It's sad to think of a world without the mystical tiger, the fearsome rhino or ... the slimy blobfish?
While the deep-sea creature might not be as "charismatic" as other endangered species, we need not disadvantage the less glamorous by channelling all our charitable efforts to nature's headline acts, according to researchers.
University of Queensland affiliates Professor Hugh Possingham and Dr Joseph Bennett argue "celebrity" species such as rhinos, koalas and bilbies are favoured by well-intentioned donors.
But they say sharing conservation funds more evenly would benefit struggling ecosystems as a whole.
"Around 80 mammal species, including lions, tigers and pandas are used by international non-governmental organisations to raise funds for conservation, but almost no invertebrates are used this way," Prof Possingham says.
But even if they don't front ad campaigns, the humble blobfish or its spineless comrade, the giant Gippsland worm, are just as important.
These endangered "have-nots" might even be more genetically distinct and significant to an ecosystem, Dr Bennett said.
He said using money donated to popular animals - as well as government funds - to protect shared habitats, trap invasive predators, and improve overall quarantine procedures would pay greater dividends for a range of species.
Conservation groups should also broaden their advertised line-up of species to appeal to a wider pool of donors.
In the end, it's just a matter of good investment.
"If we are more careful in how we invest our money, and focus on activities that protect several species simultaneously, we can achieve much better results for the same outlay," Dr Bennett said.
Dr Bennett and Prof Possingham's study was published in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings.
Share
