With so many species in decline it is difficult to know where conservation effort and funding should be dedicated. A common prioritization argument is species uniqueness and phylogenetic diversity, where those with unique evolutionary history are thought to be especially valuable. However, despite frequent calls for better prioritization, research interest is often idiosyncratic, pragmatic, and geographically biased, creating an uneven spread of research interest across the tree of life. Here, we aim to quantify the research interest of endemic species from Africa and Australia across 5 vertebrate groups, exploring whether research interest has any correlation with phylogenetic uniqueness. To measure research interest, Hirsch’s h-index is used as it can identify biases in the research literature. In this study, we explored the relationships between phylogenetic uniqueness, h-index, and the number of publications for five vertebrate groups across the Australian and African continents: Mammalia, Aves, Reptilia, Amphibia, and Chondrichthyes. Observing the top 10 species that are the most phylogenetically unique, there was very little relationship between their phylogenetic uniqueness and research interest. The most highly researched animals were the megafauna, or those considered as charismatic – with human-perceived charisma not showing a strong phylogenetic pattern. We saw higher research interest in mammals than other vertebrate groups, and generally higher levels of research attention in fauna from Africa than Australia, which did reflect higher levels of phylogenetic uniqueness on the African continent. While phylogenetic diversity is a useful index on which to base research interest and conservation prioritization, it appears that current conservation strategies reflected by research interest do not follow this approach. We believe that our approach in this study is scalable to other geographical regions, which can help guide conservation efforts of phylogenetically unique species.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tam et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: