I think it does, not neccessarily in Germany tho. However, my project collecting extinct wild bee species in my state caught attention of national scientists and publications have been made. (rediscoveries have been made)
If that counts, yes ^^
I do know that many scientists and organisations dont want to work with inat for several reasons. On the other hand, more and more scientific organisations seem to use iNat now
I think in a discussion like this it’s important to keep some perspective on what organisms are at risk from misuse of iNaturalist location data. I understand that this is an ongoing issue with certain (many?) herp species as well as certain local and/or threatened plant species (worldwide) and perhaps other taxa. However, in the grand scheme of things, as others have pointed out, iNaturalist data has exponentially increased its utility to scientists studying species distributions and many other biological questions.
A question like “Is iNat Actually Helping Scientists?” is misdirected and potentially polarizing. It might be refocused better as something like, “For Which Groups of Organisms Does iNat Location Data Put Species At Risk?”
- If someone was documenting multiple species at one time and only the one protected species was obscured, poachers could easily pinpoint the general location of the protected species.
That’s true, but hard to fix.
- State scientists do not have access to the data like they do on HerpMapper. Obscured species on iNat requires them to track down the individual observer to ask them for the location data so that they could document the location for research. On HerpMapper they have access to the data as scientists and do not need to track down the observer.
As many others have mentioned, the solution is setting up iNaturalist Projects which can provide unobscured location data for research.
- Obscured data does not always keep the obscured species within the general county it was located. There have been instances where an obscured species looks like it was found in one county but upon discussing with the observer they were actually found in another. This slows research down. Giving actual scientists access to location data may correct this issue though.
This is just not accurate. Obscured locations always include the true county and state names in exported data and in the Encompassing Places in the public observation interface. The only way you could get the wrong county name is if you’re relying on the obscured coordinated, but that would be a weird way to get the county since it’s already provided.
To answer the actual question in the title, I think the answer is definitely yes. Just one example, here’s a recent article about a rediscovered insect in Australia. It includes:
Mr Slatyer said citizen scientists drove Australia’s fastest-growing biological dataset, contributing roughly 70 per cent of the 180 million records in the Atlas of Living Australia
“I check between 200 and 400 new records a week where the species name is literally not in our list of Australian species … and most of those are coming from citizen scientists,” he said.
Over 7,300 papers have been published that cite at least some iNat data from GBIF.
If you take a look at inaturalist.org/blog or any of our social media channels, you’ll see many examples of how iNat is helping scientists and conservationists.
We met with a decent number of state herpetologists a few years ago. There were concerns with some poaching issues, but most were really just interested in the data, which they can’t really get elsewhere. There are definitely issues with getting US state natural heritage agencies true locations for obscured observations, but as others have said some states are making projects to get this accomplished. We’re also piloting an initiative in California as a way to see how this might work in other US states.
That’s true but I will say montane rattlesnakes, box turtles, possibly kinosternidea and some Lampropeltis are all targeted pretty heavily. I’d like the obscured area to be significantly wider myself, and for it to be easier to batch obscure
“Is iNat Actually Helping Scientists?” Yes!
For a great example of iNat helping herpetologists in particular, you can look back almost 9 years ago, when Tony interviewed @gregpauly about mating behaviour in alligator lizards.
You can watch the interview at https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/11218-inaturalist-occurrence-data-and-alligator-lizard-mating
It’s certainly true that there is a substantial trade in illegally obtained plants. And as plants move less even than herps there are strong reasons to obscure the location of likely target species. However, I don’t think this translates into strong opinions against iNat from botanists or plant conservationists, so long as people understand how taxon geoprivacy works.
In general, there’s a strong willingness among curators to auto-obscure observations for plant species that are known to be poaching targets. In addition, there are many other protected species that were auto-obscured by default and currently remain obscured because they haven’t been reviewed by a curator.
When I create a flag to propose unobscuring a threatened species, I tag the main observers and identifiers, plus any accounts I know for relevant conservation orgs. It’s pretty common that someone will raise concerns about theoretical poaching risks. That usually results in a conversation about whether there are actually any records of poaching of the species in question or similar ones. In fact, most poaching is confined to a few charismatic groups popular with collectors (cacti, succulents, orchids, carnivorous plants, etc.) and the majority of threatened species are facing non-poaching threats (habitat loss, climate change, etc.)
