TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 07 March 2024

DOI 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

Bibliometric analysis of studies

OPEN ACCESS on threat assessment and
EDITED BY
Gopal Shukla,
Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, India
prioritization of species for
REVIEWED BY
Amit Kumar,
conservation
Nanjing University of Information Science
and Technology, China
Muhammad Waheed,
Zishan Ahmad Wani1*, Shreekar Pant2 , Jahangeer A. Bhat3 ,
University of Okara, Pakistan Mohd Tariq4 , Sazada Siddiqui5 and Mohammed O. Alshaharni5
*CORRESPONDENCE 1
Conservation Ecology Lab, Department of Botany, Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, Rajouri,
Zishan Ahmad Wani
India, 2 Centre for Biodiversity Studies, Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, Rajouri, India, 3 Piramal
zishanwani786@gmail.com
Foundation for Education Leadership (State Transformation Program), Jammu and Kashmir, India,
4
Department of Life Sciences, Parul Institute of Applied Sciences, Parul University, Vadodara, Gujarat,
RECEIVED 21January 2024 India, 5 Department of Biology, College of Science, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
ACCEPTED 19 February 2024
PUBLISHED 07 March 2024

CITATION
Wani ZA, Pant S, Bhat JA, Tariq M, Siddiqui S The present study investigated the evolution and current situation of research on
and Alshaharni MO (2024) Bibliometric
analysis of studies on threat assessment threat assessment and prioritization of species for conservation at a global level
and prioritization of species by analyzing bibliometrically the most relevant and productive authors, sources,
for conservation.
Front. For. Glob. Change 7:1374120. and countries, most cited papers, country collaborations and most frequent
doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120 keywords as reflected in the scientific literature using the Web of Science
COPYRIGHT database. From 1989–2022, a total of 315 relevant documents were retrieved
© 2024 Wani, Pant, Bhat, Tariq, Siddiqui and
from 129 sources. Results revealed that since 1989, there has been an increase
Alshaharni. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative in the number of publications on threat assessment and prioritization of species
Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The for conservation. A total of 1,300 authors have contributed to the field through
use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original their research contributions. Among the 129 sources, the journals ‘Biodiversity
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are and Conservation’ and ‘Biological Conservation’ are the most relevant and
credited and that the original publication in
this journal is cited, in accordance with productive. Among countries, the USA has produced the highest number of
accepted academic practice. No use, publications, whereas Benin has the highest Multiple Country Production with
distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms.
a rate of 71.4%. Among the authors, ‘Keith DA’ has received the most citations,
and among the sources, the journal ‘Biological Conservation’ received the
highest number of citations. Conservation, biodiversity, conservation priorities,
species richness, and threatened species are the most frequently used keywords
and follow power-law distribution. The present study will be useful to the
researchers in determining which journals to target and how to identify potential
research partners in the concerned field. It is recommended that institutions in
developed countries be encouraged to lead research programs in developing
and underdeveloped countries so that such studies will be carried out at local,
regional, and global scale, as biodiversity loss is a global issue.

KEYWORDS

bibliometric, threat assessment, prioritization, conservation, biological conservation

Introduction
Detailed information on different parameters of biodiversity is vital for ecological
stability and balance (Mehta et al., 2020; Wani and Pant, 2023). However, biodiversity at
a global level has been undergoing a critical phase owing to various drivers threatening
the survival of species (Tilman et al., 2017; Ripple et al., 2019; Nic Lughadha et al., 2020;

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 01 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

