Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35603331›Full record

ArticleBiological conservation2022

Global response of conservationists across mass media likely constrained bat persecution due to COVID-19.

Veronica Nanni, Stefano Mammola, Nuria Macías-Hernández, Alessia Castrogiovanni, Ana L Salgado, Enrico Lunghi, Gentile Francesco Ficetola, Corrado Modica, Riccardo Alba, Maria Michela Spiriti and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impacts of bat use of anthropogenic structures on bats and humans.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Drivers of bat researchers' intent to adopt field hygiene practices.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Veronica NanniSchool for Advanced Studies IUSS, Science, Technology and Society Department, 25100 Pavia, Italy.
Stefano MammolaLaboratory for Integrative Biodiversity Research (LIBRe), Finnish Museum of Natural History (LUOMUS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Nuria Macías-HernándezLaboratory for Integrative Biodiversity Research (LIBRe), Finnish Museum of Natural History (LUOMUS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Alessia CastrogiovanniDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Cleoria, 10, 20133 Milano, Italy.
Ana L SalgadoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
Enrico LunghiDivision of Molecular Biology, Ruđer Bošković Institute, Bijenicka cesta 54, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
Gentile Francesco FicetolaDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Cleoria, 10, 20133 Milano, Italy.
Corrado ModicaFaunico office of species protection, Leanderstraße 16, 54295 Trier, Germany.
Riccardo AlbaDept. of Life Science and Systems Biology, University of Torino, Via Accademia Albertina, 13, 10123 Torino, Italy.
Maria Michela SpiritiDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy.
Susanne HoltzeDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
Érica Munhoz de MelloUrban Bats Laboratory, Zoonoses Control Center of Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Barbara De MoriDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy.
Pierfrancesco BiasettiDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
Dan ChamberlainDept. of Life Science and Systems Biology, University of Torino, Via Accademia Albertina, 13, 10123 Torino, Italy.
Raoul ManentiDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Cleoria, 10, 20133 Milano, Italy.
University of Milan · ITAccademia Albertina delle Belle Arti · ITLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research · DEUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Padua · ITIstituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia · ITLouisiana State University · USRuđer Bošković Institute · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BatsCommunicationConservationMass mediaRisk perceptionSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35603331
PMCPMC9110911
OpenAlexW4280489244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.