I just recently uploaded an observation of coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus) seen in western New York, only to find iNat considers the species introduced in NY state. Is this accurate? I can find no other sources claiming this, so I’m wondering where this info is coming from. The first screenshot shows iNat’s map of coralberry observations, and the second is the same map but filtered for native observations. It cuts off pretty sharply between PA/NJ and NY, continuing to show “introduced” into New England and Southern Ontario. Is coralberry in Erie County, PA native but coralberry in Chautauqua County, NY introduced?
1 Like
One of my favorite native shrubs.
The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center (Texas) lists it thusly:
USA: AL , AR , CT , DC , DE , FL , GA , IA , IL , IN , KS , KY , LA , MA , MD , MI , MN , MO , MS , NC , NE , NJ , NY , OH , OK , PA , RI , SC , SD , TN , TX , UT , VA , VT , WI , WV
Native Distribution: Eastern US from New York south to eastern Texas, west to South Dakota and Colorado.
3 Likes
GoBotany New England is a very strong source IMO, and considers it non-native to New York.
https://gobotany.nativeplanttrust.org/species/symphoricarpos/orbiculatus/
Because nativity is mapped at the state level, every species that is native in some states (but not native in a neighboring state) will have a native range map that conforms to arbitrary political borders. It’s unavoidable. It doesn’t mean that the species is actually native to Erie County Pennsylvania, of course.
10 Likes
Welcome to the forum, Charlotte!
Good question.
POWO. In the curator guide, under “External Taxonomic Authority List”
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#authorities
you can see that iNat uses POWO as an authority for plants. POWO considers coralberry to be introduced in New York State:
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:149465-1#source-KBD
So then we have to ask, who is POWO’s reference?
It appears to be Werier, D. (2017). Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of New York State
You might be able to get ahold of David Werier, and ask him what his rationale was for marking coralberry as introduced in New York State. Especially given the numerous iNat observations there, as you noted.
https://www.torreybotanical.org/publications/memoirs/memoirs-volume-27/
6 Likes
A lot of plants have odd native and non-native status in iNat. Sometimes this is because conflicting sources list the same species as native and non-native in the same area. One species I found is listed as non-native throughout it’s entire reported range!
6 Likes
I’d would love to hear the reasons. Hope someone ends up messaging him and will post a follow up. :)
NYFlora atlas lists it as introduced, but then I like to scroll down to the herbarium section. More out of curiosity than anything definitive mind you. First herbarium specimen of coralberry collected in NY that they have the record of is from 1866!
1 Like
I’ve found this website gets closer than most to real ranges, since it bases it off eco regions and not state lines https://bplant.org/plant/3323
4 Likes
Thanks Jessica for that great link to bplant!
Here is the coralberry range from bplant:
Here is a legend for the map colours, as well as a very useful paragraph that explains the native vs introduced situation for coralberry:
Here is an explanation of why they called their website bplant. I highlighted some sentences (in blue) because they address frequent complaints about iNat:
- Bridging the gap between cultivated and wild
- Using political boundaries instead of ecological boundaries
Higher up in the article, bplant explicitly explains how their approach differs from iNaturalist.
5 Likes
Thank you Adam! It’s good to know the source of iNat’s maps, I had been wondering where they were from. It’s interesting though that while POWO lists the shrub as native to CT, RI, MA, and VT, that range is also marked as introduced in the range map on iNaturalist. Mysterious but probably not that important!
Oh I hadn’t heard of this site! I’m a big fan of the ecological zone boundaries, very cool to play around with, thank you.
1 Like
NatureServe has it as SNR for NY, while Ontario has it explicitly labeled as Introduced. From NYFA’s first record of 1866 I would lean that it is a native species since that is on par with the oldest NYFA specimens. Perhaps S. orbiculatus is native to some parts of NY and a range expansion in others? I don’t think this is the case of the Catalpa speciosa huge range expansion from humans, rather maybe an overlook by botanists of yesteryear.
1 Like
I bet vickidoo on Inat would know, she is part of NYFA and the Long Island Botanical Society. I don’t think she is on the forum though.
I think this stands for “Subnational conservation status Not Ranked”? (not yet assessed)
https://www.natureserve.org/nsexplorer/about-the-data/statuses/conservation-status-categories
I thought it meant State Not Ranked, but pretty much the same thing. Usually states would assess every species and if it was introduced they would address it as such.
It’s interesting. From my perspective, a year of first collection in 1866 is actually evidence of non-native status for an east coast state, especially considering Symphoricarpos orbiculatus is common and weedy. Herbarium specimens from New York date back to the late 1700s.
Ageratina altissima is the most commonly observed plant in NY on Inat
The oldest record is 1879 per NYFA.
Ageratina altissima - Species Page - NYFA: New York Flora Atlas
Even the overcollected Drosera intermedia has the oldest record as 1867.
Drosera intermedia - Species Page - NYFA: New York Flora Atlas
There’s a lot of herbarium specimens elsewhere. For example, SERNEC has a Drosera intermedia specimen from New York from 1830, and an Ageratina altissima specimen from 1845 (>30 years earlier than the earliest on NYFA)
I absolutely do not think that earliest herbarium specimen offers enough information/evidence to be used as anything other than a curiosity feature - absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, applies in both directions, to both the individual state record as well as the plant itself.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone is claiming that lack of historical records is definitive proof of a plant’s non-nativity. But if you don’t accept lack of records as even supporting evidence against a plant’s non-nativity, I have to wonder alternative methods you suggest? We don’t have a time machine.