Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others.

Abstract

As the number of known and described parasite species grows every year, one might ask: how much do we actually know about these species beyond the fact they exist? For free-living taxa, research effort is biased toward a small subset of species based on their properties or human-centric factors. Here, using a large data set on over 2500 helminth parasite species described in the past two decades, we test the importance of several predictors on two measures of research effort: the number of times a species description is cited following its publication, and the number of times a species' name is mentioned in the scientific literature. Our analysis highlights some taxonomic biases: for instance, descriptions of acanthocephalans and nematodes tend to receive more citations than those of other helminths, and species of cestodes are less frequently mentioned in the literature than other helminths. We also found that helminths infecting host species of conservation concern receive less research attention, perhaps because of the constraints associated with research on threatened animals, while those infecting host species of human use receive greater research effort. Intriguingly, we found that species originally described by many co-authors subsequently attract more research effort than those described by one or few authors, and that research effort correlates negatively with the human population size of the country where a species was discovered, but not with its economic strength, measured by its gross domestic product. Overall, our findings reveal that we have conducted very little research, or none at all, on the majority of helminth parasite species following their discovery. The biases in study effort we identify have serious implications for future research into parasite biodiversity and conservation.