Gardeners and scientists are unable to resist the lure of a towering stalk or a beautiful flower. New research has shown that botanists tend to favor showy plants. However, the dullest, most boring, and shortest plants are often overlooked, even if they are endangered.
Nature Plants published a review of 280 studies that were conducted between 1975 and 2020 on 113 species of plants in the southwestern Alps. This area is a hotspot for biodiversity. Researchers collected data about the plant's morphology, which includes traits such as size and colour as well as ecology and rarity. The number of studies on each plant was tallied and it was clear that the most striking ones were more popular.
Martino Adamo, an Italian biologist and lead author of the study, said that plants with blue flowers (ranging in tone indigo to yellow) were studied more than others, even though they are one of the most common colors. Plants with pink, red, or white blooms outperformed those with brown or green, as well as plants with tall stems.
Adamo states that our findings do not suggest that researchers should be focusing on prettier plants. Rather, they show that the most prominent, easily-located, and colorful flowering plants get more attention.
Although the team expected to find more endangered species among the most closely studied species, it didn't. The researchers believe this unexpected result could have important implications for plant science. Kingsley Dixon, a Curtin University botanist, said that a bias towards glamorous plants could lead to a misinterpretation of the extraordinary stories about how plants evolve, adapt and grow. We may also be missing species in rapid decline that are on the verge of extinction. Furthermore, we don't even have basic information about seed banking to conserve them.
Adamo says: These results suggest that our unconscious may be stronger than we expected in species model selection. This is not a tragedy but something to think about when planning for future work. These results confirm earlier findings, which show that brightly colored, charismatic, and popular birds and mammals are more frequently included in conservation and funding efforts regardless of scarcity.
Kathryn Williams, University of Melbourne environmental psychology researcher, said that such biases could have serious consequences for plant conservation and the wider environment. She says that the availability of data on species and the strength and consistency of the evidence will be important in making difficult decisions about conservation funding and where to allocate funds.
