Which species are we researching and why? A case study using British birds and mammals

Background/Question/Methods

British birds and mammals are amongst the best studied faunas in the world.  The reasons for this are multi-fold, and include ease of study, public perception, interests of individual researchers, and changes in population trends. This range of research motivations has resulted in a biased literature base, both in terms of species and subject area, but also in terms of paper “quality” or “impact” (e.g. citation record).  With many of these studies used to guide species conservation, management and policy it is important that these biases are identified and understood.  The aim of the work outlined here was to determine the relative volume and impact of publications associated with different British bird and mammals species, and to investigate the factors that best explain between-species differences in outputs.  Ecological publication records for 67 mammal and 225 bird species in Britain were extracted from the online database Web of Knowledge^TM. A range of publication metrics were calculated for each species, including h-index, total number of papers and mean number of citations.  These metrics were then entered into statistical models with a range of covariates (e.g. species distribution, abundance, biomass, conservation and native status) to determine patterns in publication and impact.

Results/Conclusions

For both birds and mammals, publication metric patterns were best explained by species distribution, abundance and biomass (weight x abundance) - more widely distributed species with higher abundances and/or biomass had consistently higher publication metrics.  Numerous, widely distributed species may preferentially attract study for a number of reasons.  High abundance may facilitate effective study while widespread range may make them available to researchers in different regions. Abundant species may also be more likely to conflict with human interests, preferentially attracting funding to understand their role. Indeed, the three most intensively studied mammals (Red deer Cervus elaphus, Badger Meles meles, Red fox Vulpes vulpes) are all associated with human-wildlife conflicts in Britain, and have significant economic impacts. While not a significant predictor overall, non-native species have lower publication metrics than their native counterparts.  Given the large and increasing impact of non-native species on ecosystems this finding was surprising.  While conservation status in Britain positively influenced publication indices for birds, this was not the case for mammals. While this may reflect the difficulty of studying scarce or declining species, it also raises questions about the relative strength of the evidence-base that underpins conservation actions.