After the last round of automated IUCN conservation status updates, quite a few plant taxa in my area have had their geoprivacy automatically set to obscured, even though many of them are not listed as threatened by the IUCN.
I have just finished systematically going through all the taxa in my region (Tasmania), and have found that:
- Some, but not all Near-Threatened (NT) taxa have had their geoprivacy set to
- Some, but not all Vulnerable (VU) taxa have had their geoprivacy set to
For most taxa listed as NT, I am invariably seeing that the main threats are land clearing, development, eg:
Is there a consistent policy on obscuration in automated imports? What determines whether a taxon is auto-obscured or not?
Can I ask, why are taxa that are not threatened (NT is not a category of threatened) having their coordinates automatically obscured in these updates? I would like to strongly argue that they shouldn’t.
Even for taxa that are in threatened categories such as VU, I would argue they shouldn’t be auto-obscured unless the main reason they are under threat is collecting, trampling, or other forms of damage caused by people knowing where they grow.