| Literature DB >> 26966663 |
Ricardo A Correia1, Paul R Jepson2, Ana C M Malhado3, Richard J Ladle1.
Abstract
Understanding public perceptions of biodiversity is essential to ensure continued support for conservation efforts. Despite this, insights remain scarce at broader spatial scales, mostly due to a lack of adequate methods for their assessment. The emergence of new technologies with global reach and high levels of participation provide exciting new opportunities to study the public visibility of biodiversity and the factors that drive it. Here, we use a measure of internet saliency to assess the national and international visibility of species within four taxa of Brazilian birds (toucans, hummingbirds, parrots and woodpeckers), and evaluate how much of this visibility can be explained by factors associated with familiarity, aesthetic appeal and conservation interest. Our results strongly indicate that familiarity (human population within the range of a species) is the most important factor driving internet saliency within Brazil, while aesthetic appeal (body size) best explains variation in international saliency. Endemism and conservation status of a species had small, but often negative, effects on either metric of internet saliency. While further studies are needed to evaluate the relationship between internet content and the cultural visibility of different species, our results strongly indicate that internet saliency can be considered as a broad proxy of cultural interest.Entities:
Keywords: Biodiversity; Birds; Conservation; Culturalness; Culturomics; Internet salience; Public perception
Year: 2016 PMID: 26966663 PMCID: PMC4782728 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1728
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Distribution of the log-transformed number of Brazilian and international webpages mentioning species in each of the studied bird taxon.
Horizontal lines indicate median values, upper and lower box hinges represent first and third quartiles, whiskers extend to 1.5 times the inter-quartile range, and dots represent values outside this range.
The five most represented species for each study taxon (hummingbirds, parrots, toucans, woodpeckers) on Brazilian and international webpages.
| Bird group | Rank | Brazilian webpages | International webpages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hummingbirds | 1 | Swallow-tailed hummingbird ( | White-necked jacobin ( |
| 2 | Racket-tailed coquette ( | White-throated hummingbird ( | |
| 3 | Gilded sapphire ( | Tufted coquette ( | |
| 4 | White-throated hummingbird ( | Black-throated mango ( | |
| 5 | Black jacobin ( | Swallow-tailed hummingbird ( | |
| Toucans | 1 | Toco toucan ( | Toco toucan ( |
| 2 | Channel-billed toucan ( | Channel-billed toucan ( | |
| 3 | Green-billed toucan ( | Chestnut-eared aracari ( | |
| 4 | Saffron toucanet ( | Saffron toucanet ( | |
| 5 | Chestnut-eared aracari ( | Green aracari ( | |
| Parrots | 1 | Golden parakeet ( | Scarlet macaw ( |
| 2 | Blue-and-yellow macaw ( | Hyacinth macaw ( | |
| 3 | Blue-winged parrotlet ( | Blue-and-yellow macaw ( | |
| 4 | Blue-fronted amazon ( | Monk parakeet ( | |
| 5 | Red-spectacled amazon ( | Spix’s macaw ( | |
| Woodpeckers | 1 | Cream-colored woodpecker ( | Lineated woodpecker ( |
| 2 | Campo flicker ( | White woodpecker ( | |
| 3 | Lineated woodpecker ( | Golden-olive woodpecker ( | |
| 4 | Blond-creasted woodpecker ( | Crimson-crested woodpecker ( | |
| 5 | Green-barred woodpecker ( | Campo flicker ( |
Ranked set of best candidate models of Brazilian internet salience.
| Group | Rank | Explanatory variables | AICc | ΔAICc | ωAICc | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAN | POP | ANT | SIZ | EDM | EDG | |||||
| Hummingbirds | 1 | X | X | X | 73.83 | 0 | 0.107 | |||
| 2 | X | X | 73.93 | 0.10 | 0.102 | |||||
| 3 | X | X | X | 74.17 | 0.34 | 0.090 | ||||
| 4 | X | X | X | X | 74.25 | 0.42 | 0.087 | |||
| 5 | X | X | X | 74.99 | 1.16 | 0.060 | ||||
| 6 | X | X | X | X | 75.13 | 1.31 | 0.056 | |||
| 7 | X | X | X | X | 75.25 | 1.43 | 0.052 | |||
| Toucans | 1 | X | X | 9.74 | 0 | 0.294 | ||||
| 2 | X | X | X | 10.89 | 1.16 | 0.165 | ||||
| 3 | X | X | X | 11.71 | 1.97 | 0.110 | ||||
| 4 | X | X | 12.14 | 2.40 | 0.088 | |||||
| 5 | X | X | X | 13.01 | 3.28 | 0.057 | ||||
| 6 | X | X | X | 13.18 | 3.44 | 0.053 | ||||
| Parrots | 1 | X | X | X | 144.25 | 0 | 0.315 | |||
| 2 | X | X | X | X | 145.90 | 1.65 | 0.138 | |||
| 3 | X | X | X | X | 146.11 | 1.85 | 0.125 | |||
| 4 | X | X | X | X | 146.33 | 2.08 | 0.111 | |||
| 5 | X | X | X | X | X | 147.65 | 3.40 | 0.058 | ||
| Woodpeckers | 1 | X | X | X | 67.61 | 0 | 0.213 | |||
| 2 | X | X | X | X | 69.16 | 1.55 | 0.098 | |||
| 3 | X | X | 69.28 | 1.66 | 0.093 | |||||
| 4 | X | X | X | 69.34 | 1.72 | 0.090 | ||||
| 5 | X | X | X | X | 69.38 | 1.77 | 0.088 | |||
| 6 | X | X | X | X | 70.15 | 2.54 | 0.060 | |||
| 7 | X | X | X | 70.22 | 2.60 | 0.058 | ||||
| All groups | 1 | X | X | X | X | 310.30 | 0 | 0.382 | ||
| 2 | X | X | X | X | X | 310.97 | 0.67 | 0.274 | ||
| 3 | X | X | X | X | X | 312.08 | 1.78 | 0.157 | ||
| 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | 312.71 | 2.41 | 0.115 | |
Note:
Models are ranked by order of lowest AICc score and only models with a weight over 0.05 were considered. Rank, explanatory variables, AICc score, delta AICc relative to the model with lowest AICc score and Akaike weights are given for each individual model.
