However, research effort is not spread evenly among taxa (taxonomic bias), which may constrain capacity to identify conservation risk and to implement effective responses. Addressing such biases requires an understanding of factors that promote or constrain the use of a particular species in research projects. To this end, we quantified conservation science knowledge of the world's extant non-marine mammal species (n = 4108) based on the number of published documents in journals indexed on Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science TM. We use an innovative hurdle model approach to assess the relative importance of several ecological, biogeographical and cultural factors for explaining variation in research production between species. The most important variable explaining the presence/ absence of conservation research was scientific capacity of countries within the range of the species, followed by body mass and years since the taxonomic description. Research volume (more than one document) was strongly associated with number of years since the data describing on that species, followed by scientific capacity within the range of species, high body mass and invasiveness. The threat status was weakly associated to explain the presence/absence and research volume in conservation research. These results can be interpreted as a consequence of the dynamic interplay between the perceived need for conservation research about a species and its appropriateness as a target of research. As anticipated, the scientific capacity of the countries where a species is found is a strong driver of conservation research bias, reflecting the high variation in conservation research funding and human resources between countries. Our study suggests that this bias could be most effectively reduced by a combination of investing in pioneering research, targeted funding and supporting research in countries with low scientific capacity and high biodiversity.

No abstract

The rediscovery of a species that was putatively considered to be extinct can provide valuable data to test biogeographical hypotheses about population decline and range collapse. Moreover, such rediscoveries often generate much-needed publicity and additional funds for the conservation of rare species and habitats. However, like extinction, rediscovery is challenging to define. In this perspective we argue that the 'loss' of a species and its subsequent rediscovery can be understood in terms of the interplay among four socio-ecological factors: (1) the state of knowledge of species loss and rediscovery; (2) the presence of people and/or organizations with the interest, motivation, resources, skills and technology to find target species; (3) the accessibility of the areas, habitats or sites where the species are thought to survive; and (4) the ease with which a species can be located when it is present within a habitat. Thus, species are 'lost' from scientific knowledge for different reasons and, consequently, not all rediscoveries are equally significant for biogeographical research or conservation. Indeed, rediscoveries of species that underwent a well documented decline and disappearance-and are therefore of greatest potential importance for both conservation and biogeographical research-appear to be poorly represented in the literature compared to rediscovered species that were only known from a handful of museum specimens. Thus, carefully distinguishing between the causes of temporal gaps in zoological records is essential for improving the utility of rediscovery data for biogeographical research and conservation practice.

No abstract

No abstract

The Caatinga is an ecologically unique semi-arid region of northeast Brazil characterized by high levels of endemism and severe anthropogenic threats from agricultural development and climate change. It is also one of the least known biomes in Brazil due to a combination of inadequate investment, low regional research capacity and difficult working conditions. However, while the lack of scientific knowledge of the Caatinga is well known, the spatial and temporal distribution of knowledge production has not been investigated. This is important because such biases undermine the development of effective conservation policy and practice and increase the uncertainty associated with conservation actions. Here, we map the geography of conservation knowledge production in the Caatinga and use an innovative hurdle model to identify the presumptive factors driving these patterns. Our analysis revealed strong geographic patterns, with research sites concentrated in the east of the region and in areas close to roads and research centres. There was also a positive association between conservation knowledge production and risk of desertification, indicating that conservation scientists are responding to conservation challenges faced by Caatinga’s fauna and flora arising from climate change. Our results also highlight the pivotal role of pioneer scientists (those who develop research sites in previously unstudied/understudied areas) in determining the future geographic patterns of knowledge production. We conclude our article with a brief discussion of potential policies for increasing the spatial representativeness of conservation research in this remarkable ecosystem.

No abstract