Extinction risk predictions for the world's flowering plants to support their conservation.

More than 70% of all vascular plants lack conservation status assessments. We aimed to address this shortfall in knowledge of species extinction risk by using the World Checklist of Vascular Plants to generate the first comprehensive set of predictions for a large clade: angiosperms (flowering plants, c. 330 000 species). We used Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART) to predict the extinction risk of all angiosperms using predictors relating to range size, human footprint, climate, and evolutionary history and applied a novel approach to estimate uncertainty of individual species-level predictions. From our model predictions, we estimate 45.1% of angiosperm species are potentially threatened with a lower bound of 44.5% and upper bound of 45.7%. Our species-level predictions, with associated uncertainty estimates, do not replace full global, or regional Red List assessments, but can be used to prioritise predicted threatened species for full Red List assessment and fast-track predicted non-threatened species for Least Concern assessments. Our predictions and uncertainty estimates can also guide fieldwork, inform systematic conservation planning and support global plant conservation efforts and targets.

The big four of plant taxonomy - a comparison of global checklists of vascular plant names.

Taxonomic checklists used to verify published plant names and identify synonyms are a cornerstone of biological research. Four global authoritative checklists for vascular plants exist: Leipzig Catalogue of Vascular Plants, World Checklist of Vascular Plants, World Flora Online (successor of The Plant List, TPL), and WorldPlants. We compared these four checklists in terms of size and differences across taxa. We matched taxon names of these checklists and TPL against each other, identified differences across checklists, and evaluated the consistency of accepted names linked to individual taxon names. We assessed geographic and phylogenetic patterns of variance. All checklists differed strongly compared with TPL and provided identical information on c. 60% of plant names. Geographically, differences in checklists increased from low to high latitudes. Phylogenetically, we detected strong variability across families. A comparison of name-matching performance on taxon names submitted to the functional trait database TRY, and a check of completeness of accepted names evaluated against an independent, expert-curated checklist of the family Meliaceae, showed a similar performance across checklists. This study raises awareness on the differences in data and approach across these checklists potentially impacting analyses. We propose ideas on the way forward exploring synergies and harmonizing the four global checklists.