I like plants and birds best. At least they don't have violence towards each other like mammals and insects. But some mammals are cute, like the Echidna :)

Yes of course..Plants have higher conservation value than animals.... because most animals and human depend mainly on plants

Hello Gregor; In western North America where I live and study, habitat fragmentation, degradation and conversion to human uses is the most serious problem. It is pretty clear here that paying attention to preservation of INTACT habitats benefits entire ecological systems. Attempting to protect individual species in a dwindling, degraded habitat is usually doomed to fail. Think California Condor, Gray Wolf, Grizzly Bear or even some endemic Lycaenid butterfly on the coastal dunes. These species would need little protection if their habitats were secure. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

I am Zoologist, but exactly plant have higher conservation value than animals. not only plants but also all photosynthetic organisms. because animals are directly or indirectly depend on the photosynthetic organisms. If we consider the habitat conservation both flora and fauna conserve automatically.

Definately! Because in the food chain sustem plants are autotrophs and energy generating while the animals are the consumer.

I am a primatologist/biological anthropologist specializing in lemur ecology and conservation biology. But, clearly all those primary producers are of bedrock importance for the functioning of ecosystems and their component food webs. Island biogeography theory and a phylogenetic/evolutionary biology perspective could underpin placing more importance on island flora and fauna, which are often quite taxonomically distinct (e.g., in the plant world, the Socotra dragon tree (Dracaena cinnabari), and in the faunal realm, Madagascar's lemur taxa -- an adaptive radiation of 113 species, with others doubtless yet to be described... that is approximately 23% of all extant species in the order Primates). Indeed, a conceptual approach to prioritizing conservation concern and action regarding endangered taxa used by the Zoological Society of London goes by the acronym EDGE: Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (see: https://www.edgeofexistence.org/ ). While the "edgeofexistence" website has species lists for several classes of vertebrates (mammal, birds, reptiles, amphibians), and corals, it currently does not include an EDGE list for plant taxa. However, the EDGE criteria could easily be applied to place endangered plant taxa into a hierarchy of conservation concern (that is, that phylogenetically distinctive taxa should be prioritized because if they go extinct, their phylogeny means that there are not closely related extant species surviving -- e.g., as would be the case in the extinction of a monospecific genus; if there are no other genera in the same Family, then such an extinction would represent the loss of Family-level biodiversity). So, I would say that plant and animal taxa could both have equally high conservation value.

Thank you for the valuable answer, especially mentioning the EDGE initiative. I know it very well... but never regarded it from this perspective (perhaps one could propose to the leaders to enlarge it also for plants).

I am Zoologist, I think both plants an animals must be protected. However, most researchers believe that plant have higher conservation value than animals. The life of some plants depends on the presence of animals.

Hello all; Let me repeat what I said earlier. There is hardly any point in preserving any organisms without preserving the habitats in which they occur naturally. Intact habitats are what need to be preserved! Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

Thanks all of you for your valuable input into this discussion.

Regards

Greg

Yes. Plants build the habitats. As already mentioned James Des Lauriers , habitats are crucial

In the following study the importance value of each species, the conservation value index of wild plant diversity and the conservation value index of wild animal diversity have been calculated …

Guo, Z. L., Xing, Z. H., & Cui, G. F. (2017). A method for assessing species diversity conservation value of nature reserves. Biodiversity Science, 25(3), 312-324.

following discusses on Ants and plants as indicators of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and conservation value in constructed grasslands...

Peters, V. E., Campbell, K. U., Dienno, G., García, M., Leak, E., Loyke, C., ... & Crist, T. O. (2016). Ants and plants as indicators of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and conservation value in constructed grasslands. Biodiversity and conservation, 25(8), 1481-1501.

High Conservation Value Forests (HCVFs) are natural habitats that have an outstanding significance or critical importance, meaning that they are more valuable in terms of biodiversity, ecological values and importance for local people than in terms of industrial timber.

Vasile, D., Lazăr, G., Scărlătescu, V., Enescu, R., Crișan, V., & Vechiu, E. (2018). High Conservation Value Forests from the experimental bases of" Marin Drăcea" national institute for research and development in forestry. Revista de Silvicultură și Cinegetică, 23(42), 75-79.

Plants have a higher conservation value than animals for their role in photosynthesis, hence liberating oxygen in the atmosphere, without which life of animals would be impossible. On the other hand, plants are dependent on animals for carbon dioxide for performing their photosynthetic activity. So, I think, both plants and animals should need to have the same conservation value.

Plants being the producers are expected to have higher values

Plants are producers being at the bottom of the food pyramid. Animals are either primary, secondary or tertiary consumers, hence occupying positions on top of producers. Both plants and animals together make up the food chain. As such both plants and animals are interdependent on each other, and hence should have the same conservation value.

