Can’t answer your question, but I’ve been checking observations of japanese beetles (Popillia japonica), one of the most common insect species in the eastern USA with thousands of observations, to find evidence of a parasitic fly, Istocheta aldrichi. This non-native species was introduced as a biological control and seems to be extending its range (in some cases via human intervention) from areas of original introduction in northeastern USA. These are usually observed as eggs deposited on the pronotum of the beetle (e.g., https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/129331036), and the person uploading the beetle observation is usually completely unaware of their dual observation. These observations have been very useful in documenting the spread of this species, and its increasing abundance in areas where already present.
BTW there are virtually no observations of the adult fly at all; it’s a very nondescript tachinid species and only a specialist would be able to identify them. So the easily observed and recognizable eggs are about the only way to document this species.
When I am travelling and have some time to iNat, I really like it when I do a preview look at observations in the area, and the list not only reflects species that I am likely to find there, but also their relative abundance (or at least my chance of encountering it). I also like having enough regular records that I can get an idea on seasonality as well. That means I personally would encourage you to make regular observations of common things.
I try to post to reflect abundance, so I do post dandelions and daisies as well as the curious plants I can’t identify yet (I have much to learn!). But as someone who has spent their life with data, don’t censor, don’t try to figure out what future researchers will want. Post everything you find.
I was struggling to correct it as you were typing too! I know ! Phrenology is the study of the shape, contour of the skull. You know the bumps on my head!!!
If I was hired on as the future researcher’s field assistant, sure. But as I am doing this for free in my free time, I’ll stick to posting what I feel like posting.
I was identifying flowering observations of Pink Lady’s Slipper yesterday and this morning. It’s a common and very easily identified plant when it’s in bloom and everyone who sees it wants to take a photo of it, it seems (understandably!).
And that got me thinking: when do we have “enough” observations of common and widespread species? Now, for one of iNat’s goals - connecting people with nature - it’s great any time someone makes an observation of something common. But for the other goal - providing data for researchers - how many observations are enough? In other words, should I stop photographing Pink Lady’s Slippers and other common species, so as to relieve the burden on identifiers?
So then I looked to see exactly how many observations of Research Grade Pink Lady’s Slippers there are in my state, Massachusetts. Currently, there are 4,617. That’s a lot, right? But here’s the map of those observations.
There are lots of holes in that map - really, it just shows where the iNaturalists are. And thus I conclude I need to keep on making observations of common species, particularly in areas where there aren’t so many people.
My apologies in advance to all you lovely identifiers out there!
This plant may not be the best example for a “common” species. Yes, everybody wants to take pictures of it. I’ve seen people on wildflower hikes storming off trail with no regard to anything or anyone else and trample other rare plants to get close enough with their cell phones. So it’s commonly observed but I think the number of observations on iNaturalist overestimates its abundance, also because its location often ends up obscured. So 20 people all photographing the same plant will look like 20 different locations. Some folks go a step further and want the plant and not just a photo. It is commonly poached, and populations are in decline. It rarely survives transplanting. I’ve heard stories from park rangers bemoaning the loss of entire ladyslipper populations due to poaching. This may be more of an issue in some places compared to others, but I’m always careful about sharing location information for it.
Just two weeks ago, I found a single lady slipper orchid in a new location. I photographed it, super excited, and specifically did not upload it. This week it was completely gone, signs of digging around where it had been despite that. Super frustrating.
True, that an orchid may not be the best example of a common species. But the same pattern is true for many other common plants; I just happened to be working on Pink Lady’s Slipper when the thought occurred to me.
These examples are all of Research Grade observations. I would expect all of these species to occur throughout Massachusetts, at the scale these maps are showing, and yet iNaturalists have yet to document them throughout the state. And we’re talking about just the basic pattern of occurrence in this, say, quarter-century of time. Tracking phenology changes would require many, many more observations over time.
Absolutely keep observing common species if you like it. You never know how it is used later.
When Corona hit and the curfews started, I started observing frogs in my backyard. Every evening I went out there and photographed each individual I saw. I had my own agenda to keep me busy, wanted to see how many different individuals and how loyal to the location they were. But of course I also thought about how - if ever - those observations might be useful beyond my own entertainment. I thought maybe it might be interesting for someone looking for intraspecies variation, especially as this species is not too commonly observed with only 15 observers so far… or maybe the same questions I had in mind might be interesting for someone.
Well, those observations indeed were used for a publication, but very different then I had anticipated… someone looked into the kind of retreats frogs and toads would typically use and used thousands of iNat photos for that - rare species like the one I had observed but also super common ones (and I actually only know, because they also used one of my photos to depict one kind of retreat… so even a second way my observations were usefull). For that kind of purpose indeed more photos were better then less. Very nice, very interesting and very unexpected. Since then I really stopped worrying about how useful my data might be, as one really never can know. I observe what I want to observe… nothing more, nothing less
The cluster in northern Medford, is the Middlesex Fells. Wonderful place to walk and enjoy nature. Maybe some of the other clusters are parks or reservations as well.