Ranked set of best candidate models of international internet salience.
| Group | Rank | Explanatory variables | AICc | ΔAICc | ωAICc | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAN | POP | ANT | SIZ | EDM | EDG | |||||
| Hummingbirds | 1 | X | X | 1.04 | 0 | 0.080 | ||||
| 2 | X | 1.12 | 0.07 | 0.077 | ||||||
| 3 | X | X | X | 1.28 | 0.24 | 0.071 | ||||
| 4 | X | X | X | 1.96 | 0.91 | 0.051 | ||||
| Toucans | 1 | X | 15.58 | 0 | 0.206 | |||||
| 2 | X | X | 15.99 | 0.41 | 0.168 | |||||
| 3 | X | X | 16.73 | 1.14 | 0.116 | |||||
| 4 | X | X | X | 17.96 | 2.38 | 0.063 | ||||
| 5 | X | X | 18.08 | 2.50 | 0.059 | |||||
| Parrots | 1 | X | X | X | X | 127.39 | 0 | 0.123 | ||
| 2 | X | X | X | 127.55 | 0.16 | 0.114 | ||||
| 3 | X | X | X | 127.94 | 0.56 | 0.093 | ||||
| 4 | X | X | X | 128.02 | 0.63 | 0.090 | ||||
| 5 | X | X | X | X | 128.88 | 1.49 | 0.058 | |||
| Woodpeckers | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | −30.50 | 0 | 0.157 | |
| 2 | X | X | X | X | −30.24 | 0.27 | 0.137 | |||
| 3 | X | X | X | X | −29.63 | 0.87 | 0.101 | |||
| 4 | X | X | X | X | −29.47 | 1.03 | 0.094 | |||
| 5 | X | X | X | −28.43 | 2.07 | 0.056 | ||||
| All groups | 1 | X | X | X | X | 190.17 | 0 | 0.373 | ||
| 2 | X | X | X | X | X | 191.41 | 1.24 | 0.201 | ||
| 3 | X | X | X | X | X | 192.29 | 2.11 | 0.130 | ||
| 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | 193.53 | 3.35 | 0.070 | |
Note:
Models are ranked by order of lowest AICc score and only models with a weight over 0.05 were considered. Rank, explanatory variables, AICc score, delta AICc relative to the model with lowest AICc score and Akaike weights are given for each individual model.
Summary outputs of Brazilian and international internet saliency model averages.
| Group | Predictor | Brazil internet saliency | International internet saliency | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | SE | ωAICc | Estimate | SE | ωAICc | ||
| Hummingbirds | Intercept | 0.98 | 0.06 | – | 2.72 | 0.03 | – |
| RAN | −0.03 | 0.05 | 0.36 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 1.00 | |
| POP | 0.43 | 0.06 | 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.72 | |
| ANT | 0.25 | 0.11 | 1.00 | – | – | – | |
| SIZ | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.18 | |
| EDM | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.45 | −0.03 | 0.06 | 0.25 | |
| EDG | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Toucans | Intercept | 1.02 | 0.10 | – | 2.79 | 0.08 | – |
| RAN | <0.01 | 0.03 | 0.07 | – | – | – | |
| POP | 0.46 | 0.07 | 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.38 | |
| ANT | 0.11 | 0.20 | 0.33 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.10 | |
| SIZ | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.88 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 1.00 | |
| EDM | −0.04 | 0.15 | 0.14 | – | – | – | |
| EDG | <0.01 | 0.05 | 0.07 | −0.08 | 0.17 | 0.29 | |
| Parrots | Intercept | 1.08 | 0.08 | – | 2.87 | 0.09 | – |
| RAN | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.58 | |
| POP | 0.42 | 0.07 | 1.00 | <0.01 | 0.03 | 0.47 | |
| ANT | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.56 | |
| SIZ | 0.37 | 0.06 | 1.00 | 0.26 | 0.06 | 1.00 | |
| EDM | 0.34 | 0.14 | 1.00 | −0.20 | 0.15 | 0.60 | |
| EDG | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.24 | – | – | – | |
| Woodpeckers | Intercept | 0.97 | 0.09 | – | 2.73 | 0.04 | – |
| RAN | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.81 | |
| POP | 0.37 | 0.08 | 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.65 | |
| ANT | 0.36 | 0.14 | 1.00 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.73 | |
| SIZ | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.66 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 1.00 | |
| EDM | −0.04 | 0.12 | 0.22 | −0.19 | 0.04 | 1.00 | |
| EDG | <−0.01 | 0.07 | 0.09 | – | – | – | |
| All groups | Intercept | 1.00 | 0.04 | – | 2.76 | 0.03 | – |
| RAN | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 1.00 | |
| POP | 0.41 | 0.03 | 1.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.35 | |
| ANT | 0.24 | 0.07 | 1.00 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 1.00 | |
| SIZ | 0.22 | 0.03 | 1.00 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 1.00 | |
| EDM | 0.23 | 0.08 | 1.00 | −0.16 | 0.06 | 1.00 | |
| EDG | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.42 | <−0.01 | 0.04 | 0.26 | |
Note:
Average parameter estimates and Akaike’s weights (ωAICc) of Brazilian and international internet saliency models. Model averaging was carried out including only models with Akaike’s weight scores over 0.05.