Beauty bias in butterfly research and conservation
Abstract
Conservation biases have been documented since the first emergence of the concept of biodiversity in the 1980s,1,2,3 showing a systematic disproportion in the allocation of research and conservation efforts among taxa.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 One factor underlying this disproportion, gaining prominence in recent literature, is species’ perceived beauty, shaped by human visual preferences.12,13,14,15,16,17 Here, we integrate a large-scale survey of the perceived beauty of European butterflies yielding >21,000 survey completions from >100 countries into a time-explicit network linking species’ beauty, public attention, research and conservation efforts, and the EU regulatory framework. We found that species beauty is consistently associated with public attention, research, and conservation efforts in a temporally structured pattern compatible with a cumulative beauty bias. Research effort and public attention concentrate on widespread and visually attractive species, whereas species included in the legal conservation framework, particularly the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (hereafter, Bern Convention, BC, 1979)18 and the EU Habitats Directive (hereafter, HD, 1992)19 are disproportionately represented by visually appealing and historically protected taxa. Because these frameworks guide funding and management actions, early associations between species beauty and BC/HD inclusion have contributed to long-lasting institutional patterns in butterfly research and conservation. By contrast, European IUCN Red Lists20,21 do not overrepresent beautiful species and identify more inconspicuous taxa as threatened. This mismatch reveals a tension between scientific assessments of extinction risk and historically embedded conservation priorities. Our findings suggest that recognizing beauty bias is vital for aligning conservation with actual ecological urgency.
Related
- Endemic but not eroded: Genomic distinctiveness and conservation genomics of the British swallowtail butterfly ( Papilio machaon britannicus )
- Climate‐Driven Distribution Modeling of the Glacial Apollo Butterfly ( Parnassius glacialis ) for Biodiversity Conservation
- Integrating conservation genetics into Philippine pangolin (Manis culionensis) research: insights and future directions
- Taxonomic Bias Persists in Ecology and Evolution Research Despite Decades of Concern
- Do we need all of this research synthesis in ecology and conservation? A highly subjective criticism of reviews and meta-analyses
BibTeX
@article{dapporto2026beauty,
title = {{Beauty bias in butterfly research and conservation}},
author = {Leonardo Dapporto and Nicolas Mouquet and Claudia Bruschini and Saad Arif and Simona Bonelli and Adele Bordoni and Federico Cappa and Guido Chelazzi and Richard Ffrench-Constant and Morgana Giannoni and Mathieu Joron and Stefanyia Kamenova and Emre Keskin and Elisabeth Kühn and David J Lohman and Kay Lucek and Eduardo Marabuto and Mattia Menchetti and Tatiana Carina Moreira-Pinhal and Gioele Moro and Germán Orizaola and Lorenzo Pasquali and Marta Skowron Volponi and Vania Salvati and Cristina González Sevilleja and Chris van Swaay and Martin Warren and Irma Wynhoff and Roger Vila and Marcin Wiorek and Li Mingrui and Charlotte J Wright and Vincenzo Zingaro and Alena Sucháčková Bartoňová and Alessandro Cini and Mariagrazia Portera},
journal = {Current Biology},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.1016/j.cub.2026.07.049},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05753073v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Beauty bias in butterfly research and conservation
AU - Leonardo Dapporto
AU - Nicolas Mouquet
AU - Claudia Bruschini
AU - Saad Arif
AU - Simona Bonelli
AU - Adele Bordoni
AU - Federico Cappa
AU - Guido Chelazzi
AU - Richard Ffrench-Constant
AU - Morgana Giannoni
AU - Mathieu Joron
AU - Stefanyia Kamenova
AU - Emre Keskin
AU - Elisabeth Kühn
AU - David J Lohman
AU - Kay Lucek
AU - Eduardo Marabuto
AU - Mattia Menchetti
AU - Tatiana Carina Moreira-Pinhal
AU - Gioele Moro
AU - Germán Orizaola
AU - Lorenzo Pasquali
AU - Marta Skowron Volponi
AU - Vania Salvati
AU - Cristina González Sevilleja
AU - Chris van Swaay
AU - Martin Warren
AU - Irma Wynhoff
AU - Roger Vila
AU - Marcin Wiorek
AU - Li Mingrui
AU - Charlotte J Wright
AU - Vincenzo Zingaro
AU - Alena Sucháčková Bartoňová
AU - Alessandro Cini
AU - Mariagrazia Portera
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/26
JO - Current Biology
DO - 10.1016/j.cub.2026.07.049
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05753073v1
AB - Conservation biases have been documented since the first emergence of the concept of biodiversity in the 1980s,1,2,3 showing a systematic disproportion in the allocation of research and conservation efforts among taxa.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 One factor underlying this disproportion, gaining prominence in recent literature, is species’ perceived beauty, shaped by human visual preferences.12,13,14,15,16,17 Here, we integrate a large-scale survey of the perceived beauty of European butterflies yielding >21,000 survey completions from >100 countries into a time-explicit network linking species’ beauty, public attention, research and conservation efforts, and the EU regulatory framework. We found that species beauty is consistently associated with public attention, research, and conservation efforts in a temporally structured pattern compatible with a cumulative beauty bias. Research effort and public attention concentrate on widespread and visually attractive species, whereas species included in the legal conservation framework, particularly the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (hereafter, Bern Convention, BC, 1979)18 and the EU Habitats Directive (hereafter, HD, 1992)19 are disproportionately represented by visually appealing and historically protected taxa. Because these frameworks guide funding and management actions, early associations between species beauty and BC/HD inclusion have contributed to long-lasting institutional patterns in butterfly research and conservation. By contrast, European IUCN Red Lists20,21 do not overrepresent beautiful species and identify more inconspicuous taxa as threatened. This mismatch reveals a tension between scientific assessments of extinction risk and historically embedded conservation priorities. Our findings suggest that recognizing beauty bias is vital for aligning conservation with actual ecological urgency.
SN - 0960-9822
SN - 1879-0445
ER -