Updates to conservation statuses in progress in Canada

Basically that they are very rare breeding species vulnerable to disturbance. Still think it’s a bit overly cautious (if 6 or 8 breeding locations for Acadian Fycatcher are already easy to find from other sources, I would expect new locations revealed to mostly just spread the existing level of disturbance around and it’s not clear if this will have any negative effect on the population). But whatever, I don’t have all the info they have and I know a lot of people are more risk-averse with this kind of thing than I am. The ultimate list seems pretty reasonable to me.

2 Likes

So should I send a list of a few plants that I think should be unobscured? Who did you send it to?

See the first post in this thread, you can email Allison. Probably good practice to copy it here as well.

1 Like

Hi Mike - thanks again for posting, it’s good to understand where things are in terms of timing. A question on process: should we send in new emails in the next week or so, or is it reasonable to expect reduced obscuring after your meeting next week?

In addition to Monarchs. I want to see if we can unobscure Imperial Moths. It appears that anyone who puts up lights near an eastern white pine in early July has a decent chance of finding one. Including iNat data, the TEA has 140 observations from the last five years, and those show up in 70 different 10x10km squares. To give a current perspective, this ignore the 215 older records, and the dozens of iNat observations for which we do not have location info. The larva is so distinctive that it’s one of those curiousities documented by people who don’t otherwise seem to be into moths, so we have lots of ad hoc data to supplement the folks that regularly put out traps or sheets.

It would also save a ton of messaging trying to get people to join Moths of Ontario to share location data.
Thanks
David

2 Likes

Here’s a brief review of the most frequently observed obscured plants in Ontario with thoughts. Please let me know if anyone disagrees with these thoughts, as i want to make sure i am not missing any conservation concerns. If you want me to split this onto another thread i will, but i don’t want ot proliferate this too much. In a few days after i see if there are any comments I will email this on.

In order of abundance on iNat:

-Butternut (Juglans cinerea)- threatened by the butternut canker, which unfortunately is killing huge numbers of these. I suppose someone may collect these nuts, but i have my doubts that affects the population. On the other hand, finding possible resistant trees, tracking the canker, etc, are crucial and unobscuring makes it much easier to small scale entities to help with that. So I am thinking unobscure.

Red spruce (Picea rubra) - codominant to dominant in much of northern New England in the US, Ontario is edge of range, and presumably it’s rare because of that and because of habitat loss. For issues of habitat loss obscuring seems to do more harm than good since it removes community awareness of remaining populations. This is S3 which is uncommon rather than rare. This tree is important for us as it is an indicator of many things including acid rain, climate change, wetland health, etc. a definite unobscure

Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos) - an aggressive disturbance loving species that reaches the north end of its range in Ontario. Sounds like the main threat is that non-native genetic strains are being planted and the remaining native populations are hard to track and monitor. Unobscure, no collection risk and need to keep an eye on the native stands.

Sundial lupine (Lupinus perennis) - in Vermont most of what is on iNat is actually Lupinus polyphyllus which is commonly planted, i doubt most of the 108 records in Ontario are actually this species. But since it looks so similar to the common (invasive) one, i find it hard to believe anyone is digging them up or collecting tons of seed. Probably an unobscure but i don’t know this one well.

Lakeside daisy (Tetraneuris herbacea) - don’t know much about this one, but it is globally uncommon and while i don’t see any compelling need to obscure it, i don’t know enough about it to say with confidence. So maybe it’s best left obscured.

Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) - believed extinct in Ontario. There is tons mapped there but i am guessing it’s re-introduced from landscaping or planted, and that the original genetic strain is lost. So, there’s nothing to collect or harass, unobscure and hope a possible wild population is re-discovered on inat

American chestnut (Castanea dentata) is critically endangered globally because of chestnut blight. We are in danger of losing this species and need as much info as we can get on possible resistant plants, remnant stands, and restoration via new resistant trees. Important to unobscure these.

Pitch pine (Pinus rigida) - a few stands along the St Lawrence River. An incredibly common species elsewhere and just edge-of-range in Ontario. Half of New Jersey is covered in this species. Unobscure

Dwarf lake iris (Iris lacustris) - globally vulnerable, limited to a few great lakes habitats, very showy… primary threat is habitat loss but collection seems possible with this one, for now maybe best to keep obscured to be safe.

Hart’s tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium) - a very weird range, apparently quite restricted in North America and more common in Europe, however ferns do get targeted for collection, maybe keep this one obscured

Pignut Hickory, Kentucky Coffee Tree, and Blue Ash - three edge of range species, pignut is common elsewhere, coffee tree is abundant in the landscape trade and as an urban tree so no one is going to go dig them up. Blue ash is primarily threatened by the emerald ash borer and monitoring the borer as well as any possible resistant trees is important. Unobscure these.

