Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

Abstract

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.

Language barriers in global bird conservation

“…For example, the distribution of the common pochard ( Aythya ferina ), which is classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN, spans 108 countries in Europe, Russia, Asia, and north Africa, where a total of 75 official languages are spoken. This means that scientific information on this species (including peer-reviewed papers and grey literature) can be scattered across those different languages [ 24 , 25 ], and successful conservation of the species may depend on effective collaboration and policy agreements among people with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Species in the orders Ciconiiformes and Charadriiformes have an especially high number of languages spoken within their distributions.…”

“…Scientific information that is available only in non-English languages is however usually omitted when conducting conservation research and generating conservation plans [ 28 ]. The omission of such non-English-language information can bias inferences of ecological analysis [ 29 ] and cause gaps in the spatial and taxonomic coverage of scientific evidence that is useful for conservation [ 24 ], which in turn can cause suboptimal conservation decisions. Effective conservation of bird species would require synthesizing scientific information and transferring generated knowledge in these key languages, and our results provide practical information on which species would benefit from multilingual assessments and which languages are key to those species ( S4 Table and Fig 4 , see https://translatesciences.shinyapps.io/bird_language_diversity/ for the results of other languages).…”

What evidence exists on the links between natural climate solutions and climate change mitigation outcomes in subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions? A systematic map protocol

“…Given available resources for this systematic map, we only search in English. We recognize that this may bias our systematic map as there may potentially be relevant literature in other languages [ 50 ]. Therefore, while we narrow our search to English, we will work with our review team to assess relevance of recovered studies in French, Spanish, and Portuguese.…”

Winners and losers of land use change: A systematic review of interactions between the world’s crane species (Gruidae) and the agricultural sector

“…In the analyzed publications on both agriculture‐crane interactions and on diet composition, most articles focused on common cranes (23%), red‐crowned cranes (21%), and sandhill cranes (20%), possibly indicating the importance of agricultural areas for these species. The focus on these species may also reflect different available resources for research between regions and a possible bias because of language restrictions (Amano et al, 2021 ). Nevertheless, the research gap on particularly vulnerable crane species is concerning because our review shows that interactions with agriculture are important for all crane species.…”