Nature on the doorstep: Why we hardly know many species anymore

Dandelions, daisies, stinging nettles or sparrows—many people can still name these species. But what about the plants and birds that are typical of meadows, pastures, field edges and arable fields? A new study by the Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) on species knowledge shows that many characteristic species of agricultural landscapes are now barely known.

The study was carried out in Delitzsch and Eilenburg, two small German towns in an agricultural region in northwestern Saxony. In total, the researchers surveyed 463 adults aged 18 and older; the oldest age group included people over 65. Participants were asked to list freely which wild plants and birds they knew from the surrounding agricultural landscape or would expect to find there.

The researchers then compared these answers with regional lists of so-called indicator species—species that are especially typical of certain habitats in agricultural landscapes or provide clues about their ecological quality.

The result: Little widely shared species knowledge

Overall, the respondents did name 165 plant taxa and 116 bird taxa, but much of this knowledge was highly scattered: 41% of the plants and 25% of the birds were each named by only one person. Shared, widely distributed species knowledge was therefore much more limited. On average, participants could name only very few of the indicator species occurring in the region.

Very familiar and widespread species were named particularly often. Among the plants, these included dandelion, daisy, stinging nettle, clover, common poppy, cornflower, yarrow and chamomile. Among birds, sparrows, crows, tits, blackbirds, pigeons, birds of prey, magpies, starlings, red kites and white storks were especially present. Many of these species are conspicuous, common or easy to recognize in everyday life.

By contrast, numerous species that can be typical of species-rich meadows, field edges and arable fields were far less well known. Many plant species of agricultural landscapes were barely or not at all part of the respondents’ cultural knowledge—that is, the set of species people spontaneously associate with their surroundings. A similar pattern appeared for many farmland birds. Even species that occur in the region and are not extremely rare were named only rarely.

One striking result concerns age. Species knowledge increased with age, especially between the 18–25 and 46–55 age groups. For valid plants, valid birds and bird indicator species, this increase leveled off from around age 55 or declined slightly. For plant indicator species, by contrast, it continued to rise beyond age 65. Typical agricultural landscape species such as cornflower, chamomile, yarrow, starling and skylark were more familiar to older people. Younger participants, by contrast, more often named very general or higher-level groups such as “crows,” “pigeons” or “birds of prey.” Older people more often named specific or characteristic agricultural species. Among plants, nine taxa were less familiar to younger people than to older people, six of them indicator species. Among birds, seven taxa were less familiar to younger people; these also included skylark and starling as indicator species.

Two thresholds for species knowledge

To classify the free-listing responses, the researchers distinguished between two thresholds. Taxa that were named by at least 5% of the 463 participants were considered part of the cultural knowledge domain. This threshold is low: 5% corresponds to only around 23 people. The researchers themselves describe it as a methodologically defined threshold, based on a recommended range of about 3.75 to 6%.

The category of general knowledge was much stricter. It included only taxa that were named by at least one in five participants, meaning by at least 20%. This second threshold shows which species or species groups were truly well established in everyday knowledge.

What was truly generally known

Among plants, only eight taxa reached this 20% threshold: dandelion, common poppy, cornflower, daisy, stinging nettle, clover, yarrow and chamomile.

Among birds, shared knowledge was somewhat broader. Here, 17 species or species groups reached this threshold, including sparrows, crows / ravens, tits, birds of prey, blackbird, white stork, pigeons, red kite, woodpeckers, magpie, common buzzard, grey heron, starling, robin, blue tit, finches and great tit.

It is also striking that many birds were not always named at species level. Terms such as “sparrows,” “crows,” “pigeons,” “birds of prey” or “tits” point more to general recognition of larger groups. Among the plants, the dandelion stood out in particular: it was not only very well known, but was also named using various folk names. This suggests that this species is even more firmly anchored in everyday knowledge than many other wild plants.

Many typical species occurred—only few were named

On average, respondents named 6 plant taxa and 10.3 bird taxa. But for the species that are especially typical of agricultural landscapes, the lists became much shorter: per person, the average was only 2.1 typical plants and 3.4 typical birds.

This is especially striking because substantially more typical species occur in the study region: the researchers considered 31 grassland indicator plants, 31 arable-field indicator plants and 25 farmland bird species that occur there occasionally to frequently. The species named spontaneously therefore represented only a small subset of the typical species that actually occur in the agricultural landscape studied.

Even at the low 5% threshold, only a few typical species belonged to the cultural knowledge domain. Of 31 grassland indicator plants that occur in the region occasionally to frequently, only five reached this threshold. The remaining 26 were not named or were named only exceptionally rarely. Among the arable-field indicator plants, the figure was only three out of 31.

A gap also appeared among birds. Of 25 farmland bird species that occur in the region occasionally to frequently, only seven belonged to the respondents’ cultural knowledge domain. Another three were usually named only at a more general level—for example as “sparrows,” “crows” or “thrushes,” without the specific species always being named.

