Biases in wildlife and conservation research, using felids and canids as a case study

With limited funds available for research and conservation, resources should primarily be focussed on taxa that need it the most. Although some consider all species equal, others argue that research prioritization should depend on a species' role in the ecosystem, taxonomic uniqueness, limited geographic range, or high risk of extinction. This study aimed to quantitatively compare scientific output to species characteristics in order to assess potential bias in research and conservation prioritization. The Felidae and Canidae families were used as case studies, and all peer-reviewed articles that were published between 2013 and 2017 were included. Articles were divided into topics, and research output was compared to species' body size, conservation status, keystone effect, geographic range, and evolutionary distinctiveness. Research allocation varied greatly among species, from zero to 579 publications. Overall, the best predictors for research allocation were body size and keystone effect. No significant correlation was found between research output and the conservation status, geographic range size and evolutionary distinctiveness of species. The average number of publications was the same for felid and canid species (N = 60), yet a notable difference was that studies on felids mainly focussed on conservation and wildlife management, whereas canid studies most often involved diseases and other health issues. This study affirms that research effort are not yet focussed on species that need it the most. An attempt should be made to allocate research funds towards species that are understudied, endangered, and taxonomically unique, or have a small geographic range.