| Literature DB >> 31022258 |
Marcos Aurélio de Amorim Gomes1, Tatiel Venâncio Gonçalves1, Fabrício Barreto Teresa1, Hélida Ferreira da Cunha1, Flávia Pereira Lima1,2, João Carlos Nabout1.
Abstract
The ability of high school students to know endangered species can vary among species (e.g., large body size can influence people's interest) or among municipalities (e.g., more contact with biodiversity can influence people's interest). Thus, in the present paper, we evaluated high school students' knowledge about the endangered and non-endangered mammalian species of the Brazilian Cerrado. We tested whether the recognition of the endangered and non-endangered species varied in a cross-species analysis (twelve total species) according to species characteristics, such as body size, popularity, endangered status and the length of time of inclusion on the endangered species list. Moreover, we tested whether the recognition of the endangered mammal species varied between municipalities (spatial analysis). We interviewed 366 students in their first year of high school in 21 schools (one in each municipality). Our results indicated that the proportion of correctly identified endangered species varied according to species (cross-species). The endangered species that were most often correctly identified were Myrmecophaga tridactyla (known by its popular name, Tamanduá-bandeira, in Brazil), Priodontes maximus (Tatu canastra) and Panthera onca (onça-pintada), with more than 80% correct answers. Thus, students tended to recognize the more popular species and the endangered species more than the non-endangered species. The analysis of student knowledge according to municipality demonstrated that the students' ability to recognize endangered species followed a spatial pattern. Finally, the cross-species and spatial variation patterns detected in the present study indicated the importance of formal education in increasing high school students' knowledge about endangered species and suggested that education should also promote less well-known species, species with smaller body sizes, and other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates and consider local and regional biodiversity whenever possible.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31022258 PMCID: PMC6483199 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The proportion of student answers correctly identifying the endangered species in 21 public high schools.
Models generated to explain the variation in the number of correct answers according to species.
Each model shows the determinant coefficient (R2), the Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) score, the difference in the AIC score from that of the best model (ΔAIC), and the AIC weights (AIC Wi). The variables used were body size (BS), popularity (Pop), length of time of inclusion on the Red List (Time), and endangered status (End). See details in the Materials and Methods.
| Models | R2 | AIC | Delta AIC | AIC wi |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pop, End | 0.615 | -42.527 | 0 | 0.315 |
| Pop, Time, End | 0.649 | -41.531 | 0.996 | 0.191 |
| Pop | 0.544 | -41.41 | 1.117 | 0.18 |
| Pop, Time | 0.578 | -40.369 | 2.158 | 0.107 |
| BS, Pop, End | 0.617 | -39.421 | 3.106 | 0.067 |
| BS,Pop | 0.558 | -39.235 | 3.292 | 0.061 |
| BS, Pop, Time, End | 0.649 | -37.96 | 4.567 | 0.032 |
| BS, Pop, Time | 0.584 | -37.483 | 5.044 | 0.025 |
| BS | 0.426 | -35.889 | 6.638 | 0.011 |
| BS, End | 0.456 | -34.264 | 8.263 | 0.005 |
| BS, Time | 0.441 | -33.619 | 8.908 | 0.004 |
| BS, Time, End | 0.468 | -31.562 | 10.964 | 0.001 |
| End | 0.101 | -25.104 | 17.422 | <0.001 |
| Time | 0.072 | -24.351 | 18.176 | <0.001 |
| Time, End | 0.108 | -22.386 | 20.141 | <0.001 |
The importance and standardized angular coefficient (std. coeff.) of each predictor used in the model selection (see Table 1).
The variables used were body size (BS), popularity (Pop), length of time of inclusion on the Red List (Time), and endangered status (End, dummy variables, where 0 indicated a non-endangered species and 1 indicated an endangered species). See details in the Materials and Methods.
| Variables | Importance | Std. Coeff |
|---|---|---|
| BS | 0.206 | 0.168 |
| Pop | 0.978 | 0.712 |
| Time | 0.361 | -0.265 |
| End | 0.612 | 0.447 |
Fig 2The Mantel correlogram indicated the spatial structure of the percentage of correctly identified endangered species (Danswer) along the geographical distance.
The x-axis indicates the geographic distance class (in km), and the y-axis indicates the r of the Mantel test. The open circle indicates significant values of r (p<0.005).
The multiple regression on the distance matrices (MRM) indicated the standardized coefficient and P-value of each matrix predictor.
The response matrix was the percentage of correct answers among the municipalities (Danswer).
| Matrices | Standardized coeff | |
|---|---|---|
| Local Socio_Economic ( | -0.02 | 0.39 |
| Self-reported Recognition ( | 0.11 | 0.04 |
| Local Environmental Characteristics ( | -0.01 | 0.43 |
| School ( | -0.03 | 0.9 |