I have been on iNaturalist a long time. I have recorded close to 40,000 observations and am a curator.
I might add that in agreement with an earlier post that it is a judgment call on whether it’s “wild” or not.
I don’t appreciate having to explain my judgement repeatedly to young newbies that are trying to help by marking any of my observations casual.
I recently just deleted an observation rather than having to explain over and over how I determine if a plant is truly wild or not. If it’s an experienced poster, a curator, and someone likely more knowledgeable than yourself, then don’t doubt their judgment on something trivial.
IMO, whether the actual original plant that was planted 30-40 years ago is posted, or if the naturalized ones all around it are posted, the situation dictates that it is naturalized and not cultivated. It’s a waste of time to think it any deeper. Many stands of forests are planted and not totally dependent on natural regeneration. Analyzing every tree as to whether it was planted or naturalized is a waste of time if the big picture is that the trees are in a forest in the middle of nowhere. Those are not “casual” observations. That’s my 2 cents worth.
No, no matter when it was planted, it stays planted forever. Trees planted in forests are casual and should stay so.
@fffffffff But how can you really know whether that mature non-native tree in the wild is planted or not, that is what I have raised several times and haven’t gotten a real answer other than to use our best judgment, or as @royaltyler says, trust the judgment of experienced users. Whether experienced or not, though, there’s guesswork and differing opinions on what the captive/cultivated tag means especially in that context. The difficulty of this judgment depends on too many factors to enumerate them all. Different regions with different histories of land management differ quite a bit. And what about indigenous vegetation management going back millennia. There is no reliable way for observers and identifiers to determine it.
Well you do research on a spot you visit, and if you’re still confused, just don’t observe the thing, there’re thousands of organisms around mature trees, just observe a sapling.
I don’t observe old native trees if there’s a single chance they were planted.
If someone knows for a fact that a particular tree (especially a non-native, invasive species) was planted, then that planted tree should be marked captive/cultivated.
I’ve had to go through all the observations of sawtooth oaks in North America marking the planted ones captive/cultivated, specificalyl so that the ones who are growing wild on their own can be tracked. Most people were happily to be corrected when I marked their observation as planted, since they uploaded it when they were still new to the site and didn’t know better.
I’ve only had three people get mad about it, arguing that just because that specific tree was known to be planted, doesn’t mean it should be marked as so, even though that’s the whole point of the captive/cultivated marking.
Trees that were planted are captive/cultivated. Their seedlings which grow on their own are wild. This at least is a clear distinction that people shouldn’t have any problem following when they know for a fact one tree in particular was planted, and the others are growing by themselves.
Before I went through and marked the obviously planted and confirmed to by planted by the observer sawtooth oak observations, there were more than a thousand Research Grade observations, even though 90% of them were very blatantly planted on a street corner as a street tree.
Now the only ones left are those that are wild seedlings growing by themselves, the offspring of all the planted trees. And since the planted trees are marked as such, now if anyone wants to see where the wild ones can from, they just have to switch to viewing the captive ones, and there you go! You know who to blame.
You can, very easily, overturn an unwanted Not Wild, by clicking it as Wild yourself.
I have respect for an identifier who knows whereof they speak. And proves it by admitting they were wrong ‘this time’. And with their helpful comments.
‘Respect me - because I say so’ doesn’t work on iNat.
you shouldn’t mark mine as captive without my blessing - good luck with that.
Just a reminder that the forum should not be used to hash out conflicts between individual users over specific observations. Please discuss ideas or concepts and not individuals and their motivations. I’m putting this thread in slow mode for the next day.
Okay.
I left off the rest of the sentence, because it made an assumption about who was doing the marking and why, but this portion is a valid grievance. A similar idea came up in the discussion about opting out of community ID.
Disconcerted that your profile says - lawn and pest control. Not forester. How were we to know?
If it probably was planted, there’s not a single reason to post it as wild, it’s just muddying the map and provides false info that species actually exists in a spot.
Planted species exist, they just don’t necessarily reproduce. Don’t erase the existence of cultivated organisms, just categorize them appropriately, even as “unknown”, the necessary middle ground that we don’t have.
This topic may be ageing out, but my small contribution:
Some plants are not “native” to a region but have naturalized so completely that their presence has become part of the regional ecology. For better or for worse.
For example, in western Oregon, Himalayan Blackberry, Scotch Broom, Gorse, and European Dune Grass are all non-native, but they are dominant players in their respective ecological niches. They are certainly not cultivated.
Other non-natives persist but do not spread much – thinking of various daffodil varieties, for instance. Or, just to get away from plants, colonies of non-native parrots in Los Angeles or Miami.
I see immense scientific value in listing non-natives which are naturalized or persistent. Citizen observers can help biologists understand where and when non-natives affect the local environment – how far is Gorse spreading inland from its foothold along the Oregon coast? Are Eurasian Collared Doves displacing Mourning Doves, or are they observed mostly in different habitats?
iNaturalist observations probably won’t answer such questions, but they can certainly guide researchers to specific places where in-depth studies may provide answers.
Personally, I might designate:
Native
Non-native Naturalized
Non-native Persistent
Non-native Cultivated
Native Cultivated
Yes, this would often require the observer and the identifiers to do some research. Many casual posters won’t necessarily know to take the time, or perhaps know how to find answers to native / non-native / naturalized for their post.
And yes, I know that changes to a huge database are a pain in the anatomical fundament. I salute the maintainers of the iNaturalist DB.
In ZA (as in many places) we have a problem with Alien Invasive species, I personally find it useful to know that an observation is correctly identified (RG) specially if the species is Invasive, so that we are not hunting wrongly identified “invasives”
- Therefore I would appreciate an [Invasive] designation added to your list
- and ask identifiers to NOT mark those as [Casual] even if they are (obviously) not indigenous
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.