Pouteau et al., 2022). A driver is any natural or anthropogenic have been carried out with great effort, offering comprehensive
factor that directly or indirectly causes an alteration in an ecosystem insights for global protection in the future. However, nations must
and may threaten biodiversity by increasing extinction probabilities decide which species to target for conservation and what national
(Chase et al., 2020; Ngodhe, 2021). A direct driver has an priorities should be set for expanding protected areas if they are
unambiguous impact on ecosystem processes, while an indirect to make significant progress toward accomplishing sustainable
driver has a more diffused impact by fluctuating one or more development goals. However, lack of sufficient funding and rapid
direct drivers (Branquinho et al., 2019). The primary goal of biodiversity loss make such programs difficult for the researchers
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United especially in the developing and underdeveloped countries.
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) is to reduce or Thus, such nations should be the hotspots for these studies and
control global biodiversity loss and increasing species extinctions; sufficient funding should be allocated to these countries. Further,
however, success to date has been considerably inadequate (Dad researchers in such countries should identify possible collaborator
and Rashid, 2022). During the 20th century, the earth lost 50% institutions and countries for their research projects on biodiversity
of its wetlands and 40% of its forests, and around 60% of global conservation.
ecosystem services were halted (Mehta et al., 2020), with a loss Bibliometric analysis studies have played a significant role
of 137 species per day during the later decades of the century in science and technology management and decision-making
(Moram et al., 2011). Species extinction at such a rapid rate is (Aleixandre-Benavent et al., 2018). Such studies are receiving
considered 1,000–10,000 times than the natural extinctions in the considerable attention, as they provide valuable information on
past (Hilton-Taylor, 2000). Thus, understanding the distribution scientific research and its progression in a specific field of study
and composition of species assemblages and their prediction in (Aleixandre-Benavent et al., 2018). Several papers have been
space and time are extremely imperative errands to look into published employing bibliometric analysis techniques to evaluate
the providence of biodiversity from the perspective of current a particular subject area or topic of research at qualitative and
global change (Bhat et al., 2020; Rawat et al., 2021; Thakur quantitative level: Tsunami research (Chiu and Ho, 2007; Jain
et al., 2021). In order to develop efficient conservation and et al., 2021; Suprapto et al., 2022); water research (Wang et al.,
management plans for these biodiversity-rich areas, extensive 2010); biotechnology (Dalpe, 2002; Vain, 2007), deforestation
information on species, communities, and habitats is required. (Aleixandre-Benavent et al., 2018); biodiversity loss (Tan et al.,
Taking note of the biodiversity loss, there is an increasing array 2022); renewable energy (Rosokhata et al., 2021); ecotourism
of regional, national, and international awareness and policy (Liu and Li, 2020; Khanra et al., 2021); climate change (Wang
mechanisms aimed at the conservation of biodiversity globally et al., 2014; Rana, 2020; Fu and Waltman, 2022); and COVID-
(Kullberg and Moilanen, 2014). 19 research (Chahrour et al., 2020; Wang and Tian, 2021).
A well-established method for identify areas with In this paper, we perform a bibliometric analysis of published
underrepresented biodiversity and taking cost-effectiveness literature on threat assessment and prioritization of plants for
into account when making conservation plans is systematic conservation for the time period 1989–2022. Present study will
conservation prioritization (Karimi et al., 2023). Prioritization add a new perspective to the current status and may help to
of species, habitats, and communities for conservation is pre- identify hot spots in the field of global biodiversity conservation.
requisite for biodiversity conservation and management planning More specifically, the article aims to identify the most relevant
at the local, regional, and global scales (Singh and Samant, and productive sources, authors, institutions and countries, most
2010). The conservation status of taxonomic units must be cited authors, sources, institutions and countries, most influential
evaluated locally using the IUCN criteria in an appropriate manner articles, country collaborations and most frequently used keywords
(Rodrigues et al., 2006; Miller et al., 2007; Abeli et al., 2009). along with their growth trends from 1989–2022 in publications on
Broad, ecosystem-based conservation techniques are also necessary
threat assessment and prioritization for conservation. Present study
to stop the extinction of species; these strategies don’t rely on
will be useful to the researchers in determining which journals
taxonomic data or identifying specific species, but rather on
to target and how to identify potential research partners in the
the composition of local communities and the types of habitats
concerned field. Further, it will help researchers, managers, agencies
they occupy. When determining where to focus their efforts,
and conservationists for planning better strategies to conserve and
organizations working to protect biodiversity are forced to make
manage biodiversity.
tough trade-offs (Sinclair et al., 2018). Although experts can
offer valuable advice to decision makers, their capacity to handle
intricate spatial optimization issues is limited (Martin et al., 2012).
Prioritization has therefore been developed to deal with this issue. Materials and methods
According to Kukkala and Moilanen (2013), prioritization is the
"biogeographic-economic activity of identifying important areas Bibliometrics is a quantitative method characterized by
for biodiversity; where, when and how we might efficiently achieve applying statistics and econometrics that draw on publication
conservation goals." Developing a Conservation Priority Index and citation data to determine the evolutionary structure of a
of unique species, communities, and habitats at local, regional, research topic or field (Baker et al., 2020). It not only provides
national, and global levels is a crucial step in planning conservation a more reliable analysis but has the potential to launch a
and management strategies (Wani et al., 2022). Over the past systematic, apparent, and reproducible appraisal process based
20 years, spatial prioritizations have aided in the decision-making on the statistical measurement of science, scientists, or scientific
process regarding land use, forest planning, and conservation activity (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017). Many online bibliographic
(Karimi et al., 2023). Global spatial conservation prioritizations databases, like Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 02 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