This covers all plant species with 50+ observations, if there is interest and I have time i can look at more…

8 Likes

These all seem like well-reasoned suggestions to me. Hope they get implemented soon.

2 Likes

Hart’s Tongue Fern as a local in would say it is likely ok to open this up. It is fairly common in the Bruce Peninsula, hiding likely serves no purpose. While there may be a minor risk, it can be found by simply going to any place showing good fern numbers of other species. But I will let other Ontario folks chime in.

We ran another update last night to resolve the issues mentioned where some species were unintentionally unobscured (e.g. Trillium flexipes). I apologize for the confusion and do hope that that will be last bulk update.

This adds many more species back to the obscured list. I recommend folks take a look. (@charlie there are more plants above the 50 observation threshold you applied in your list above).

3 Likes

interesting. with the additional species with over 50 observations…most of them i don’t know much about so wouldn’t comment on myself but maybe others would. Bluebells are the ones that pop out since they are so common to the south, hard to believe there’d be a collection risk. Looking a bit lower on the list, northern white cedar and tupelo are two that are very common to the S and/or E and definitely shouldn’t be obscured… but interestingly it looks like cedar is very common in Ontario and is NOT obscured so i don’t know why it came up i that filter. other than that, there are lots of species that are midwest affinity i don’t know so those too i won’t comment on :)

Hi everyone,

First I wanted to thank you all for your input and patience. This is still a new process for everyone (on a personal note, even though I’m an active iNaturalist user I wasn’t even aware of the forum until relatively recently) so we’re working out the kinks.

As promised, we have an “official” response on this topic. The Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), along with the other Canadian Conservation Data Centres (CDC) were asked to provide an update to iNaturalist for the obscure lists for each Canadian province and territory. Each CDC prepared the list separately from each other, so naturally there are differences in what they arrived at. For Ontario, NHIC took into consideration a couple of important points. First, that we have worked hard to promote iNaturalist to many individuals and organizations, and we take pride in being part of the growth of iNaturalist in the province. We now have over 700,000 observations from 14,000 different observers! As part of that promotion we have regularly been asked what protections are in place to protect species from intentional or unintentional harm and have always pointed people and organizations to the messaging on the curator guide – that iNaturalist obscures the locations of any species with an IUCN equivalent of near threatened or worse with the exception in rare cases where the threat is thought to be very low. We did not feel comfortable making a drastic change to this policy since it would be retroactive and impact the nearly ¾ of a million observations that have already been submitted, especially without notifying the users and giving them an opportunity to change their records first.

We are very happy to have suggestions sent to us as per the guidelines set out in the updated curator guide and we will consider them on a case by case basis. We have already done this for birds (thanks Reuven!) and we think you will find our views very much align with most of yours. This keeps us following what we feel is the process laid out in the curator guide, so is not a sudden change to a huge number of species, but allows for us to screen the suggestions – getting out of the free-for-all that currently exists. No one is perfect and we know this list isn’t perfect and we will make mistakes. Please don’t hesitate to let us know if you think we have made one. The official requests are to go through Allison Siemens-Worsley (aworsley@natureserve.ca) NatureServe Canada’s National Data Support Biologist. If you want to discuss things first, please feel free to contact me through iNaturalist or by email (mike.burrell@ontario.ca) and I can put you in touch with the proper species specialist here. If you get an out office reply (meaning I’m off or away on field work) please contact NHICrequests@ontario.ca.

Thanks again for your input and we look forward to receiving your constructive suggestions.

Mike Burrell on behalf of the NHIC

7 Likes

One problem, I think, is the word “equivalent” there. The provincial rankings have the same names as are mapped to the IUCN rankings, but aren’t assigned in the same way don’t have the same implications for obscuration. Many of the issues raised in this thread have been about globally common species which are at the edge of their range in Ontario.

Also, in practice there are more than a few globally threatened species and threatened local populations for which there is effectively no risk in Ontario. E.g. the eastern Monarch population, which is threatened due to its extremely restricted wintering area in Mexico. There’s no threat which is mitigated by obscuring locations of Monarchs in Ontario.

Overall, since ONHIC is keeping lines of communication open and working to address issues, I think this is good news. Is there a template or list of required/optional information to include in a formal request? I might try submitting one for Monarch, since that one has been bugging me.

1 Like

Hi Jeremy,

In regards to the IUCN equivalent - we went on the same translation as has been used on previous iterations of this process by iNaturalist staff:
S1 = critically endangered
S2 = endangered
S3 = vulnerable
S4/S5 = least concern

There’s no formal template required. Just send your species and rationale and we’ll address it. I’ve already flagged a few that were raised in this thread with the appropriate NHIC staff: Monarch, Imperial Moth, Butternut, and Red Spruce so no need to do any of those.

