If a tree planted 200 years ago (or even longer by Indigenous Peoples) and never tended to by humans is wild/not cultivated, then wheat planted in a field and never tended to by humans over it’s entire life (from sprouting to seed production) is also wild/not cultivated. I grew up next to a wheat field, and after planting, the farmer never returned to the field until the plants were dead (to harvest the seed). The only difference is the time frame.
In my landscape (garden) I plant Fall Sage, which is native to my home state–but further south, not in my county. Once I plant it, I never tend to it again (no water, no nothing). It even reseeds itself. This means that it is wild/not cultivated by many people’s definition. So what I’m trying to say is, how can researchers rely on the distinction between wild/captive if the data is being marked with such capriciousness?