Science Direct, where metadata concerning scientific works is Most productive authors, sources,
stocked can be sources of bibliographic information (Cobo countries, and institutions
et al., 2011). For retrieving the relevant literature in the present
study, a search was made from the Web of Science (WoS) Most productive authors, countries, and institutions are the
database by using the keywords, ‘Plant threat assessment’ OR chief indicators in the bibliometric studies that emphasize leading
‘Conservation prioritization’ OR ‘Conservation priority’. The contributors within a particular research topic or field (Sharma
database WoS was preferred as it is the most authentic and popular et al., 2020). It helps scholars and practitioners looking for
database among academicians (Gulhan and Kurutkan, 2021). Our collaboration and higher studies in relevant fields (Singh et al.,
initial search generated a total of 6,057 documents including 2021). The present study reveals that a total of 1,300 authors
research papers, reviews, editorial, letters, and proceedings. 12 have contributed to the targeted research field through their
review articles, 5 proceedings and 3 editorials were excluded
research contributions. Out of these, 28 have contributed to single-
and the remaining documents were screened through titles
authored documents and 1,272 to multi-authored documents.
and abstracts to find out their suitability for our study. As,
‘Maxted N’ from the University of Birmingham, UK has produced
the main focus of our study was to identify such studies in
the maximum number of publications (12), followed by ‘Bacchetta
which species/habitats or communities have been prioritized for
G’ from the University of Cagliari, Italy (08 publications), and
conservation, a total of 315 articles formed our final dataset
‘Fenu G’ from the Italian Botanical Society Onlus, Italy (07
and information of only such papers was retrieved in bibtex
publications) (Table 1). On examining articles and authors within
format. For carrying out the bibliometric analysis of retrieved
the framework of Lotka Law, it is revealed that 88.3% authors
published literature on threat assessment and prioritization of
contributed with a single publication, 8% with 2 publications,
plants for conservation, ‘bibliometrix’ tool developed through the
2.5% with 3 publications and only 1.1% authors with more than
R programming language was used (Ingale and Paluri, 2020;
3 publications (Table 2). Lotka’s Law is a power-law distribution
Zhang et al., 2021; Majiwala and Kant, 2022). It is a state-
that describes the relationship between the number of authors and
of-the-art tool that follows the classical bibliometric workflow
number of articles published by them (Lotka, 1926). It implies that
(Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017). Data was analyzed for the most
few authors, (known as core authors) bear responsibility for most
relevant and productive sources based on number of articles
of the published articles, while the majority of authors only publish
published within a source, authors, affiliations, and countries;
a small number of articles (Ridwan et al., 2023).
top cited articles, authors, sources, and countries; countries
Of the 129 sources, the journal ‘Biodiversity and Conservation’
collaborations; keyword analysis; and source and keyword growth
has been the most relevant and productive with 50 publications,
trends.
followed by ‘Biological Conservation’ (39 publications), ‘Oryx’
(12 publications), ‘Conservation Biology’ and ‘Plos One’
(11 publications each), ‘Journal for Nature Conservation’ (9
Results and discussions publications), and ‘Diversity and Distributions’ (8 publications)
(Figure 2). Based on Bradford’s law, of the total 129 sources, only
Publication output four were found to be the core sources (Figure 3). Bradford’s law
is a bibliometric principle that describes the relationship between
From 1989–2022, a total of 6,057 documents were generated journals and the articles published on a specific topic. It states
in initial search for the keywords, out of which 315 relevant that a small group of journals (known as core sources) contain a
documents were selected after screening of titles and abstracts. The significant proportion of the articles related to a particular topic
selected scholarly documents were retrieved from 129 sources in (Ridwan et al., 2023). Journals, Biodiversity and Conservation,
the web of science database. A total of 14,285 references have been Biological Conservation, Oryx, and Conservation Biology have
used in these documents. Since 1989, there has been an increase in been identified as the most important and basic sources for studies
the number of publications, from a minimum (01) publication in on threat assessments and conservation prioritization. These
1989 to a maximum (24) publication in 2019 and 2021 (Figure 1). journals have published most number of articles on prioritization
This may be due to the fact that researchers and policy-makers of conservation and thus are considered core journals for the
have understood that there is a need for more reasonable proactive topic. ‘Biodiversity and Conservation’ is an international journal
tactics, seeking to categorize and protect at-risk species in a that publishes articles on all aspects of biological diversity, its
timely manner (Walls, 2018; Le Breton et al., 2019). Still, the conservation, and sustainable use. On the other hand, ‘Biological
enormous species yet to be assessed for extinction risk, coupled Conservation’ is a leading international journal in the discipline
with the limited resource availability for such works, necessitates of conservation science, publishing articles that contribute to
rapid appraisals as a primary step toward recognizing which the biological, sociological, ethical, and economic dimensions of
species, habitats, communities, and areas should be prioritized conservation. Its primary aim is to publish high-quality papers that
for conservation. Thus, an approach that identifies at-risk species advance the science and practice of conservation or demonstrate
on the basis of threshold elements of IUCN Red List criteria has the application of conservation principles and policy. Although the
the potential to amplify the speed of species prioritization for source dynamics analysis revealed that the journal ‘Biodiversity and
conservation (Le Breton et al., 2019). However, prioritization Conservation’ remained the most relevant in terms of publications
is incomplete without consideration of the conservation on threat assessments and prioritization for conservation up to the
actions required to conserve the assets at particular locations year 2013. But, since 2013, the number of relevant publications in
(Wilson et al., 2009). ‘Biodiversity and Conservation’ has constantly decreased, and on

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 03 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

FIGURE 1
Annual scientific production of articles on prioritization for conservation from 1989–2022.

TABLE 1 Top most productive and cited authors from 1989–2022. TABLE 2 Lotka law and the number of articles by the authors.

