The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation
Abstract
Plant conservation initiatives lag behind and receive considerably less funding than animal conservation projects. We explored a potential reason for this bias: a tendency among humans to neither notice nor value plants in the environment. Experimental research and surveys have demonstrated higher preference for, superior recall of, and better visual detection of animals compared with plants. This bias has been attributed to perceptual factors such as lack of motion by plants and the tendency of plants to visually blend together but also to cultural factors such as a greater focus on animals in formal biological education. In contrast, ethnographic research reveals that many social groups have strong bonds with plants, including nonhierarchical kinship relationships. We argue that plant blindness is common, but not inevitable. If immersed in a plant‐affiliated culture, the individual will experience language and practices that enhance capacity to detect, recall, and value plants, something less likely to occur in zoocentric societies. Therefore, conservation programs can contribute to reducing this bias. We considered strategies that might reduce this bias and encourage plant conservation behavior. Psychological research demonstrates that people are more likely to support conservation of species that have human‐like characteristics and that support for conservation can be increased by encouraging people to practice empathy and anthropomorphism of nonhuman species. We argue that support for plant conservation may be garnered through strategies that promote identification and empathy with plants.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069
Conceptual Change in Childhood
Carey, S. E. (1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,850
The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001 · Cited by 3,037
Who Sees Human?: The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610369336 · Cited by 1,228
Feminism and the Mastery of Nature
Plumwood, V. (2019) · Ideals and Ideologies · doi:10.4324/9780429286827-77 · Cited by 1,207
Schultz, P. W. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00174 · Cited by 1,081
Cordain, L., Miller, J. B., Eaton, S. B., Mann, N., Holt, S. H., & Speth, J. D. (2000) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/71.3.682 · Cited by 791
Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences
Tam, K.-P. (2013) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004 · Cited by 687
Conservation and the Social Sciences
Mascia, M. B., Brosius, J. P., Dobson, T. A., Forbes, B. C., Horowitz, L., McKean, M. A., & Turner, N. J. (2003) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01738.x · Cited by 679
Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise
New, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0703913104 · Cited by 645
Cited by
Hiatt, A. C., Hove, A. A., Ward, J. R., Ventura, L., Neufeld, H. S., Boyd, A. E., Clarke, H. D., Horton, J. L., & Murrell, Z. E. (2021) · Integrative and Comparative Biology · doi:10.1093/icb/icab089 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Balding, M., & Williams, K. J. H.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-07-19
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1192-1199
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2344319911
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 23.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.12738
- The paper
- Balding, M., & Williams, K. J. H. (2016). Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12738
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.