My take is similar to the researchers: the salience is cultural, not innate. And it has also to do with the consistency of whatever you're referring to, something industrialisation changed.
For example. In pre-industrial societies, you'll often see orange things, but their tone is rarely consistent: iron oxide will vary depending on where you got it from, oranges (the fruit) can be actually orange or more like a plain yellow, no two sunsets are identical, so goes on. It's hard to reliably point and say "orange is the colour of $object1 and `$object2", when the colour of the object changes so much.
Red, though? Blood. The colour might vary a bit, but nowhere as much. Black? Soot. White? Clouds, chalk. It's simply easier to generate points of reference for those.
Mass production kicks in, and now you have procedures to reliably generate things that look the same. It isn't just industrialisation, but industrialisation plus everything else around it.
Maybe if you’re an artist or an interior designer, you know specific meanings for as many as 50 or 100 different words for colors – like turquoise, amber, indigo or taupe. But this is still a tiny fraction of the colors that we can distinguish.
It's important to distinguish here between basic and non-basic colour terms; for example, in English you can say "amber is a type of yellow", but if you say *"green is a type of yellow" people will look at you funny - even if both amber and green can be made with yellow + something else (a bit of red vs. a lot of blue). That's because "green" is taken as a basic colour, independent from "yellow", while "amber" isn't.
I believe that even those artists and designers with 50~100 different colour words are still using the same basic colours as the rest. At most one or two new ones. (Cyan comes to my mind, though. I wouldn't be surprised if some English speakers took it as its own basic colour, apart from both blue and green. Much like Russian does, even among non-programmers.)
For instance, “orange” comes from the fruit; “red” comes from Sanskrit for blood
This is a fairly minor point but that etymology is incorrect - English "red" is inherited from Proto-Indo-European *h₁rewdʰ- "red". The Sanskrit word for blood is असृज् ásṛj, that comes from a different PIE root, *h₁ésh₂r̥ "flowing blood".
(Sanskrit did inherit *h₁rewdʰ- though; for example as रुधिर rudhirá "red".)