Mike

2 Likes

Might I suggest that, since IUCN designations are global and not restricted to a national or subnational unit, the better translation would be:

G1 = critically endangered
G2 = endangered
G3 = vulnerable
G4/G5 = least concern

?

1 Like

Yes, you may suggest that. But I was pointing out how the subnational conservation statuses have been translated by iNaturalist for the past several years when assigning the status and determining the default geoprivacy.

Understood. It just occurs to me that many of the obscuration questions and issues that have been coming up tend to be around edge-of-range occurrences.

Yes, for sure.

Do you think you could look at the ones I posted instead of me having to send an email? Those are mostly slam dunks (like red spruce which you already are looking at).

Maybe in the future, broadly, we can remove globally common and locally rare species from auto obscure unless there’s a reason to obscure them. Would at least be a bit more balanced.

Yes, sure. Just so we’re clear, I’ve passed on your suggestions for the following species to NHIC’s botanists be considered to be unobscured in Ontario (with your rationale):
Butternut
Red spruce
Honeylocust
Sundial lupine
Eastern redbud
American chestnut
Pitch pine
Pignut Hickory
Kentucky Coffee Tree
Blue Ash

I would recommend any future requests follow the procedure to email them through Allison, since I can’t guarantee that I or anyone else from NHIC will be checking the forum regularly.

Mike

2 Likes

Ok, I can follow up with email if I don’t hear back.

Here is the email I sent yesterday evening:

Hi Allison and NHIC staff,

Here is a list of Ontario odes and how I think they should be treated on iNaturalist. Again, this is a complete list of all species ranked S3 or lower. I believe that currently all are being obscured and that no species not on this list are being obscured.

The fourth column says either “Obscure” or a number, meaning that I think it can be unobscured for one of these reasons:

  1. Much of a species’ population occurs in inaccessible areas of Northern Ontario, and the low S-rank is probably an artifact of inaccessibility and low survey effort.

  2. The species is a recent colonist or an occasional migrant and does not need protection

  3. Species is seemingly found at most or all suitable habitat within a reasonably wide range

  4. Despite a restricted range, species is often very abundant within sites it is found and targeted disturbance seems unlikely to have any negative impact.

  5. Species is known only from a limited number of sites along rivers and streams in Southwestern Ontario. However, access to these rivers is limited except by boat and populations are obviously not only present at the occasional bridge or boat launch.

  6. Various exact locations to see the species are very easily obtained from other sources, making obscuring largely pointless.

I’m not super familiar with a bunch of these species and could have made some errors below. But hopefully it’s a good start.

