ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
How much biotic nativeness matters across human demographic groups.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. 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.
- How much biotic nativeness matters across human demographic groups.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Many central concepts of conservation biology-such as nativeness-are structured by ecological and social factors. However, the social consequences of using these concepts to make conservation decisions remain inadequately understood. Some researchers argue that nativeness, rather than acting as an objective proxy for important ecological relationships, may instead mask social and cultural values about which species belong in a given ecosystem. Yet, even as many non-native species decline, experts often prioritize the conservation of native species. We assessed the perceptions of people (n = 600) in Metro Vancouver, Canada, regarding local declines of native and non-native birds. We measured ecological grief (feelings of loss associated with ecological changes) and loss of cultural ecosystem service (nonmaterial benefits people derive from relationships with nature) associated with documented declines in 2 native and 2 non-native birds. We measured variations in perceptions across differences in nature experiences and sociodemographics. We used a 2-treatment experimental design in which we informed only half the participants about species' nativeness. Perceptions of loss differed among respondents based on their familiarity with birds, experiences with birds, and the native status of the bird. However, the effect of nativeness on feelings of loss was not moderated by ecological knowledge, whether a respondent was an urbanite, or experiences with birds. Instead, race was the strongest moderator of the effect of nativeness on feelings of loss. Only White people reported greater grief for declines in native species than non-native species, even when accounting for education, income, and other variables. Although native status may often be a useful heuristic for inference, relying on it for conservation decision-making may have unintended sociodemographic and equity consequences. Our results also demonstrate how pairing ecological grief and cultural ecosystem service questions with documented ecological declines can elucidate human-nature relationships, such as those between people and non-native birds.
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.