Search

Conservation science is a rapidly developing discipline, and the knowledge base it generates is relevant for practical applications. It is therefore crucial to monitor biases and trends in conservation literature, to track the progress of the discipline and re-align efforts where needed. We evaluated past and present trends in the focus of the conservation literature, and how they relate to conservation needs. We defined the focus of the past literature from 13 published reviews referring to 18,369 article classifications, and the focus of the current literature by analysing 2553 articles published between 2011–2015. We found that some of the historically under-studied biodiversity elements are receiving significantly more attention today, despite being still under-represented. The total proportion of articles on invertebrates, genetic diversity, or aquatic systems is 50%–60% higher today than it was before 2010. However, a disconnect between scientific focus and conservation needs is still present, with greater attention devoted to areas or taxa less rich in biodiversity and threatened biodiversity. In particular, a strong geographical bias persists, with 40% of studies carried out in USA, Australia or the UK, and only 10% and 6% respectively in Africa or South East Asia. Despite some changing trends, global conservation science is still poorly aligned with biodiversity distribution and conservation priorities, especially in relation to threatened species. To overcome the biases identified here, scientists, funding agencies and journals must prioritise research adaptively, based on biodiversity conservation needs. Conservation depends on policy makers and practitioners for success, and scientists should actively provide those who make decisions with the knowledge that best addresses their needs.

Species' vulnerability to climate change has become a well-researched field in recent years: between 2000 and 2016, at least 743 articles reporting climate change vulnerability were published in the conservation literature. We reviewed this literature to assess the different methods used to assess vulnerability, how and whether vulnerability was formally assessed, and whether there are trends and biases in either the taxonomic group or the geographic focus of the studies. We found that mechanistic assessment methods prevailed, especially in plant-focused research. Species' exposure to climate change was considered by almost all research articles (n = 741), but other key components of vulnerability, such as sensitivity and adaptive capacity, were addressed only by a minority (n = 499 and n = 103, respectively). Plants (n = 372) were by far the most studied taxon; invertebrates (n = 138), birds (n = 70), fishes (n = 70), mammals (n = 68), and other (n = 42) were the next most studied, but an order of magnitude lower. In terms of the locations of published studies, we found a clear bias towards most-developed nations. Research that does not focus on all three vulnerability components tends to either under- or over-estimate a species' vulnerability to climate change or how they may be impacted. The identified spatial and taxonomic bias means a narrow understanding of the consequences of climate change. More resources should be directed towards the study of under-represented taxa, especially those in less developed countries, in order to gain a more holistic insight on the vulnerability of biodiversity to climate change. Keywords: Vulnerability, Climate change, Publishing bias, Conservation planning