Author h-index Total Number of Documents No. of Authors Proportion of

Citations Publications written Authors
Maxted N 7 428 12 1 1,148 0.883

Bacchetta G 7 328 8 2 106 0.082

Fenu G 7 269 7 3 32 0.025

Albuquerque UP 5 100 5 4 7 0.005

Brehm JM 4 68 5 5 4 0.003

Domina G 2 148 5 7 1 0.001

Li J 4 77 5 8 1 0.001

Achicanoy HA 4 321 4 12 1 0.001

Araujo EL 3 89 4

Carta A 4 133 4
Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, and the USA (Mendoza-Ponce
Huang J 3 64 3 et al., 2020). This highlights the necessity for these nations to
Keith DA 3 439 4 implement effective monitoring and policy enforcement for species
Khoury CK 4 305 4 conservation (Alroy, 2017). The present study reveals that most
of these countries are working to implement effective monitoring
Yu S 1 7 4
and management policies for biodiversity conservation. Based
Abeli T 3 154 3
on the country production analysis, it was revealed that authors
Assogbadjo AE 3 38 3 from 76 countries have contributed to the field. The USA has
Blasi C 3 155 3 the highest frequency of publications on threat assessment and
Burgess ND 3 226 3
prioritization for conservation (212 publications), followed by
China (165 publications), the UK (106 publications), Italy (101
Burgman MA 3 376 3
publications), India (79 publications), Australia (76 publications),
Fensham RJ 3 39 3 Brazil (66 publications), Germany (46 publications), and Spain (44
publications) (Figure 5). In Himalayan Biodiversity Hotspot, China
and India are the only countries to produce a significant number
the other hand, the number of relevant publications has increased of publications in the relevant field. Other Himalayan countries
in ‘Biological Conservation’ (Figure 4). like Pakistan and Nepal have produced 04 and 03 publications,
Most of the global biodiversity loss is concentrated in respectively; whereas Bhutan has not produced any publication in
nine countries, viz., Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, the relevant field.

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 04 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

FIGURE 2
Top most relevant journals for the studies on prioritization for conservation.

FIGURE 3
Bradford’s law showing the most basic and core sources.

Citation analysis most influential publications in a research field to be determined

(Donthu et al., 2021). In the present study, on average, each
Citation analysis is a fundamental method for science mapping document has received 84.68 citations, with 5.50 citations per
that works on the conjecture that citations reflect intellectual year per document. The most global cited document on threat
linkages between publications that are formed when one document assessment and prioritization for conservation include Schnittler
cites the other (Appio et al., 2014). The analysis enables the and Gunther, 1999; Dhar et al., 2000; Myers et al., 2000;

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 05 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

FIGURE 4
Growth of journals with respect to publications on prioritization for conservation from 1989–2022.

FIGURE 5
Global scientific production of scholarly documents on prioritization for conservation.

Coates and Atkins, 2001; Hartley and Kunin, 2003; Kala et al., 2004; journal Biological Conservation tops the list with highest number of
Keller and Bollmann, 2004; Partel et al., 2005; de Oliveira et al., citations (1,406 citations; 22 h-index), followed by Biodiversity and
2007; Zhang and Ma, 2008; Brehm et al., 2010; Gauthier et al., 2010; Conservation (1,280 citations; 21 h-index), Plos One (701 citations;
Bacchetta et al., 2012; Brummitt et al., 2015. Among the authors, 9 h-index), Conservation Biology (577 citations; 8 h-index), and
‘Keith DA’ from the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Diversity and Distribution (478 citations; 8 h-index) (Table 3). The
Service, Australia has received the maximum impact with 439 h-index calculates an author’s number of publications and citations
citations and h-index of 3 (Number of publications = 4), followed for those articles (Kumar et al., 2023). It gives a breakthrough in
by ‘Maxted N’ from the University of Birmingham, UK with 428 the research community for assessing the scientific impact of an
citations and 7 h-index (Number of publications = 12), ‘Burgman individual or source (Bihari et al., 2023). Among the most cited
MA’ from the University of Melbourne, Australia with 376 citations countries, the UK ranks at the top with 17,753 citations, followed
and 3 h-index (Number of publications = 3), and ‘Bacchetta G’ from by Australia, the USA, Germany, Brazil, China, Italy and India
the University of Cagliari, Italy with 328 citations and 7 h-index with 1,738, 1,242, 882, 683, 561, 540, and 444 citations, respectively
(Number of publications = 8) (Table 1). Among the sources, the (Figure 6).

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 06 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

TABLE 3 Top most productive and cited sources from 1989–2022.

Sources h-index Total Citations Number of Publications

Biodiversity and Conservation 21 1,280 50

Biological Conservation 22 1,406 39

Oryx 7 301 12

Conservation Biology 8 577 11

Plos One 9 701 11

Journal for Nature Conservation 8 216 9

Diversity and Distributions 8 478 8

Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 4 52 6

Global Ecology and Conservation 3 22 5

Plant Biosystems 3 95 5

Australian Journal of Botany 4 46 4

Ecological Indicators 2 22 4

Phytotaxa 2 14 4

South African Journal of Botany 3 66 4

Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciencias 2 23 3

Applied Vegetation Science 3 64 3

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 3 85 3

Plant Genetic Resources-Characterization and Utilization 3 18 3

Science of the Total Environment 2 24 3

Tropical Conservation Science 2 16 3

FIGURE 6
Top 20 most cited countries.

Collaboration analysis and their relationships (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2020). Of the
total 315 documents, 28 are single-authored documents, and the
Collaboration analysis is another important science mapping average number of documents per author is 0.242. The average
procedure to reveal how contributors are linked to each other in a number of authors and co-authors per document is 4.13 and
particular research field. It determines the pertinent contributors 4.86, respectively, with a collaboration index of 4.43. Countries

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 07 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

TABLE 4 Most relevant countries by collaborating authors.

