ReviewCambridge prisms. Extinction2024
The diversity of ignorance and the ignorance of diversity: origins and implications of "shadow diversity" for conservation biology and extinction.
Review in Cambridge prisms. Extinction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Species Discoveries Refine Global Biodiversity Patterns.Ecology letters · 2026Article
- Integrating Megabarcoding and Metabarcoding to Unlock Diversity and Distribution Data Shortfalls in Dark Taxa.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- DNA barcoding and phylogenomics in mushrooms: current progress, challenges, and future prospects.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2026Review
- Disentangling the cave centipede Lithobius stygius species complex through molecular phylogenetics and redescription of L. stygius s. str.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Intergenerational justice, the impending sixth mass extinction, reproduction and advanced biotechnologies, and humanity's future.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodiversity shortfalls and taxonomic bias can lead to inaccurate assessment of conservation priorities. Previous literature has begun to explore practical reasons why some species are discovered sooner or are better researched than others. However, the deeper socio-cultural causes for undiscovered and neglected biodiversity, and the value of collectively analysing species at risk of unrecorded, or "dark", extinction, are yet to be fully examined. Here, we argue that a new label (we propose "shadow diversity") is needed to shift our perspective from biodiversity shortfalls to living, albeit unknown, species. We suggest this linguistic shift imparts intrinsic value to these species, beyond scientific gaze and cultural systems. We review research on undiscovered, undetected and hidden biodiversity in the fields of conservation biology, macroecology and genetics. Drawing on philosophy, geography, history and sociology, we demonstrate that a range of socio-cultural factors (funding, education and historical bias) combine with traditional, practical impediments to limit species discovery and detection. We propose using a spectrum of shadow diversity which enables a complex, non-binary and comprehensive approach to biodiversity unknowns. Shadow diversity holds exciting potential as a tool to increase awareness, appreciation and support for the conservation of traditionally less studied wildlife species and sites, from soil microbes to less charismatic habitat fragments. We advocate for a shift in how the conservation community and wider public see biodiversity and an increase in popular support for conserving a wider range of life forms. Most importantly, shadow diversity provides appropriate language and conceptual frameworks to discuss species absent from conservation assessment and at potential risk of dark extinction.
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.