In summary: 87% of typical plant species and 76% of typical farmland bird species did not even reach the 5% threshold. Many of these species grow along field edges, in meadows or in arable fields, fly over open landscapes, or live in hedges and edge habitats—yet they remain barely present in many people’s everyday knowledge.

The study gives several examples. Common or at least regularly occurring but barely known plants included, among others, corn chamomile (Anthemis arvensis), corn marigold (Glebionis segetum), common nipplewort (Lapsana communis), common toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), sow thistles (Sonchus spp.) and field pansy (Viola arvensis). Among birds, the researchers mention, among others, common whitethroat (Sylvia communis) and yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella) as species that occur in the region but were hardly ever named spontaneously.

Missing species knowledge—and its cConsequences for conservation

The researchers place their findings in a broader context: the global biodiversity crisis consists not only of the biological loss of species. It also has a cultural dimension. While plants, animals and habitats become rarer or disappear because of human activities, local species and environmental knowledge is being lost at the same time. Especially in high-income and highly urbanized societies, many people are becoming increasingly removed from direct experiences of nature.

Species knowledge, however, usually does not develop on its own. It grows through time spent outdoors, observation, conversations, school, family, gardening, farming or other experiences of nature. When such experiences become rarer, it is not only species names that disappear from everyday life. Memories, stories and inner images that people associate with certain plants, birds or habitats are lost as well.

This alienation from nature can have further consequences. Nature is then no longer automatically perceived as a familiar living environment, but sometimes as alien, disturbing or even threatening—for example in the case of insects, spiders, tall grass, deadwood or wild corners of a garden. Fear of nature or biophobia can make species conservation harder because near-natural habitats are then more likely to be seen as neglected or dangerous. Species knowledge can build a bridge here: what we know often seems less alien.

The loss of species knowledge becomes especially problematic because it also means losing the baseline for comparison. Those who have never consciously noticed certain species find it harder to recognize their decline. When farmland birds become rarer, arable wild herbs disappear or species-rich meadows become impoverished, this is noticed above all by those who knew these species beforehand. If that knowledge is missing, the loss can go unnoticed.

The study thus touches on the so-called shifting baseline syndrome. Each generation initially experiences the state of nature it knows personally as normal. Those who grow up in an already impoverished landscape may not perceive this impoverishment as a loss. A less species-rich agricultural landscape then becomes the new normal—not because it is ecologically intact, but because the previous state is absent from personal experience.

For species conservation, this is a serious problem. Species knowledge is considered an important prerequisite for understanding the role of individual species in ecological and cultural contexts. People who know plants, birds or other organisms are more likely to notice when they disappear. And those who better understand ecological relationships are more likely to support measures to protect biodiversity.

This problem is particularly clear with plants. While birds are easier to perceive through movement, song or conspicuous behavior, plants remain for many people more a part of the green backdrop of their surroundings. This phenomenon is often described as plant blindness or plant awareness disparity: plants are overlooked even though they form the basis of many habitats. But if even common wild plants can hardly be named, it becomes even more difficult to notice the decline of specialized arable wild herbs or species-rich meadow plants.

Species extinction therefore does not begin only when a species disappears biologically. It can begin earlier—when species disappear from perception, from local knowledge and from cultural memory. That is precisely why species knowledge is more than nice additional knowledge. It is a foundation for recognizing change, understanding losses and demanding protection in the first place.

Preserving local species knowledge

The challenge is to treat local species knowledge not only as expert knowledge, but to preserve it as part of cultural experience. The researchers see this as an important task for nature education. The decisive point is not merely to memorize species names. More important is to bring young people back into direct contact with their surroundings: being outdoors, identifying plants, listening to bird calls, observing field edges, comparing meadows and noticing changes over time.

Agricultural landscapes in particular can be important places of learning for this. Arable wild herbs, grassland plants and farmland birds can often be found directly on site. They can be used to show how habitats function, what roles species play in ecosystems and how strongly agricultural use influences biodiversity. In this way, species knowledge does not become an isolated identification exercise, but a route toward understanding ecological relationships.

At the same time, the study makes clear that it is probably unrealistic to fully restore the former cultural significance of many wild plants. Many species hardly play any practical role in everyday life anymore. This makes it all the more important to make their ecological significance visible: plants as the basis of habitats, farmland birds as part of complex food webs, arable wild herbs as indicators of more diverse agricultural ecosystems. More species knowledge can also strengthen people’s willingness to support species conservation.

The study from northwestern Saxony thus points to an important dimension of species extinction: it is not only about species becoming rarer. It is also about many people hardly knowing the species in their own surroundings anymore. When names, memories and attention disappear, protecting these species also becomes more difficult.

Species conservation therefore does not begin only in national parks or protected areas. It also begins on your own doorstep, on the balcony, in the garden, at the field margin or in the meadow—with the ability to see a landscape not merely as scenery, but as a habitat full of species.

---

Source

• Naaf, T., & Kernecker, M. (2026). Young adults in eastern Germany know dandelion and sparrows but few farmland species. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 22, Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-026-00908-2