Country Articles Frequency SCP MCP MCP Ratio

USA 42 0.13462 28 14 0.3333

China 37 0.11859 24 13 0.3514

United Kingdom 24 0.07692 9 15 0.625

India 21 0.06731 20 1 0.0476

Italy 21 0.06731 16 5 0.2381

Australia 19 0.0609 14 5 0.2632

Brazil 18 0.05769 17 1 0.0556

Spain 14 0.04487 11 3 0.2143

Mexico 10 0.03205 8 2 0.2

Canada 8 0.02564 6 2 0.25

France 8 0.02564 5 3 0.375

South Africa 8 0.02564 7 1 0.125

Benin 7 0.02244 2 5 0.7143

Germany 6 0.01923 4 2 0.3333

New Zealand 4 0.01282 3 1 0.25

Turkey 4 0.01282 4 0 0

Argentina 3 0.00962 3 0 0

Ireland 3 0.00962 3 0 0

Israel 3 0.00962 3 0 0

SCP, Single Country Production; MCP, Multiple Country Production.

FIGURE 7
Country collaboration map (Intensity of blue color shows number of publications and the pink line depicts the connections).

with a Multiple Country Publications (MCP) rate ≥ 50% are the highest MCP with a rate of 71.4%, followed by the UK
the countries with high international cooperation in the field (62.5%) and France (37.5%). India has an MCP rate of only
(Gulhan and Kurutkan, 2021). In the present study, Benin has 4.76% (Table 4). Figure 7 depicts the country collaboration in

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 08 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

FIGURE 8
Top 20 most relevant affiliations.

FIGURE 9
Trends in the topics (keywords) from 1989–2022.

threat assessment and prioritization for conservation studies, in produced the maximum number of documents (27 publications),
which the blue color indicates the countries that have published followed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (21 publications), the
the articles, and its intensity is proportional to the number University of Abomey-Calavi (20 publications), the University of
of publications. The pink color line represents the connection Birmingham (19 publications), and the University of Cagliari (16
between the countries, and its thickness depicts the level of publications). Figure 8 shows the top twenty relevant affiliations of
collaboration. Collaboration is essential for conservation (Lloyd the corresponding authors with Institute of Botany, China, Chinese
et al., 2023), as it will allow successful implementation of Academy of Sciences, China, University of Abomey-Calavi, Benin,
biodiversity conservation programs throughout the globe. Based and University of Birmingham, England as the most relevant
on the most contributing institutes, the Institute of Botany has affiliations.

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 09 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

Keywords analysis to identify the hotspots for further such studies. Our bibliometric
analysis indicated that output in the relevant field has significantly
Author keywords identify the content and theme of the increased since 1989. A total of 1,300 authors have contributed
published document (Sharma et al., 2020). For each article dealing to 315 articles published in 129 journals. The journal Biodiversity
with the threat assessment and prioritization for conservation, the and Conservation and Biological Conservation have produced
original author keywords, i.e., used by the authors in the articles, the highest number of articles, whereas the journal Biological
were examined. A total of 1,008 keywords have been used by the Conservation has received the maximum number of citations.
authors to classify their studies from 1989–2022. Figure 9 depicts The countries where most biodiversity loss is concentrated, like
a scatter plot of the most trending topics in threat assessment the USA, China, Australia, Brazil, and Mexico, has produced
and the prioritization for conservation studies from 1989–2022. the maximum number of publications on threat assessment and
The height of keywords shows their frequency of occurrence in a prioritization for conservation. Benin, a developing country of
particular year. The most frequently occurring keywords typically West Africa has the highest rate of Multiple Country production
express the most trending topics of the year. The most frequently indicating that both developed and developing countries are
used keywords include conservation (68 in 2015), biodiversity (34 working together to tackle the global biodiversity loss. However,
in 2014), conservation priorities, species richness and threatened as GDP growth is the prime goal of most local governments in
species (22 each in 2013, 2017, and 2016, respectively), and rarity developing and underdeveloped countries institutions in developed
(18 in 2007). The frequency of keywords and their ranks follow countries should be encouraged to lead research programs in
a power-law distribution, with a few keywords used frequently such countries. Global conservation needs far exceed any one
whereas most of the keywords are not used so frequently, which organization’s capacity and resources. Conservationists prioritize
is consistent with earlier studies (Li et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2011). species, resources, and actions every day, but only through a
structured decision-making process can strategic decisions be made
in an explicit, transparent, and effective manner. This will also
Limitations of the study facilitate potential partnerships among conservation organizations,
philanthropists, and other stakeholders.
In the present study, data has been exclusively drawn from WoS
data source, thus not representing the comprehensive literature
in the field. Although, WoS is the most authentic and popular Data availability statement
database among academicians, it is highly recommended that
alternative data sources like Scopus and Google Scholar should The original contributions presented in this study are included
be included in future studies for more thorough analysis of in this article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
the available research documents on this topic. Besides using directed to the corresponding author.
bibliometrix tool, analysis of data through BibExcel, CiteSpace, Hist
Cite, and Pajek would be a better option for providing further
detailed information on literature. Further, as in the present study,
the search for data was conducted only in the English and there
Author contributions
is a possibility that relevant publications in other languages may
ZW: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
have been missed. By limiting the search to only English only, there
Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—
is a risk of missing out some valuable findings published in other
review and editing. SP: Supervision, Writing—review and editing.
languages. Therefore, researchers should consider the possibility
JB: Writing—review and editing. MT: Writing—review and
of including publications in other languages in future studies for
editing. SS: Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing. MA:
more vivid and all-inclusive analysis of data. Despite of these
Writing—review and editing.
limitations, our study provides imperative insights on research
trends and directions in the conservation of biodiversity elements.
By addressing these limitations in future investigations, researchers
can further enhance and expand the knowledge base in this field. Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the
Conclusion research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors
extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research
at King Khalid University for funding this work through a Large
The present study has investigated the evolution and current
Group Research Project under grant number RGP2/90/44.
situation of research on threat assessment and prioritization
of plants for conservation at a global level by analyzing
bibliometrically the most relevant and productive authors, sources,
and countries, most cited papers, country collaborations, and most Conflict of interest
frequent keyword aspects as reflected in the scientific literature.
The present study will be helpful to the researchers to find out The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
which journal should be targeted and to find out their research absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
collaborators in the relevant field. Further, the study may be useful construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 10 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

