Plant populations are embedded in complex social, cultural, and political contexts, yet plant conservation has traditionally been framed as a predominantly ecological and technical challenge. This study examines how plant conservation has been addressed within the social sciences and humanities over the past three decades, analyzing 119 Scopus-indexed publications through a bibliometric co-occurrence analysis of authors’ keywords using VOSviewer. The results reveal four major thematic areas: (1) plant conservation biology, dominated by ecological and technical approaches; (2) ethnobotany and medicinal plants, linked to traditional knowledge and cultural plant uses; (3) sociocultural dimensions of the conservation of useful plants, integrating sustainable practices, livelihoods, and community values; and (4) plant biodiversity, focused on vegetation, floristic diversity, and local participation. Although scientific output has increased notably since 2018, the field shows a persistent biological bias, with ecological perspectives gaining prominence while sociocultural dimensions become increasingly peripheral. The findings highlight the need to strengthen transdisciplinary and biocultural approaches that integrate ecological metrics with traditional knowledge and to promote participatory governance models that connect biodiversity conservation with environmental justice and human well-being. This study identifies conceptual gaps, emerging trends, and future research opportunities to support more inclusive and effective plant conservation strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carrió et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: