Scientific knowledge of species and the ecosystems they inhabit is the cornerstone of modern conservation. However, research effort is not spread evenly among taxa (taxonomic bias), which may constrain capacity to identify conservation risk and to implement effective responses. Addressing such biases requires an understanding of factors that promote or constrain the use of a particular species in research projects. To this end, we quantified conservation science knowledge of the world’s extant non‐marine mammal species (n = 4108) based on the number of published documents in journals indexed on Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science™. We use an innovative hurdle model approach to assess the relative importance of several ecological, biogeographical and cultural factors for explaining variation in research production between species. The most important variable explaining the presence/absence of conservation research was scientific capacity of countries within the range of the species, followed by body mass and years since the taxonomic description. Research volume (more than one document) was strongly associated with number of years since the data describing on that species, followed by scientific capacity within the range of species, high body mass and invasiveness. The threat status was weakly associated to explain the presence/absence and research volume in conservation research. These results can be interpreted as a consequence of the dynamic interplay between the perceived need for conservation research about a species and its appropriateness as a target of research. As anticipated, the scientific capacity of the countries where a species is found is a strong driver of conservation research bias, reflecting the high variation in conservation research funding and human resources between countries. Our study suggests that this bias could be most effectively reduced by a combination of investing in pioneering research, targeted funding and supporting research in countries with low scientific capacity and high biodiversity.

中文翻译：

---

保护性研究中分类学偏见的驱动因素：陆生哺乳动物的全球分析

有关物种及其栖息的生态系统的科学知识是现代保护的基石。但是，研究工作并未在分类单元（分类偏向）之间平均分配，这可能会限制识别保护风险和实施有效应对的能力。解决此类偏见需要了解促进或限制研究项目中特定物种使用的因素。为此，我们 根据在Clarivate Analytics的Web of Science上索引的期刊中已发表文件的数量，对世界上现有的非海洋哺乳动物物种（n = 4108）的保护科学知识进行了量化。™。我们使用创新的障碍模型方法来评估几种生态，生物地理和文化因素的相对重要性，以解释物种之间研究成果的差异。解释保护研究存在与否的最重要变量是物种范围内的国家的科学能力，其次是体重和自分类学描述以来的年限。自从描述该物种的数据以来，研究量（一份以上的文献）与年限密切相关，其次是物种，高体重和入侵性范围内的科学能力。威胁状态之间的联系较弱，无法解释保护研究的存在与否以及研究量。这些结果可以解释为对物种保护研究的感知需求与其作为研究目标的适当性之间动态相互作用的结果。正如预期的那样，发现某个物种的国家的科学能力是保护研究偏见的强大驱动力，反映了国家之间在保护研究经费和人力资源上的巨大差异。我们的研究表明，可以通过在具有低科学能力和高生物多样性的国家投资开拓性研究，有针对性的资助和支持研究来最有效地减少这种偏见。发现物种的国家的科学能力是保护研究偏见的强大驱动力，反映了国家之间在保护研究资金和人力资源上的巨大差异。我们的研究表明，可以通过在具有低科学能力和高生物多样性的国家投资开拓性研究，有针对性的资助和支持研究来最有效地减少这种偏见。发现物种的国家的科学能力是保护研究偏见的强大驱动力，反映了国家之间在保护研究资金和人力资源上的巨大差异。我们的研究表明，可以通过在具有低科学能力和高生物多样性的国家投资开拓性研究，有针对性的资助和支持研究来最有效地减少这种偏见。