Zero extinction of known land plants is both desirable and achievable: a reply to Cannon and Lerdau

In a recent article in Trends in Plant Science [ 1. Corlett R.T. Achieving zero extinction for land plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2023; 28: 913-923 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar ], I reviewed the literature on the current barriers to the prevention of land plant extinctions. This suggested that at least one conservation option exists for all known land plant species, either in situ in protected areas or ex situ in living collections, seed banks, or cryogenic storage; thus, there is no technical reason why any should become extinct. Plant species continue to be lost, in practice, because of slow progress in conservation assessment, limited data accessibility, varied data quality, and lack of investment in conservation and training. The article was a review, so none of these ideas were novel and few controversial. However, Cannon and Lerdau [ 2. Cannon C.H. Lerdau M. Conservation should not make ‘perfect’ an enemy of ‘good’. Trends Plant Sci. 2023; 28: 971-972 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1) Google Scholar ] disagree with my suggestion that we should set local and national targets of zero extinction, as steps toward an eventual global target. They argue that such targets are both impractical and harmful.