The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation
Abstract
To ensure the effective conservation of biodiversity the distribution of species needs to be accurately characterized and areas of high species richness located. For many taxa this can be achieved only by experienced taxonomists. Taxonomic research has a large input from non‐professional or amateur researchers, in addition to professionals working at museums or universities. The decline of taxonomy and the number of taxonomists within the professional community has been widely publicized, but the trends in the activities of amateur taxonomists are unclear. Because amateurs contribute many valuable records of species occurrence this may have a disproportionate impact upon the information available for conservation planning and represents an underappreciated threat to conservation planning. We use taxonomic research by UK entomologists in order to evaluate the changing role of both amateur and professional taxonomists. We reviewed contributions by British‐based authors to Entomologist's Monthly Magazine over the past century. Our results show that both amateur and professional taxonomy have undergone a long and persistent decline since the 1950s, in terms of both the number of contributors and the number of papers contributed. It is argued that the conservation community needs to help try and reverse the decline of taxonomy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change
Warren, M. S., Hill, J. K., Thomas, J. A., Asher, J., Fox, R., Huntley, B., Roy, D. B., Telfer, M. G., Jeffcoate, S., Harding, P., et al. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35102054 · Cited by 1,333
Cited by
Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity
Thomsen, P. F., & Willerslev, E. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019 · Cited by 2,082
The role of taxonomy in species conservation
Mace, G. M. (2004) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1454 · Cited by 955
Elbrecht, V., & Leese, F. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130324 · Cited by 765
Digitization and the Future of Natural History Collections
Hedrick, B. P., Heberling, J. M., Meineke, E. K., Turner, K. G., Grassa, C. J., Park, D. S., Kennedy, J., Clarke, J. A., Cook, J. A., Blackburn, D. C., et al. (2020) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biz163 · Cited by 306
Molecular diversity of Uzbekistan’s fishes assessed with DNA barcoding
Sheraliev, B., & Peng, Z. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-96487-1 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Hopkins, G. W., & Freckleton, R. P.
- Venue
- Animal Conservation
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 245-249
- ISSN
- 1367-9430 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1795
- OpenAlex
- W2152854843
- Cited by
- 384
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1367943002002299
- The paper
- Hopkins, G. W., & Freckleton, R. P. (2002). Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1367943002002299
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.