Data mining in conservation research using Latin and vernacular species names

PeerJ

Volumn 2016, Issue 7, 2016, Pages

  Jarić, Ivan ^a,b   Courchamp, Franck ^c   Gessner, Jörn ^a   Roberts, David L ^d  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGY AND INLAND FISHERIES   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE   (Serbia)

^c CNRS   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Common name; Data mining; Internet; Latin name; Scientific name; Social network; Vernacular name

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; BIRD; CARNIVORA; DATA MINING; HUMAN; INTERNET; NOMENCLATURE; PRIMATE; PUBLICATION; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORK; SPECIES;

EID: 84981502139     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21678359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2202     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Aksnes DW, Browman HI. 2016. An overview of global research effort in fisheries science. ICES Journal of Marine Science 73(4):1004-1011 DOI 10.1093/icesjms/fsv248.
2. Arts K, Van der Wal R, Adams WM. 2015. Digital technology and the conservation of nature. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673 DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0705-1.
3. Barua M. 2010. Whose issue? Representations of human-elephant conflict in Indian and international media. Science Communication 32(1):55-75 DOI 10.1177/1075547009353177.
4. Barve V. 2014. Discovering and developing primary biodiversity data from social networking sites: a novel approach. Ecological Informatics 24:194-199 DOI 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.08.008.
5. Bhatia S, Athreya V, Grenyer R, MacDonalds DW. 2013. Understanding the role of representations of human-leopard conflict in Mumbai through media-content analysis. Conservation Biology 27(3):588-594 DOI 10.1111/cobi.12037.
6. Bombaci SP, Farr CM, Gallo HT, Mangan AM, Stinson LT, Kaushik M, Pejchar L. 2015. Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference. Conservation Biology 30(1):216-225 DOI 10.1111/cobi.12570.
7. Do Y, Kim JY, Lineman M, Kim DK, Joo GJ. 2014. Using internet search behavior to assess public awareness of protected wetlands. Conservation Biology 29(1):271-279 DOI 10.1111/cobi.12419.
8. Edwards A, Housley W, Williams M, Sloan L, Williams M. 2013. Digital social research, social media and the sociologial imagination: surrogacy, augmentation and reorientation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(3):245-260 DOI 10.1080/13645579.2013.774185.
9. Fleming PA, Bateman PW. 2016. The good, the bad, and the ugly: which Australian terrestrial mammal species attract most research? Mammal Review In Press DOI 10.1111/mam.12066.
10. Funk SM, Rusowsky D. 2014. The importance of cultural knowledge and scale for analysing internet search data as a proxy for public interest toward the environment. Biodiversity and Conservation 23:3101-3112 DOI 10.1007/s10531-014-0767-6.
11. Gorenflo LJ, Romaine S, Mittermeier RA, Walker-Painenilla K. 2012. Co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity wilderness areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(21):8032-8037 DOI 10.1073/pnas.1117511109.
12. IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4. Available at http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on December 2015).
13. Jacobson SK, Langin C, Carlton S, Kaid LL. 2012. Content analysis of newspaper coverage of the Florida panther. Conservation Biology 26(1):171-179 DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01750.x.
14. Jarić I, Knežević-Jarić J, Gessner J. 2015. Global effort allocation in marine mammal research indicates geographical, taxonomic and extinction risk related biases. Mammal Review 45:54-62 DOI 10.1111/mam.12032.
15. Kim JY, Do Y, Im RY, Kim GY, Joo GJ. 2014. Use of large web-based data to identify public interest and trends related to endangered species. Biodiversity and Conservation 23:2961-2984 DOI 10.1007/s10531-014-0757-8.
16. Lepage D. 2016. Avibase. Available at http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org (accessed on May 2016).
17. Lepage D, Vaidya G, Guralnick R. 2014. Avibase-a database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts. ZooKeys 420:117-135 DOI 10.3897/zookeys.420.7089.
18. Miller G. 2011. Social scientists wade into the tweet stream. Science 333:1814-1815 DOI 10.1126/science.333.6051.1814.
19. Muter BA, Gore ML, Gledhill KS, Lamont C, Huveneers C. 2013. Australian and US news media portrayal of sharks and their conservation. Conservation Biology 27(1):187-196 DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01952.x.
20. Naaman M, Becker H, Gravano L. 2011. Hip and trendy: characterizing emerging trends on Twitter. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(5):902-918 DOI 10.1002/asi.21489.
21. Papworth SK, Nghiem TPL, Chimalakonda D, Posa MRC, Wijedasa LS, Bickford D, Carrasco LR. 2015. Quantifying the role of online news in linking conservation research to Facebook and Twitter. Conservation Biology 29(3):825-833 DOI 10.1111/cobi.12455.
22. Proulx R, Massicotte P, Pépino M. 2014. Googling trends in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 28(1):44-51 DOI 10.1111/cobi.12131.
23. Roberge JM. 2014. Using data from online social networks in conservation science: which species engage people the most on Twitter? Biodiversity and Conservation 23:715-726 DOI 10.1007/s10531-014-0629-2.
24. Sitas N, Baillie JEM, Isaac NJB. 2009. What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action. Animal Conservation 12:231-237 DOI 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00244.x.
25. Veríssimo D, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ, Crees J, Davies ZG. 2014. Has climate change taken prominence over biodiversity conservation? BioScience 64(7):625-629 DOI 10.1093/biosci/biu079.
26. Wilson JRU, Proches Ş, Braschler B, Dixon ES, Richardson DM. 2007. The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(8):409-414 DOI 10.1890/060077.1.
27. Zmihorski M, Dziarska-Palac J, Sparks TH, Tryjanowski P. 2013. Ecological correlates of the popularity of birds and butterflies in Internet information resources. Oikos 122:183-190 DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20486.x.