Hi! I think that for the field of conservation studies, plants have more basic "ecological services" such as maintaining humidity, they are primary producers and the base of the food chain. Habitat maintenance involves the maintenance and conservation of plant species. In a place with well-preserved flora, the tendency is for the fauna to remain conserved as well.

At the basis of it all, we need to enable life of micoorganisms which, may belong to one or both. They are here from the beginning - and a safe bank when it comes to - beware of it - starting the evolution, once again

In my opinion, entire natural ecosystems, which are usually composed of many different species of flora and fauna, should be protected. Natural ecosystems, which are usually composed of many different species of flora and fauna, are of particular importance to the biodiversity and ecological diversity of planet Earth. All species of flora and fauna threatened with extinction should be protected. protection of the natural biodiversity of the planet Earth should be one of the most important strategic goals of the development of 21st century civilization.

Best wishes.

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I think everyone has the same value.

Every biological species including man respire carbon dioxide gas which is released into the air. But plants have the innate ability to absorb carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere and use it in the constructive process of food manufacture. So, plants help to maintain a stable oxygen-carbon dioxide balance in the atmosphere.

hello dear

Your question is very general. We should not focus on just one issue. The importance of anything depends on the requirements of the time. If a particular plant is important at a time, it is important to pay more attention to that plant than anything else, which means that we do not want to ignore or care about other things (just a little more attention). And at some point in time we pay more attention to the bears. In general, we should always look for balance, not imbalance. As I am a small researcher in the research community, I have always been balanced.

I think there is no doubt that we are more dependent on plants than animals, but plant extinction rates are still very low (c. 0.2% since 1751 according to a recent review by Humphreys et al. in Nature Ecol & Evol) and we are more dependent on the common species - like the Arctic algae you mention - than the threatened ones. In any case, with the exception of wild relatives of crop plants (and animals), conservation is rarely motivated by simple self-interest. We don't need giant pandas but we all want to see them saved. Conservation triage is something people write about but, in reality, how often do conservationists have to choose which species to save?

Thank you so much for all of you & your interesting inputs into the discussion.

Regards,

Gregor

Ridiculous question!

Thanks for this as well. But please read the explanations & arguments to open this kind of discussion.

Regards

Prioritizing plant conservation might well halp animal conservation: many animals depend on one or a small number of sorts of plants. If the plants are extinguished, these animals are extinguished as well.

In addition, plants are the basis of animal life - providing nutrition and oxygen.

As for the ice bears: while they are some kind of landmark considering animal conservation, their vanishing might have little impact on the ecosystem.

Which might hold true for a number of other predators. Although effects of predators on plant ecology are not unknown of.

All plants and animals in the ecosystem co-exist and balance each other. Each has a role in nature without disturbing the ecological balance. Nature and ecosystem are in harmony, where the ecosystem work in such a way that all plants and animals can co-exist, creating a perfect balance among themselves. As plants are dependent on animals for photosynthesis and animals on plants for respiration, so both plants and animals should have equal conservation value.

I don't think we can really pick and choose. However, due to constraints, usually financially, we tend to prioritize. The key is to know the overall benefits. For instance, how keystone species works. And how we, as humans, can help. In the end, i think it needs to be decided on a case by case basis, keeping in mind the socio-political situation and how well the stakeholders will respond to the strategy that is to be implemented.

Thank you vey much for your valuable inputs & remarks.

Dear Gregor, many thanks for your interesting question. For my opinion it depends (1) on type of conservation activity, (2) on type of macroecosystem, and on origin of the main aedificational factor - is it of biocoenotical (internal) origin due to relations inside biocoenosis or by external interference (influence) of climatic or physical nature. The last one factors are smtms hardly differed from biocoenotic – like oxygen presence-absence (algae or microphytes in the sea shallows!). When one want to check the reality of biogeographical zoning, so as it was shown earlier (eg, Udra, Pashchenko, 1991), modern biogeographical zoning of land (for water macroecosystems it is different) should be based on the distribution of higher autotrophic organisms (aedificating species, sometimes absent like in a desert), which are the basis for the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. Mostly not only large-scale zoning of the world (Lemierre, 1976) but also Ukraine (Andrienko, 1977) was developed based on the results of floristic and geobotanical research. The geobotanical map within Ukraine presented in the last work contains 12 sub-provinces within 4 provinces and 4 provinces. This scheme was taken as a basis for the formation of operational taxonomic units, ie floristic and faunal characteristics of individual species. After that we can do a cluster analysis!

But for the biogeographical subdivisions it is different. There relic and endemial species are of giant importance. Even one species can be substantial.

I'm now working on a book in experience of using the cluster analysis in biogeographical zoning of large areas of ukrainian territory where I selected several indicative groups usefull for this purpose - from some vertebrates to herbs. I hope it will appear this year...