How much biodiversity is concealed in the word ‘biodiversity’?

Mammola, Stefano; Fukushima, Caroline Sayuri; Biondo, Girolama; Bongiorni, Lucia; Cianferoni, Fabio; Domenici, Paolo; Fruciano, Carmelo; Giudice, Angelina Lo; Macías–Hernández, Nuria; Malumbres‐Olarte, Jagoba; Miličić, Marija; Morganti, Michelangelo; Mori, Emiliano; Munévar, Ana; Pollegioni, Paola; Rosati, Ilaria; Tenan, Simone; Urbano-Tenorio, Fernando; Fontaneto, Diego; Cardoso, Pedro

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.12.003

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We compared taxonomic group occurrences in our dataset against those reported in biodiversity-focused scientific literature reported in a randomly-sampled subset (ca. 10%) of all articles listed in Web of Science using the word 'biodiversity' in their title, provided by Mammola et al (2023). To do so, we mapped Mammola et al (2023) occurrences to a comparable taxonomic resolution (according to COL) i.e.…”

Section: Data Coding and Evidence Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10%) of all articles listed in Web of Science using the word 'biodiversity' in their title, provided by Mammola et al (2023). To do so, we mapped Mammola et al (2023) occurrences to a comparable taxonomic resolution (according to COL) i.e. at a kingdom level for microorganisms and plants, and at a phylum level for animals.…”

Section: Data Coding and Evidence Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Global review of meta-analyses reveals key data gaps in agricultural impact studies on biodiversity in croplands

Bonfanti,

Langridge,

Avadí

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Agriculture depends heavily on biodiversity, yet unsustainable management practices continue to affect a wide range of organisms and ecosystems at unprecedented levels worldwide. Addressing the global challenge of biodiversity loss requires access to consolidated knowledge across management practices, spatial levels, and taxonomic groups. Location: Global Time period: 1994 to 2022 Major taxa studied: Animals, microorganisms, plants. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review synthesising data from all meta-analyses about the impacts of agricultural management practices on biodiversity in croplands, covering field, farm, and landscape levels. From 200 retained meta-analyses, we extracted 1,885 mean effect sizes (from 69,850 comparisons between a control and treatment) assessing the impact of management practices on biodiversity, alongside characterising over 9,000 primary papers. Results: Seven high-income countries, notably the USA, China, and Brazil dominate agricultural impact studies with fertiliser use, phytosanitary interventions and crop diversification receiving widespread attention. The focus on individual practices overshadows research at the farm and landscape level. Taxonomically, Animalia, especially arthropods, are heavily studied while taxa such as annelids and plants receive comparatively less attention. Effect sizes are predominantly calculated from averaged abundance data. Significant gaps persist in terms of studies on the effects of agricultural interventions on specific taxonomic groups (e.g. annelids, mammals) and studies analysing functional traits. Main conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of analysing the effects of combined practices to accurately reflect real-world farming contexts. While abundance metrics are common, reflecting several biodiversity facets and adopting a more balanced research approach across taxa are crucial for understanding biodiversity responses to agricultural changes and informing conservation strategies. Given the unbalanced evidence on impacts of agricultural practices on biodiversity, caution is required when utilising meta-analytical findings for informing public policies or integrating them into global assessment models like life-cycle assessments or global flux models.

show abstract

Section: Data Coding and Evidence Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Coding and Evidence Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global review of meta-analyses reveals key data gaps in agricultural impact studies on biodiversity in croplands

Bonfanti,

Langridge,

Avadí

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Widespread evidence indicates that biodiversity research has concentrated on certain lineages, habitats and geographic regions over others [8][9][10][11][12]. At the species level, for example, research interests and conservation efforts are often skewed toward vertebrates rather than other animals [13][14][15], plants [16,17], or fungi [18,19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Widespread evidence indicates that biodiversity research has concentrated on certain lineages, habitats and geographic regions over others (Clark and May, 2002; García-Roselló et al, 2023; Hortal et al, 2015; Mammola et al, 2023; Šmíd, 2022; Troudet et al, 2017). At the species level, for example, research interests and conservation efforts are often skewed toward vertebrates rather than other animals (Cardoso et al, 2011b, 2011a; Leather, 2013), plants (Adamo et al, 2022; Balding and Williams, 2016) or fungi (Gonçalves et al, 2021; Oyanedel et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of species knowledge across the Tree of Life

Mammola

Adamo

Antić

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge 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 socio-cultural factors. Across a random selection of 3,007 species spanning 29 Phyla/Divisions, we show that socio-cultural 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 IUCN Red List. Furthermore, large-bodied, broadly distributed and taxonomically unique species receive more scientific and societal attention, whereas colorfulness and phylogenetic proximity to humans correlates exclusively with societal attention. These results highlight a favoritism towards 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.

show abstract

“…As seen from this gradient, reliable biodiversity data is considered of primary importance to allow consistent inference to support sound actions. Unfortunately, easy access to biodiversity data is often missing, even in scientific studies dealing with biodiversity, considering 'biodiversity' mostly as a concept and not as a measurable and quantifiable ecological metric (Mammola et al, 2023). Availability of and access to the primary biodiversity data is of utmost importance to provide foundation for understanding patterns and processes of life on Earth, including less considered realms, such as freshwaters.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%