I’ve definitely heard from researchers that excessive auto-obscuration of non-poached plants makes using iNat data much more difficult, but I haven’t heard that people working on taxa at risk of poaching have problems with iNat’s auto-obscuration. The iNat-sanctioned approach of creating a project where users can choose to share location data with the project owner(s) seems to be a tolerable workaround where poaching is a risk.
I’m working with an Early Career National Science Foundation Grantee (USA) to activate people to make observations of milkweed as she is studying the hybridization of Common and Showy milkweeds. The iNat data is helping her better understand where hybridization is happening.
Tony, just to clarify: my interpretation of the “Fact Sheet” on the initiative website is that observations with taxon geoprivacy are unobscured for those associated with the initiatieve, but observations that are user-obscured are not. If this is correct, this seems a great way to help governmental conservation programs without interfering with user’s privacy wishes.
Regarding the “research” aspect of the original question here, is there a way for researchers outside of Cal Academy or the state heritage program to get access to the unobscured data? If so, how are those researchers vetted for good intentions?
I can’t speak for this California initiative, but this is how it works for the Atlas of Living Australia, which administers the Australian node of iNat; all auto-obscured data are readily available to legitimate scientists and other researchers, but manually obscured data are not provided.
For the ALA, prospective data users have to go through an application process; it’s fairly quick and straightforward, but makes it clear who is legitimate or not
Also what I would prefer. I see conversations with that “eye” symbol saying May '26 and I do not know when did the conversation start and get to the point of someone tagging me. lol.
Also locations for species are important. For example, someone finds a rare species in a location (perhaps decades after the last sightings) but did not collect it (I am one of those insect lovers to will take things from an insect-ish angle) so then an entomologist will need to collect one for reporting it; Perhaps only the holotype female is known. We will need a male for dissection. and just gets worse. A new country record? A new species? It is of utmost importance that someone must go there to collect it, or it cannot be described.
I agree this is a bug. If anyone can easily get the data by exporting or through the API, there is no point hiding it on the main interface.
It’s not a main issue, but this needs to be corrected.
It’s possible to batch obscure observations by first selecting them through different filters (at least on the PC interface), I believe all needed options are available to do that…
About the size of the area, how large would you like it to be?
In my case I would need a much smaller obscured area, maybe 1 sq km or mile! Most of the time hundreds of square kilometers is really too large, it makes no sense for small organisms, or to hide an average private property.
I really believe there should be several levels/sizes for “obscure”, this is the reason why most users “fudge” the location, but this is really not good practice.
This is not a bug, as it is intended behavior. Staff weighed the different options from leaving date/time visible to totally hiding and settled on this one. Users can disagree with the decision, but it isn’t a bug.
My 2 cents - the Carolina Butterfly Society keeps track of species by county and I was asked to create a project at that level of resolution, so I made:
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/229492
with sorts per county, even showing obscured observations (using iNat generated county places -not like places we can create)
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/229492/journal/105478
e.g. Aiken County
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=881&project_id=229492&subview=grid
Since this is a collection project, observers can trust it, allowing administrators to view exact locations.
Seems to work well for its intended purpose.
Maybe do something similar for the Herps of Utah?
That’s correct.
Yes, they can email Lizzy at the moment, but we’re still evolving a protocol/rubric. Some people have reached out for data. They’ll need to verify a position with a proper agency and provide a reason for the request, for example, among other things. Academics will need to provide things like a thesis proposal, etc. There’s definitely an evaluation process.
Yes, iNaturalist definitely helps scientists. I ran across an article in Entomology Today recently (Published Oct 2023) that talked about the use of online photos in research: https://entomologytoday.org/2023/10/31/growing-utility-online-photo-sharing-entomology-research/
that isn’t meaningfully obscured at all for rare animals or plants. You tell people they can consistently find, say, Crotalus willardi in a square mile or two and those snakes are gone.
I am relatively new to iNat but I have a related concern. I upload plant identifications in the southern Appalachians regularly. Is there a risk that these plants could be targeted by poachers? Any feedback here would be appreciated.
American Ginseng, Goldenseal, and some orchids (the big showy ones) can be targeted by poachers. However, I live in New England, so I don’t know what other plants might be poached in your region.
iNaturalist automatically obscures the location of sensitive species using taxon_geoprivacy. You can search for species and add &taxon_geoprivacy=obscured,obscured_private,private to the url to see if a species is automatically obscured by iNaturalist in your area.
Here’s a search for American Ginseng with taxon obscured locations.
