Is it correct to understand that the distribution map on iNat is an observation map and does not necessarily indicate a species’ original native range?
For example, if a plant is introduced outside its natural range for horticultural purposes and then begins to reproduce on its own at that location, it is regarded as wild on iNat. However, this differs from the species’ original natural distribution in the wild.
Although non-native species are distinguished as such, there are also cases where plants are introduced for horticultural purposes into regions within the same country where they do not naturally occur. As a result, information that serves as documentation of natural wild distribution becomes mixed with distribution resulting from cultivation, which makes me feel that the data may have limited value as a scientific reference.
Yes, the data on iNat observation maps are essentially distribution maps. Users can, however, filter the data displayed to show different aspects. There are also atlases present. I would disagree with
to some extent. Having observations of both wild and cultivated organisms could actually be more useful for some scientific purposes. As a scientist myself, I’d rather have more data and filter it to answer my question rather than less data. So iNat’s default maps should not be interpreted as maps of organisms’ native ranges for taxa that have been introduced elsewhere. But with careful use, iNat data can answer a variety of questions about native/introduced/invasive species that are very difficult to otherwise answer (where are organisms introduced? Where have they escaped cultivation? What types of habitats are the introduced taxa found in? Do they differ in the native/introduced ranges? etc)
The distribution maps have several purposes. @cthawley mentioned some of them, and another common one is to assist with species identification. Some species are highly regional or have specific range divides.
which were only separated into different species a few years ago and are easy to mistake for each other. The range map can help determine which species is which.
The actual range (native range in this case) is much greater than what the range is indicated on the map as both observations and checklist places demonstrate.
The inaccuracies of the range maps are not necessarily the fault of iNat, but of the sources of the maps, such as IUCN’s Red List, in which specific species profiles may not be updated for decades due to them being lower priority, or the working groups simply not having enough time to get to re-evaluating the species.
From the view that “it is preferable to obtain more data and then filter it, rather than have less data,” I have come to vaguely understand iNat’s intention of treating planted organisms as wild if they are able to reproduce and sustain themselves. Also, when there are very similar species that cannot be distinguished from photographs alone, distribution ranges are extremely important reference materials.
In fact, in a recent observation in Japan, a member of the genus Anemone that is distributed only in western Japan was planted, because of its beautiful flowers, in a natural botanical garden in the Kanto region (eastern Japan), and individuals that had subsequently increased there were observed. Since this was a protected environment within a botanical garden, I judged that at this level it would be considered “casual.”
In recent years in Japan, botanical gardens designed to imitate natural habitats have been increasing, and observations from such places have also become more common, which is why I decided to make this inquiry.
Planted organisms are not wild and under the DQA should be given a thumbs down on the ‘Organism is wild’ option. Offspring from that organism are a little more grey, but if they require constant maintenance to ensure a niche for them, and are not spreading beyond the maintained area then I’d also say they’re not wild and should be marked as such. If a plant is spreading into unintended locations and establishing itself without human intervention, then it is wild.
That is true. After all, they have not spread beyond the managed area.
There are also many cases in which plants that were originally planted and have since been left for many years—effectively half-abandoned—are recognized as “wild.” In particular, Hydrangea macrophylla and Bletilla striata have only a small number of genuinely wild and valuable observations, which end up being buried among the many cultivated plantings.
That’s exactly the issue. For example, plants such as Crocus, Helleborus, species Cyclamen, Iris × hybrida, Agapanthus, Narcissus, and Muscari are often garden escapes that do not die out but instead become established.
On the iNat side as well, the documentation explaining the definitions and examples is placed in a section that is not very easy to find, and the explanations themselves can be confusing. For instance, it says that “something planted by people is not acceptable, but individuals that reproduce from it are acceptable,” which is quite difficult to interpret from the observer’s point of view. I think there could be ways to improve this, such as placing the note about “captive/cultivated” status in a more visible location or providing a clear link to it.
In recent years, I have been marking recently naturalizing Helleborus, native Cyclamen, potted plants, and street trees as “casual.” However, since other participants are often reluctant to do so, I sometimes worry that if I make too many such checks myself, I might end up being disliked.
Many observers do not know that they should mark such specimens as captive/cultivated, or they do not know enough about plants to tell which ones were planted and which ones are volunteers, or they choose not to because they want an ID first and this is less likely if the observation is casual.
IDers might similarly not be certain whether a specimen is wild or not (e.g., if the photo and location are ambiguous), or they might forget because they are focused on IDing, they might not think the distinction is meaningful, etc.
In other words: most of the time when planted plants don’t get marked as captive/cultivated, it is not because people are unwilling to do so, but because of uncertainty about how to treat such observations. You are therefore unlikely to upset people if you mark clearly cultivated plants as such – plant IDers will likely appreciate that someone is doing this, as it is not a favorite activity for most of us. If it is a new observer who has lots of unmarked observations of garden plants, it is often useful to additionally add a note on at least one of their observations explaining why it is important to record whether the plant was put there by humans or not.
Identifiers have asked me to - Mark as not Wild, don’t just leave a comment.
If you are confident between the obvious garden / street setting, and the commonorgarden sp - do mark it not Wild.
If you get dislike, have a copypasta / text expander ready.
If the dislike is an offensive comment, then flag it.
We mark Not Wild for the next identifier.
I thought I understood the perspective that “it is unclear how observations should be treated,” but in truth I had been underestimating it. Because I can identify these things relatively easily myself, I unconsciously assumed that others could do the same. Indeed, determining whether a plant is cultivated or truly wild can be quite difficult unless one has considerable knowledge.
The issue I raised at the beginning—namely, that plants introduced into nature observation gardens may blur a species’ original distribution—also stems from the fact that observers often do not realize that the plants are cultivated. However, people who observe wild plants in such places are usually not complete beginners; many are knowledgeable and have participated in iNat for years, and they have their own standards and convictions. When I explain that a particular plant is cultivated and give my reasons, they generally comply, but I rarely receive a response such as “thank you for letting me know.” Since they also have their pride, I sometimes hesitate about whether I should point it out at all.
There are also many occasions when specialists from overseas visit Japan and make observations. Many of them are quite particular in their views. I have encountered various situations: for example, someone arguing that a plant growing beyond the designated planting area in a park should be considered “wild,” or that a plant growing in the corner of a planter should be regarded as “natural” rather than planted.
Your opinion is entirely sound, and I intend to follow your guidance in how I handle these cases.
However, if cultivated plants had always been treated appropriately, then observations of Camellia japonica, Magnolia stellata, and Rhododendron indicum in Europe and North America would presumably disappear from the distribution maps. Likewise, Hydrangea macrophylla occurs in the wild only on islands and peninsulas south of Tokyo, so all other observations worldwide would disappear from the maps.
At the same time, I also feel that we should not overlook @cthawley’s point that, if used carefully, iNat data—including cultivated plants—may still have the potential to serve as valuable data for addressing various questions about native, introduced, and invasive species.
Cultivated plants are useful data. Small creatures use them as habitat and food. iNat’s data would be more useful if they got around to splitting Needs ID from Is it Wild ? And splitting broken (as in missing data) from merely Not Wild. Then researchers could rely on - this plant is Wild - instead of wondering if the observer is determined to get an ID.
I do chase up out of range when I happen on a distribution map where Endemic to Southern Africa is casually scattered across the world, as Wild. While remembering that ours could be an Invasive over there.