Evaluating conservation biology texts for bias in biodiversity representation

there was slight overrepresentation of species within the orders Anseriformes (waterfowl), Fal- coniformes (raptors), Gruiformes (cranes and rails), and Galliformes (gallinaceous birds; [5]). Taxonomic bias in conservation funding also favors birds and mammals over less charis- matic groups [1]. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the level of conservation research and the extinction risk of taxonomic groups are often inversely related [6]. Conservation proj- ects, such as species reintroductions, focus more on charismatic fauna than other groups, with much higher numbers of vertebrate than invertebrate reintroductions [5]. In fact, species selec- tion for reintroduction is based more on funding and societal support than global conservation status [5]. Recently, an analysis of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) examin- ing taxonomic biases found that some groups were grossly under-represented, with just over a third (35% and 36%, respectively) of the known insect and arachnid species being mentioned at least once in the database [7]. In fact, more than half of all occurrences in the database were for birds [7]. Taxonomic bias also exists in holdings that are available in university libraries. For example, birds and mammals were over-represented in holdings while reptiles and amphibians were under-represented [8]. As Hecnar points out, these biases can lead to an incomplete under- standing of the biosphere and misunderstandings pertaining to biological principles and their

generalizability. Such biases can also lead to misunderstandings regarding the importance and diversity of various taxa and can limit a student’s ability to learn about less well-represented taxa. Taxonomic bias is not the only type of bias present in conservation science. Bias also exists among the geographic areas in which conservation research, funding, and actions occur. For example, most (>90%) protected area conservation funding comes from and is spent in the world’s richest countries [9], while areas that hold the greatest biodiversity are also the least financially able to fund research and conservation [10]. The types of systems in which conser- vation science is conducted may also exhibit bias. Terrestrial systems accounted for 74% of studies retrieved in a publication comparing the way in which ecologists of terrestrial and aquatic systems analyze biodiversity [11]. Understanding whether or not bias exists in conservation biology textbooks is critical, as misrepresentation in literature contributes to the cycle of a species being under-funded, under-studied, and relatively unknown by future generations of conservation scientists. Given the preponderance of taxonomic bias in research and the media, our overarching goal was to evaluate whether or not conservation science is presenting a more balanced representation of taxa in its disciplinary textbooks. Given that conservation research is biased towards certain taxonomic groups, we predicted that conservation biology textbooks would reflect similar

biases, such as an overrepresentation of birds and mammals. We also sought to evaluate if con- servation science is representing other forms of biodiversity, such as genetic and ecosystem diversity. We were interested in whether the representation of geographic areas and their asso- ciated ecosystems was adequately represented, given the uneven coverage of areas in scientific publications, conservation funding, and conservation research. Methods To determine if bias exists in conservation biology textbooks, we searched the literature for all current or recent (past 15 years) textbooks. We only considered general conservation biology textbooks and not region or taxonomic specific books. Based on these criteria we found seven textbooks as follows: Conservation Biology for All [12]; Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 [13]; A Primer of Conservation Biology, 5th edition [14]; An Introduction to Conservation Biol- ogy [15]; Fundamentals of Conservation Biology, 3rd edition [16]; Conservation Science, PLOS ONE Bias in conservation biology textbooks PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234877 July 10, 2020 2 / 11