ArticlePloS one2022
Mismatch between media coverage and research on invasive species: The case of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Argentina.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Misrepresentation of invasive species in the mass media with images of unrelated organisms.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive species are a pervasive driver of global change with increasing media coverage. Media coverage and framing can influence both invasive species management and policies, as well as shed light on research needs. Using the wild boar (Sus scrofa) invasion in Argentina as a case study, we conducted a content analysis of media coverage and scientific articles. Specifically, we compared news and scientific articles based on their emphasis: ecological, economic, and health impacts and the overall perception portrayed in the news: "positive" when the articles emphasized benefits from wild boar and "negative" when focused on damage and/or loss. A literature search using Google news, Web of Science, Scielo, and Google Scholar yielded a total of 194 news articles and 37 research papers on wild boar in Argentina. More than half of the news articles focused on economic impacts of wild boar (56%) such as sport hunting, illegal hunting, and road accidents; while 27% focused on ecological impacts, and 10% on health impacts. In contrast, the majority of the scientific articles (65%) focused on ecological impacts of wild boar on native species and ecosystems; while 21% were related to health impacts and only 8.3% of scientific articles were related to economic impacts. This mismatch between media and science reveals a disconnection between social and scientific interests in wild boar and their management in Argentina, and it provides insights to research needs and prevention of management conflicts. Additionally, we found that 66.8% of news articles focused on "negative" aspects of wild boar, while 33.2% of news articles portrayed "positive" perceptions. This finding is very important because the management of invasive species such as wild boar usually requires lethal techniques, and the success of the programs depend on favorable social and political support. Good science communication is therefore key to helping scientists and managers perform more effective management actions.
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.