Publisher’s note organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated endorsed by the publisher.

References
Abeli, T., Gentili, R., Rossi, G., Bedini, G., and Foggi, B. (2009). Can the IUCN Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., and Lim, W. M. (2021). How to
criteria be effectively applied to peripheral isolated plant populations? Biodiver. conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 133, 285–296.
Conserv. 18, 3877–3890.
Fu, H. Z., and Waltman, L. (2022). A large-scale bibliometric analysis of global
Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Aleixandre-Tudo, J. L., Castelló-Cogollos, L., and climate change research between 2001 and 2018. Climatic Change 170, 1–21.
Aleixandre, J. L. (2018). Trends in global research in deforestation. A bibliometric
Gauthier, P., Debussche, M., and Thompson, J. D. (2010). Regional priority setting
analysis. Land Use Policy 72, 293–302.
for rare species based on a method combining three criteria. Biol. Conserv. 143,
Alroy, J. (2017). Effects of habitat disturbance on tropical forest biodiversity. Proc. 1501–1509.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 114, 6056–6061. Gulhan, P. Y., and Kurutkan, M. N. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of covid-19
Appio, F. P., Cesaroni, F., and Di Minin, A. (2014). Visualizing the structure and publications in the field of chest and infectious diseases. Duzce Med. J. 23, 30–40.
bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: A document Hartley, S., and Kunin, W. E. (2003). Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and
cocitation analysis. Scientometrics 101, 623–661. conservation priority. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1559–1570.
Aria, M., and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive Hilton-Taylor, C. (2000). The 2000 IUCN Red List of threatened species. Cambridge:
science mapping analysis. J. Informetrics 11, 959–975. World Conservation Union.
Aria, M., and Cuccurullo, C. (2020). Science Mapping Analysis with bibliometrix Ingale, K. K., and Paluri, R. A. (2020). Financial literacy and financial behaviour: A
R-package: An example. Available online at: https://bibliometrix.org/documents/ bibliometric analysis. Rev. Behav. Finan. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1108/rbf-06-
bibliometrix_Report.html (accessed January 16, 2023). 2020-0141
Bacchetta, G., Farris, E., and Pontecorvo, C. (2012). A new method to set Jain, N., Virmani, D., and Abraham, A. (2021). Tsunami in the last 15 years: a
conservation priorities in biodiversity hotspots. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. all Aspects bibliometric analysis with a detailed overview and future directions. Natl. Hazards 106,
Plant Biol. 146, 638–648. doi: 10.1002/aps3.1023 139–172.
Baker, H. K., Kumar, S., and Pattnaik, D. (2020). Research constituents, intellectual Kala, C. P., Farooquee, N. A., and Dhar, U. (2004). Prioritization of medicinal
structure, and collaboration pattern in the journal of forecasting: A bibliometric plants on the basis of available knowledge, existing practices and use value status in
analysis. J. Forecast. 2020, 1–26. Uttaranchal. India. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 453–469.
Bhat, J. A., Kumar, M., Negi, A. K., Todaria, N. P., Malik, Z. A., Pala, N. A., et al. Karimi, A., Yazdandad, H., and Reside, A. E. (2023). Spatial conservation
(2020). Species diversity of woody vegetation along altitudinal gradient of the Western prioritization for locating protected area gaps in Iran. Biol. Conserv.
Himalayas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 24, e01302. 279:109902.
Bihari, A., Tripathi, S., and Deepak, A. (2023). A review on h-index and its Keller, V., and Bollmann, K. (2004). From red lists to species of conservation
alternative indices. J. Inf. Sci. 49, 624–665. concern. Conserv. Biol. 18, 1636–1644.
Branquinho, C., Serrano, H. C., Nunes, A., Pinho, P., and Matos, P. (2019). Essential Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., and Mantymaki, M. (2021). Bibliometric analysis
biodiversity change indicators for evaluating the effects of Anthropocene in ecosystems at and literature review of ecotourism: Toward sustainable development. Tour. Manage.
