I am confused by the flagging of Captured or cultivated. Specifically, I’m wondering about Giant Sequoia *Sequoiadendron gigantium". Their natural range is only about 450 miles piece of California, but they have been planted all over the world during the past 170 years. Should each observation outside their natural range be marked as cultivated?
I believe only observations of plants that have been planted, moved, or maintained manually by humans should be marked captive/cultivated.
Not sure what’s going on with the range of S. gigantium.
1 Like
Sure each planted tree has to be marked so, but those that seeded naturally from planted ones and weren’t cared by humans are considered wild, there’re tons of topics about this question that you can read.
1 Like
Most should be marked as cultivated, but if a planted tree reproduces on its own its offspring are fair game for not being marked as cultivated.
1 Like
Taking a look at Research Grade observations of this species in Europe, most if not all look like planted specimens (e.g. single large trees, often in carefully tended lawns), and should be marked cultivated. If there is anyone who feels like going through these and marking them as cultivated, it means that future observations of the species in Europe are more likely to default to cultivated unless the observer specifies otherwise. Do add a comment to the observer if there is any ambiguity so they can provide more information.
2 Likes
Probably most if not all giant sequoias outside of its native range would be cultivated. Estimates for a tree starting its cone-bearing age range from a few a decades to hundreds of years, so you need an old (and correspondingly big) tree nearby to even get seedlings that weren’t sown and tended by humans. There’s some more detail in this article: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/hartesveldt/chap5.htm
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.