Thanks,

Reuven

Latin Common S-Rank Category Comments
Hetaerina titia Smoky Rubyspot S2 5
Archilestes grandis Great Spreadwing S1 2
Lestes australis Southern Spreadwing SU * More of a taxonomic quagmire than an actual rare species?
Lestes eurinus Amber-winged Spreadwing S3 4
Argia sedula Blue-ringed Dancer S2 5
Argia tibialis Blue-tipped Dancer S3 5
Argia translata Dusky Dancer S2 5
Coenagrion angulatum Prairie Bluet SH Obscure
Enallagma anna River Bluet S2 2 Probably a recent immigrant to Ontario?
Enallagma aspersum Azure Bluet S3 4 Mostly found at very anthropogenic sites
Enallagma basidens Double-striped Bluet S3 2
Enallagma clausum Alkali Bluet S1 Obscure
Enallagma traviatum Slender Bluet S2 4 At least a few known sites have large populations and disturbance/collection pressure is presumably low for such a “boring” species
Ischnura kellicotti Lilypad Forktail S1 4,6 The two well-known populations (Pelee and Fowler’s Pond) seem to have decently large numbers
Aeshna clepsydra Mottled Darner S3 3 In my experience is ubiquitous on gently sloping, exposed lakeshores with emergent vegetation in Central Ontario
Aeshna juncea Sedge Darner S3? 1
Aeshna septentrionalis Azure Darner S1S3 1
Aeshna subarctica Subarctic Darner S2S3 1
Aeshna verticalis Green-striped Darner S3 3 I think this species is vastly overlooked
Epiaeschna heros Swamp Darner S2S3 2
Gomphaeschna furcillata Harlequin Darner S3 3 Seems to be pretty ubiquitous if at low densities through much of central Ontario
Nasiaeschna pentacantha Cyrano Darner S3 3
Rhionaeschna mutata Spatterdock Darner S2 6 Don’t know how many other sites are known, but I think there’s at least 5 or 6 that are widely known and posted online.
Arigomphus cornutus Horned Clubtail S3 3
Arigomphus furcifer Lilypad Clubtail S3 3
Arigomphus villosipes Unicorn Clubtail S3 3 A very common species in the western GTA at least
Dromogomphus spoliatus Flag-tailed Spinyleg S1 5 Probably found along the entire Syndenham?
Gomphus borealis Beaverpond Clubtail S3 3
Gomphus descriptus Harpoon Clubtail S3 3
Gomphus graslinellus Pronghorn Clubtail S3 3
Gomphus quadricolor Rapids Clubtail S1 Obscure
Gomphus vastus Cobra Clubtail S1 4 See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/Ont-Odes/wxMyZM1HNsE/utoPfiF_hwAJ where someone found 46 individuals in one small area
Gomphus ventricosus Skillet Clubtail S1 Obscure
Gomphus viridifrons Green-faced Clubtail S1 Obscure
Ophiogomphus anomalus Extra-striped Snaketail S3 4 My one experience with this species at a known spot revealed that they were common over the deepest part of the river but it is extremely challenging to get one perched or in a net
Ophiogomphus carolus Riffle Snaketail S2S3 1 Seems widespread if local in northern Ontario, and one well-known Southern Ontario population seems to be doing fine even though everyone goes there to see them.
Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy Snaketail S1 Obscure
Ophiogomphus mainensis Maine Snaketail S1 Obscure Maybe not actually necessary? Like other snaketails this species is surely much more common than it would appear as they don’t stick around the breeding streams much
Progomphus obscurus Common Sanddragon S1 Obscure
Stylurus amnicola Riverine Clubtail S1 Obscure
Stylurus laurae Laura’s Clubtail S1 Obscure
Stylurus notatus Elusive Clubtail S2 4 As the name suggests it is likely more elusive than it is rare, and is probably reasonably common in the Ottawa and St. Clair
Stylurus plagiatus Russet-tipped Clubtail SH Obscure
Stylurus spiniceps Arrow Clubtail S2 4 Another species that is easily seen as reasonably common through binoculars but very hard to catch or find perched
Cordulegaster erronea Tiger Spiketail S1 Obscure
Cordulegaster obliqua Arrowhead Spiketail S2 3 Probably overlooked due to occurring largely at small streams with few other odes?
Macromia taeniolata Royal River Cruiser S1 5 Probably found along the entire Syndenham?
Helocordulia uhleri Uhler’s Sundragon S3 3 More overlooked than rare I’m sure
Neurocordulia michaeli Broad-tailed Shadowdragon S2S3 3,4 Presumably common along large stretches of at least the few rivers it has been found in.
Somatochlora brevicincta Quebec Emerald S1S2 1 Seems like new sites are being discovered every year
Somatochlora elongata Ski-tipped Emerald S3? 1 Clearly widespread in central Ontario and at least into the southern boreal (iNat records from vicinity of Timmins, Gogama, Marathon and the Sault)
Somatochlora ensigera Plains Emerald S1 Obscure
Somatochlora forcipata Forcipate Emerald S3 1 Likely common in many parts of the boreal forest
Somatochlora hineana Hine’s Emerald S1 Obscure
Somatochlora hudsonica Hudsonian Emerald S2S3 1
Somatochlora incurvata Incurvate Emerald S1 3 Seems likely ubiquitous through central Ontario in appropriate fen habitat. Once I got comfortable identifying them in flight I started finding them constantly in Algonquin (at a quick skim of a map I’ve found them at least 7 apparent breeding sites along highway 60, maybe forgetting some). But overlooked because you need to be willing to get your feet wet and some practice at swinging a net to have much chance at seeing them. The S1 ranking seems clearly wrong to me but maybe you just don’t have enough records yet.
Somatochlora linearis Mocha Emerald S2 5
Somatochlora septentrionalis Muskeg Emerald S2S3 1
Somatochlora tenebrosa Clamp-tipped Emerald S2S3 3 Another species that is probably fairly ubiquitous at appropriate habitat within range (at least on the shield) but very hard to encounter/catch, as it breeds in shaded forest streams and probably forages largely within forests as well
Somatochlora whitehousei Whitehouse’s Emerald S2S3 1
Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony Boghaunter S2 3 Surely overlooked due to its early flight time and small size
Williamsonia lintneri Ringed Boghaunter S1 Obscure
Leucorrhinia borealis Boreal Whiteface S1S3 1
Leucorrhinia patricia Canada Whiteface S2S3 1
Libellula semifasciata Painted Skimmer S2 2 I think there may be resident populations too? But it is common in southern Ontario some years as immigrants meaning pressure on any resident populations is surely minimal
Libellula vibrans Great Blue Skimmer S1 Obscure
Sympetrum corruptum Variegated Meadowhawk S3 2
1 Like