ArticleBiological conservation2022
Global response of conservationists across mass media likely constrained bat persecution due to COVID-19.
Article in Biological conservation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impacts of bat use of anthropogenic structures on bats and humans.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Pooled it
- Drivers of bat researchers' intent to adopt field hygiene practices.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Perspectives and pitfalls in preserving subterranean biodiversity through protected areas.npj biodiversity · 2024Review
- The influence of spider news on online information-seeking.PloS one · 2024Article
- The iratebirds Citizen Science Project: a Dataset on Birds' Visual Aesthetic Attractiveness to Humans.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Review
- A cross-sectional survey on fruit bat-human interaction in Pakistan; one health perspective.One health outlook · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most people lack direct experience with wildlife and form their risk perception primarily on information provided by the media. The way the media frames news may substantially shape public risk perception, promoting or discouraging public tolerance towards wildlife. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, bats were suggested as the most plausible reservoir of the virus, and this became a recurrent topic in media reports, potentially strengthening a negative view of this ecologically important group. We investigated how media framed bats and bat-associated diseases before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by assessing the content of 2651 online reports published across 26 countries, to understand how and how quickly worldwide media may have affected the perception of bats. We show that the overabundance of poorly contextualized reports on bat-associated diseases likely increased the persecution towards bats immediately after the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the subsequent interventions of different conservation communication initiatives allowed pro-conservation messages to resonate across the global media, likely stemming an increase in bat persecution. Our results highlight the modus operandi of the global media regarding topical biodiversity issues, which has broad implications for species conservation. Knowing how the media acts is pivotal for anticipating the propagation of (mis)information and negative feelings towards wildlife. Working together with journalists by engaging in dialogue and exchanging experiences should be central in future conservation management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.