Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

Regional records improve data quality in determining plant extinction rates

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 4, pages 512–514 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Matters Arising to this article was published on 09 March 2020

The Original Article was published on 10 June 2019

arising from A. M. Humphreys et al. Nature Ecology & Evolution https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0906-2 (2019)

The recent study by Humphreys et al.1, reporting the extinction of almost 600 plant species globally, represents a ground-breaking effort to compile direct data on seed plants. We applaud Humphreys et al. for quantifying plant extinctions because they formulate an important and testable hypothesis. However, their study missed many extinctions and rediscoveries of seed plants in the United States and Canada. Our team of experts has been compiling a list of extinct plants of North America (north of Mexico). This work is challenging and time-consuming, given the complexities inherent in botanical diversity, the incomplete status of taxonomic understanding, vagaries of reporting and complexities of phytogeography.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

All data are available at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.xsj3tx99n.

References

  1. Humphreys, A. M., Govaerts, R., Ficinski, S. Z., Lughadha, E. N. & Vorontsova, M. S. Global dataset shows geography and life form predict modern plant extinction and rediscovery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1043–1047 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life (NatureServe, accessed 21 June 2019); http://explorer.natureserve.org/

  3. Calflora: Information on California Plants Education, Research, and Education (Calflora, accessed 21 June 2019); https://www.calflora.org/

  4. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (California Native Plant Society, accessed 21 June 2019); http://rareplants.cnps.org/

  5. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds) Flora of North America North of Mexico 16+ vols. Vol. 1, 1993; vol. 2, 1993; vol. 3, 1997; vol. 4, 2003; vol. 5, 2005; vol. 6, 2015; vol. 7, 2010; vol. 8, 2009; vol. 9, 2014; vol 12, 2016; vol 17, 2019; vol. 19, 2006; vol. 20, 2006; vol. 21, 2006; vol. 22, 2000; vol. 23, 2002; vol. 24, 2007; vol. 25, 2003; vol. 26, 2002; vol. 27, 2007; vol 28, 2014 (Flora of North America Association, 1993+).

  6. Rejmánek, M. Vascular plant extinctions in California: a critical assessment. Divers. Distrib. 24, 129–136 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Judd, W. S., Campbell, C. S., Kellogg, E. A., Stevens, P. F. & Donoghue, M. J. Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach (Sinauer Associates, 2008).

  8. Garnett, S. T. & Christidis, L. Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. Nature 546, 25–27 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Thomson, S. A. et al. Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation. PLoS Biol. 16, e2005075 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mishler, B. D. & Wilkins, J. S. The hunting of the SNaRC: a snarky solution to the species problem. Philos. Theory Pract. Biol. 10, 1–18 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  11. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP, 2018); http://wcsp.science.kew.org/

  12. Environmental Conservation Online System (US Fish & Wildlife Service, accessed 12 July 2019); https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/

  13. Kling, M. M. et al. Facets of phylodiversity: evolutionary diversification, divergence and survival as conservation targets. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20170397 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ertter, B. Floristic surprises in North America north of Mexico. Ann. MO Bot. Gard. 87, 81–109 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project, accessed 19 January 2020); http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora

  16. Weakley, A. S., Ludwig. J. C. & Townsend, J. F. Flora of Virginia (ed. Crowder, B.) (Foundation of the Flora of Virginia Project Inc., Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press, 2012).

  17. Jaster, T., Meyers, S. C. & Sundberg, S. (eds) Oregon Vascular Plant Checklist [Polemoniaceae] Version 1.7 (Oregon State University, accessed 20 January 2020); http://www.oregonflora.org/checklist.php

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Asheville, NC, USA

    Wesley M. Knapp

  2. NatureServe, Crystal City, VA, USA

    Anne Frances

  3. Florida Institute for Conservation Science, Sarasota, FL, USA

    Reed Noss

  4. Institute of Systematic Botany, New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY, USA

    Robert F. C. Naczi

  5. Biology Department, University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Alan Weakley

  6. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Delray Beach, FL, USA

    George D. Gann

  7. University and Jepson Herbaria & Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Bruce G. Baldwin & Brent D. Mishler

  8. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO, USA

    James Miller

  9. NatureServe, Boulder, CO, USA

    Patrick McIntyre

  10. National Plant Data Team, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Gerry Moore

  11. Department of Biology and Burke Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Richard G. Olmstead

  12. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX, USA

    Anna Strong

  13. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Daniel Gluesenkamp

  14. United States Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Kathryn Kennedy

Authors
  1. Wesley M. Knapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Frances
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Reed Noss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert F. C. Naczi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alan Weakley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. George D. Gann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bruce G. Baldwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. James Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Patrick McIntyre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Brent D. Mishler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Gerry Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Richard G. Olmstead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Anna Strong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Daniel Gluesenkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Kathryn Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

W.M.K. initially compiled and vetted the data. These data were further vetted by A.F., R.N., R.F.C.N., A.W., G.D.G., B.G.B., J.M., P.M., B.D.M., G.M., R.G.O., A.S., D.G. and K.K. W.M.K. and A.F. wrote the first draft of the manuscript with contributions from all authors. All authors approve of this version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wesley M. Knapp.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knapp, W.M., Frances, A., Noss, R. et al. Regional records improve data quality in determining plant extinction rates. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 512–514 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1146-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1146-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene