The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,680 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate, and can expand the geographical (by 12-25%) and taxonomic (by 5-32%) coverage of English-language evidence, especially in biodiverse regions, albeit often based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges.

Reactivation of latent Gammaherpesvirus in the genital tract can lead to reproductive failure in domestic animals. Nevertheless, this pathophysiology has not received formal study in wild mammals. High prevalence of Mustelid gammaherpesvirus 1 (MusGHV-1) DNA detected in the genital tracts of European badgers (Meles meles) implies that this common pathogen may be a sexual transmitted infection. Here we used PCR to test MusGHV-1 DNA prevalence in genital swabs collected from 144 wild badgers in Ireland (71 males, 73 females) to investigate impacts on male fertility indicators (sperm abundance and testes weight) and female fecundity (current reproductive output). MusGHV-1 reactivation had a negative effect on female reproduction, but not on male fertility; however males had a higher risk of MusGHV-1 reactivation than females, especially during the late-winter mating season, and genital MusGHV-1 reactivation differed between age classes, where 3–5 year old adults had significantly lower reactivation rates than younger or older ones. Negative results in foetal tissues from MusGHV-1 positive mothers indicated that cross-placental transmission was unlikely. This study has broader implications for how wide-spread gammaherpesvirus infections could affect reproductive performance in wild Carnivora species.

Gammaherpesvirus reactivation can promote diseases or impair reproduction. Understanding reactivation patterns and associated risks of different stressors is therefore important. Nevertheless, outside the laboratory or captive environment, studies on the effects of stress on gammaherpesvirus reactivation in wild mammals are lacking. Here we used Mustelid gammaherpesvirus 1 (MusGHV-1) infection in European badgers (Meles meles) as a host–pathogen wildlife model to study the effects of a variety of demographic, physiological and environmental stressors on virus shedding in the genital tract. We collected 251 genital swabs from 150 free-ranging individuals across three seasons and screened them for the presence of MusGHV-1 DNA using PCR targeting the DNA polymerase gene. We explored possible links between MusGHV-1 DNA presence and seven variables reflecting stressors, using logistic regression analysis. The results reveal different sets of risk factors between juveniles and adults, likely reflecting primary infection and reactivation. In adults, virus shedding was more likely in badgers in poorer body condition and younger than 5 years or older than 7; while in juveniles, virus shedding is more likely in females and individuals in better body condition. However, living in social groups with more cubs was a risk factor for all badgers. We discuss possible explanations for these risk factors and their links to stress in badgers.