a global scale. From assessing to conserving biodiversity. Cham: Springer, 137–163. Perspect. 37:100777.
Brehm, J. M., Maxted, N., Martins-Loucao, M. A., and Ford-Lloyd, B. V. (2010). New Kukkala, A. S., and Moilanen, A. (2013). Core concepts of spatial prioritisation
approaches for establishing conservation priorities for socio-economically important in systematic conservation planning. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 88, 443–464.
plant species. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2715–2740. doi: 10.1111/brv.12008
Brummitt, N. A., Bachman, S. P., Griffiths-Lee, J., Lutz, M., Moat, J. F., Farjon, Kullberg, P., and Moilanen, A. (2014). How do recent spatial biodiversity analyses
A., et al. (2015). Green plants in the red: A baseline global assessment for the IUCN support the convention on biological diversity in the expansion of the global
sampled Red List Index for plants. PloS One 10, e0135152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. conservation area network? Natureza and Conservacao 12, 3–10.
0135152
Kumar, M., George, R. J., and Ps, A. (2023). Bibliometric analysis for medical
Chahrour, M., Assi, S., Bejjani, M., Nasrallah, A. A., Salhab, H., Fares, M., et al. research. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 45, 277–282.
(2020). A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research activity: a call for increased
Le Breton, T. D., Zimmer, H. C., Gallagher, R. V., Cox, M., Allen, S., and Auld, T. D.
output. Cureus 12:e7357. doi: 10.7759/cureus.7357
(2019). Using IUCN criteria to perform rapid assessments of at-risk taxa. Biodivers.
Chase, J. M., Jeliazkov, A., Ladouceur, E., and Viana, D. S. (2020). Biodiversity Conserv. 28, 863–883.
conservation through the lens of metacommunity ecology. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1469,
Li, T., Ho, Y. S., and Li, C. Y. (2008). Bibliometric analysis on global Parkinson’s
86–104.
disease research trends during 1991–2006. Neurosci. Lett. 441, 248–252. doi: 10.1016/
Chiu, W. T., and Ho, Y. S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. j.neulet.2008.06.044
Scientometrics 73, 3–17.
Liu, S., and Li, W. Y. (2020). Ecotourism research progress: A bibliometric analysis
Coates, D. J., and Atkins, K. A. (2001). Priority setting and the conservation of during 1990–2016. Sage Open 10:2158244020924052.
Western Australia’s diverse and highly endemic flora. Biol. Conserv. 97, 251–263.
Liu, X., Zhang, L., and Hong, S. (2011). Global biodiversity research during 1900–
Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., and Herrera, F. (2011). An 2009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 807–826.
approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: a
Lloyd, N. A., Keating, L. M., Friesen, A. J., Cole, D. M., McPherson, J. M., Akçakaya,
practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. J. Informetrics 5, 146–166.
H. R., et al. (2023). Prioritizing species conservation programs based on IUCN Green
Dad, J. M., and Rashid, I. (2022). Differential responses of Kashmir Himalayan Status and estimates of cost-sharing potential. Conserv. Biol. 2023:e14051. doi: 10.
threatened medicinal plants to anticipated climate change. Environ. Conserv. 49, 1111/cobi.14051
33–41.
Lotka, A. J., (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J. Wash.
Dalpe, R. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology. Scientometrics 55, 189–213. Acad. Sci. 16, 317–323.
de Oliveira, R. L., Lins Neto, E. M., Araujo, E. L., and Albuquerque, U. P. (2007). Majiwala, H., and Kant, R. (2022). A bibliometric review of a decade’ research
Conservation priorities and population structure of woody medicinal plants in an area on industry 4.0 & supply chain management. Mater. Today [Epub ahead of print].
of caatinga vegetation (Pernambuco State, NE Brazil). Environ. Monitor. Assess. 132, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.058
189–206. doi: 10.1007/s10661-006-9528-7
Martin, T. G., Burgman, M. A., Fidler, F., Kuhnert, P. M., Low-Choy, S., Mcbride,
Dhar, U., Rawal, R. S., and Upreti, J. (2000). Setting priorities for conservation of M., et al. (2012). Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 26,
medicinal plants—-a case study in the Indian Himalaya. Biol. Conserv. 95, 57–65. 29–38.

