{"id":598,"date":"2025-02-26T10:50:11","date_gmt":"2025-02-26T10:50:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rarelab.org\/?p=598"},"modified":"2025-02-26T14:42:34","modified_gmt":"2025-02-26T14:42:34","slug":"taxonomic-biases-in-conservation-how-research-and-funding-leave-most-species-behind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rarelab.org\/de\/taxonomic-biases-in-conservation-how-research-and-funding-leave-most-species-behind\/","title":{"rendered":"Taxonomic biases in conservation: How research and funding leave most species behind"},"content":{"rendered":"

Conservation efforts are vital for protecting biodiversity, yet they overwhelmingly favour a small subset of species. Two recent studies reveal a troubling pattern: conservation research and funding are disproportionately directed toward a handful of well-known vertebrates, leaving most species\u2014especially those that are rare, understudied, or at high risk of extinction\u2014without the attention they need. This bias not only distorts our understanding of biodiversity but also limits our ability to respond effectively to conservation challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A self-reinforcing cycle: Research drives funding and funding drives research<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bias in conservation does not exist in isolation; research attention and financial resources are deeply intertwined. When scientists focus disproportionately on certain species, these species gain more visibility, making them more likely to receive funding. In turn, species that attract funding continue to be studied, further entrenching the cycle of preferential treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An analysis by Caldwell et al. (2024)<\/a> of more than 17,000 research articles published in four leading conservation journals found that taxonomic bias has not only persisted but increased over time. Between 1980 and 2020, the number of conservation studies published grew 35-fold. However, rather than diversifying the range of species studied, researchers continued to focus on a narrow group of vertebrates. A mere 27 species\u2014primarily large mammals\u2014were the subject of 8.5% of all articles, despite representing just 0.0008% of known species in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This research focus has direct consequences for conservation funding. Gu\u00e9nard et al. (2025)<\/a> analyzed nearly 14,600 conservation projects spanning 25 years and found that 82.9% of funding\u2014totalling $1.627 billion\u2014was allocated to vertebrates. Within this category, mammals and birds dominated, receiving 70\u201385% of available resources, while amphibians, despite being one of the most threatened vertebrate groups, received less than 2.8% of funding. The disproportionate focus on charismatic, large-bodied species is evident in funding allocations as well: nearly half of all resources analyzed were directed toward just 47 species, primarily large mammals and marine turtles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This pattern of reinforcement creates a stark divide in conservation priorities. For species that already receive attention\u2014such as tigers, wolves, and elephants\u2014both research and funding continue to flow. But for lesser-known species, particularly amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and many plants, the lack of study means they struggle to attract resources, leaving their conservation needs unmet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The real cost of bias: Overlooking the most threatened species<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A common assumption is that the most studied species are those in greatest need of protection. However, research shows that this is not the case. Over half (50.6%) of the most-studied species in conservation journals are listed as Least Concern<\/em> or have never been assessed by the IUCN Red List<\/a>. Similarly, more than a third of single-species conservation funding (approximately $390 million) has been allocated to species in the lowest-risk categories. It is, however, essential to note that species not assessed by the Red List may still be threatened, and determining their status is crucial for properly understanding their conservation needs and ensuring they are not overlooked due to a lack of formal assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Eleutherodactylus grandis. \u00a9 Tom Devitt. CC BY 4.0<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Santamartamys rufodorsalis. \u00a9 Lizzie Noble. CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, the species most at risk of extinction receive little to no attention. Only 6.2% of the 24,422 globally threatened species listed by the IUCN in 2018 had dedicated conservation projects. Amphibians, which make up about 25% of threatened vertebrates, received just 2.5% of total conservation funding. Among reptiles, turtles and tortoises captured 91% of funding, while entire groups of lizards and snakes\u2014many of which are highly endangered\u2014were nearly ignored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This neglect is particularly dangerous for species that are already rare or potentially lost. Conservation action depends on knowledge, and when research efforts bypass these species, their risk of slipping into extinction grows exponentially. For some, by the time funding is secured, it may be too late.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Breaking the cycle<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

At RARElab, we focus on species that are lost<\/a>, rare, and understudied\u2014precisely those that have been sidelined in conservation research and funding. Many lost species, such as amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals, belong to the groups receiving the least attention. By actively searching for, documenting, and advocating for these species, we aim to disrupt the self-reinforcing cycle that prioritizes only the most charismatic animals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How You Can Help<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n