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 11 frontiersin.org

Wani et al. 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120

Mehta, P., Sekar, K. C., Bhatt, D., Tewari, A., Bisht, K., Upadhyay, S., et al. (2020). Sinclair, S. P., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Smith, R. J., McIntosh, E. J., Possingham,
Conservation and prioritization of threatened plants in Indian Himalayan Region. H. P., Vercammen, A., et al. (2018). The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation
Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 1723–1745. doi: 10.1007/s12298-021-01044-9 prioritizations. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12459.
Mendoza-Ponce, A. V., Corona-Nunez, R. O., Kraxner, F., and Estrada, F. Singh, A., and Samant, S. S. (2010). Conservation prioritization of habitats and forest
(2020). Spatial prioritization for biodiversity conservation in a megadiverse country. communities in the Lahaul Valley of proposed cold desert biosphere reserve, north
Anthropocene 32:100267. western Himalaya, India. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 8, 101–117.
Miller, R. M., Rodriguez, J. P., Aniskowicz-Fowler, T., Bambaradeniya, C., Boles, Singh, R., Sibi, P. S., and Sharma, P. (2021). Journal of ecotourism: a bibliometric
R., Eaton, M. A., et al. (2007). National threatened species listing based on IUCN analysis. J. Ecotour. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1080/14724049.2021.1916509
criteria and regional guidelines: current status and future perspectives. Conserv. Biol.
Suprapto, N., Yanti, V. K., and Hariyono, E. (2022). Global research on tsunami
21, 684–696. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00656.x
education and tsunami mitigation: A bibliometric analysis. Sci. Tsunami Hazards 41,
Moram, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., and Worm, B. (2011). How 130–146.
many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol. 9, 1100–1127.
Tan, Y. L., Yiew, T. H., Habibullah, M. S., Chen, J. E., Mat Kamal, S. N. I., and Saud,
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A., and Kent, J. N. A. (2022). Research trends in biodiversity loss: a bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci.
(2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858. Pollut. Res. 30, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22211-9
Ngodhe, S. O. (2021). A review on Causes of Ecological change along Lake Victoria Thakur, U., Bisht, N. S., Kumar, M., and Kumar, A. (2021). Influence of altitude on
basin, Kenya. Sci. Rep. Life Sci. 2, 30–39. diversity and distribution pattern of trees in Himalayan temperate forests of Churdhar
Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Water Air Soil Pollut. 232:205.
Nic Lughadha, E., Bachman, S. P., Leao, T. C., Forest, F., Halley, J. M., Moat, J., et al.
(2020). Extinction risk and threats to plants and fungi. Plants People Planet 2, 389–408. Tilman, D., Clark, M., Williams, D. R., Kimmel, K., Polasky, S., and Packer, C.
(2017). Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546,
Partel, M., Kalamees, R., Reier, U., Tuvi, E. L., Roosaluste, E., Vellak, A., et al. (2005).
73–81.
Grouping and prioritization of vascular plant species for conservation: combining
natural rarity and management need. Biol. Conserv. 123, 271–278. Vain, P. (2007). Trends in GM crop, food and feed safety literature. Nat. Biotechnol.
25, 624–626. doi: 10.1038/nbt0607-624b
Pouteau, R., Brunel, C., Dawson, W., Essl, F., Kreft, H., Lenzner, B., et al. (2022).
Environmental and socioeconomic correlates of extinction risk in endemic species. Walls, S. C. (2018). Coping with constraints: achieving effective conservation with
Divers. Distrib. 28, 53–64. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plaa007 limited resources. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6:24. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2018.00024
Rana, I. A. (2020). Disaster and climate change resilience: A bibliometric analysis. Wang, B., Pan, S. Y., Ke, R. Y., Wang, K., and Wei, Y. M. (2014). An overview of
Int. J. Disas. Risk Red. 50:101839. climate change vulnerability: a bibliometric analysis based on Web of Science database.
Natl. Hazards 74, 1649–1666. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-17995-1
Rawat, B., Gaira, K. S., Gairola, S., Tewari, L. M., and Rawal, R. S. (2021). Spatial
prediction of plant species richness and density in high-altitude forests of Indian west Wang, M. H., Yu, T. C., and Ho, Y. S. (2010). A bibliometric analysis of the
Himalaya. Trees Forests People 6:100132. performance of Water Research. Scientometrics 84, 813–820.
Ridwan, Q., Wani, Z. A., Anjum, N., Bhat, J. A., Hanief, M., and Pant, S. (2023). Wang, P., and Tian, D. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of global scientific research on
Human-wildlife conflict: A bibliometric analysis during 1991–2023. Reg. Sustain. 4, COVID-19. J. Biosafety Biosecur. 3, 4–9.
309–321.
Wani, Z. A., Bhat, J. A., Negi, V. S., Satish, K. V., Siddiqui, S., and Pant, S. (2022).
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Betts, M. G., Ceballos, G., Courchamp, Conservation Priority Index of species, communities, and habitats for biodiversity
F., et al. (2019). Are we eating the world’s megafauna to extinction? Conserv. Lett. 12, conservation and their management planning: A case study in Gulmarg Wildlife
e12627. Sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya. Front. For. Glob. Change 6:1225330. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.
2023.1225330
Rodrigues, A. S., Pilgrim, J. D., Lamoreux, J. F., Hoffmann, M., and Brooks, T. M.
(2006). The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71–76. Wani, Z. A., and Pant, S. (2023). Status of Biodiversity in a Protected Area of
Kashmir Himalaya: Gulmarg Wildlife Sanctuary. Nordic J. Bot. 2023:e03982.
Rosokhata, A., Minchenko, M., Khomenko, L., and Chygryn, O. (2021). Renewable
energy: A bibliometric analysis. E3S Web Conf. 250:03002. Wilson, K. A., Carwardine, J., and Possingham, H. P. (2009). Setting conservation
priorities. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1162, 237–264.
Schnittler, M., and Gunther, K. F. (1999). Central European vascular plants requiring
priority conservation measures–an analysis from national Red Lists and distribution Zhang, J. Z., Srivastava, P. R., Sharma, D., and Eachempati, P. (2021). Big data
maps. Biodivers. Conserv. 8, 891–925. analytics and machine learning: A retrospective overview and bibliometric analysis.
Expert Syst. Applic. 184:115561.
Sharma, P., Singh, R., Tamang, M., Singh, A. K., and Singh, A. K. (2020). Journal of
teaching in travel &tourism: a bibliometric analysis. J. Teach. Travel Tour. [Epub ahead Zhang, Y. B., and Ma, K. P. (2008). Geographic distribution patterns and status
of print]. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2020.1845283 assessment of threatened plants in China. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 1783–1798.

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 12 frontiersin.org