When is a plant no longer considered "cultivated?"

[abounabat]

A cultivated plant begun to be considered as partially or completely wild when :

• it is reproducing sexually and seeds are germinating growing until a new adult specimen reproducing also sexually ;
  OR…
• it is spreading vegetatively by clonal fragmentation, winning space slowly or quickly.

Intermediate cases are if the cultivated individual is maintaining by vegetative clone but without spreading spatially, or if young specimens are growing from seeds but are not (or not yet) growing until adult stage, or if when adult they do not reproduce sexually as well as their cultivated parent.

For annuals, if they can reproduced annually, they are wild. But also an intermediate case if they maintain only because you manage the soil and irrigate and/or fertilisate it regularly without intention to maintien this plant, but another one.

[helik7]

This topic is sometimes quite confusing, with that I agree. I have probably the biggest problem with trees. I know trees along roads are 90% planted by humans and there are very old trees lining the former meanders of a river which I would consider wild. But what about trees growing on the unmaintained meadow behind the housing estate? Can I post it as wild when I don’t know if they were planted or not?
Another example: In the last century there were the whole forests planted with spruce monocultures here in Czech Republic and now 'cause of bark beetles are killing them all there are new trees planted instead of them. So when I go to a forest, even in national parks, I have no idea if I can consider any tree wild because the whole forest could be planted by humans. And iNat considers trees planted even 100 years ago by people as cultivated. But is it still cultivated when is was left untouched and unmaintained in a national park for tens or hundred years?

[fffffffff]

Yes, still cultivated, planted trees are in rows, so even with many dead and fallen if you look closely you can see rows, big part of national park near my home was planted around 70 years ago, and even if some trees look like they’re older, I don’t assume they’re wild, as I see others in clear rows even in places where you won’t expect them and where you don’t notice that pattern at first. I chose to look up for young trees so they’re definitely wild and ok for observations.

[blue_celery]

@helik7

But what about trees growing on the unmaintained meadow behind the housing estate? Can I post it as wild when I don’t know if they were planted or not?

First of all you should know which species they are. Then you should understand if that species is commonly found in meadows like the one behind your estate. Other important info for the decision wild/non-wild are: 1) are they more or less all of the same age? 2)is that species commonly planted as an ornamental? 3) are they producing some offspring there? 4) are they located randomly or there seems to be a certain criterion behind their position?
The big question is: why is that tree there?

@helik7

Another example: In the last century there were the whole forests planted with spruce monocultures here in Czech Republic and now 'cause of bark beetles are killing them all there are new trees planted instead of them. So when I go to a forest, even in national parks, I have no idea if I can consider any tree wild because the whole forest could be planted by humans

Forested areas that are the result of afforestations or reforestations usually are made up of just trees of the same age. Look if there are young trees that reasonably are born from seeds produce by the planted trees.

@helik7

And iNat considers trees planted even 100 years ago by people as cultivated. But is it still cultivated when is was left untouched and unmaintained in a national park for tens or hundred years?

Of course yes. Time does not change things.

[helik7]

Very helpful, thank you so much.

Now I may consider putting a lot of my observations to a captive category.

[mariejoseegarand]

@blue_celery

Example 2: one individual of the same ornamental species in the middle of a wood and there are no clues that someone could have planted it there, then you can consider it at least as potentially wild.

It happens quite often to find cultivated plants in the middle of the woods on old farmland, once the forest starts coming back, especially fruit trees and old fashioned ornementals. For fruit trees, one of the clue it’s wild is the fruits are usually not as palatable and good looking as with cultivars. Actually, their presences is for me an indicator the soil has probably been disturbed and wont show nice horizons in the first 20-30cm.

[blue_celery]

Yes, since you know the history of that sites you can be rather sure that those trees are the remnants of old cultivations and not grown from seeds. As always, the knowledge of the area you are dealing with is foundamental.

[leafybye]

A cultivated plant that escapes from cultivation is known as an escaped cultivar in plant books if it is a species known to do this in a certain area. Sometimes this becomes an invasive plant, and although feral, we mark it wild on this site. An escaped cultivar that doesn’t survive more than a few generations, and is limited to a very small area, and doesn’t spread is known as a waif. A waif happens here and there, but is too uncommon to mention in a Flora (plant list, or book). An escaped cultivar species that becomes naturalized or invasive in an area of significance, and remains feral forever, will be added to a region’s Flora.

For this site, we leave it marked wild, unless you planted, or transplanted it, and now you are watering it, pulling the weeds, and have it in a yard. Then it would be captive or cultivated.

The designation of cultivated is not perfect, but it is basically to say that the species was not found in the wild, but it was obviously planted and is being cared for.

So, if you are looking at landscaping, experience with plants would come into play. You could determine that some or all were planted, and are being cared for, but then notice a weed, and the weed would be considered wild. It is wild because even though it was once a plant from another part of the world or country originally (wild some other place) or grown in a garden originally, this species now spreads on its own, and will continue to do so “forever.”

On the other hand, if you are in a wilderness, and you see a plant that is non-native, this is still wild, despite the fact that its ancestors were maybe either a cultivated plant, or simply from another part of the world.

It is important to document non-native plants when they escape into open spaces, or into wilderness, or even into urban fields and lots. Invasive plants are a big problem and the focus of many projects to remove them from wild areas.

A waif is not considered to be something that could be in danger of becoming invasive.

[garv_srivastava]

What about seedlings growing from kitchen waste that had been dumped for composting?

[fffffffff]

That’s the same as soil in waste, it is wild.

[leafybye]

wild waif, unless you transplant and cultivate

[garv_srivastava]

Ah I see… Thank you for explaining!

[earthknight]

That’s a good thumbnail approach, but it does get more complicated than that. For example:

• Plant in garden/yard that seeds itself (or hitches a ride there), but when it starts growing the owner of the property specifically encourages it, weeds around it, maybe prunes it, etc.

• Native plant that grew in the yard on its own, but has been carefully tended, managed, and maintained to become an intentional part of the managed landscape.

In both of those cases a good argument can be made that they plants become cultivated plants as a result of the intentional management activity.

In cases like that I’m not espousing any one classification over the other, just highlighting that for every “rule” there are usually either exceptions or complicating factors.

[susanhewitt]

When I walk around my neighborhood in Manhattan NYC, I often see pots and planters where there was once a cultivated plant, which died, and as there is still plenty of soil in the pot, subsequently one or more weeds have colonized the pot.

Also weeds travel into an area accidentally in the pots of plants for sale. And sometimes the weed drops seed before it is discovered and trashed. Last year I found Euphorbia ophthalmica as a waif growing in the gutter right in my neighborhood of NYC – it was next to a florist’s shop and I assume the seeds were from a plant that came in as a weed with a shipment of plants from the south somewhere.

I also found two plants (waifs) of Tropical Mexican Clover, Richardia brasiliensis, growing as weeds in raised bed in Manhattan. I am assuming that a plant or seed of this also had probably been accidentally shipped in with a plants from the south.

All kinds of weird stuff happens.

[Star3]

@earthknight

Native plant that grew in the yard on its own, but has been carefully tended, managed, and maintained to become an intentional part of the managed landscape.

I see these as cultivated, because it is currently being cultivated/managed by humans.
Others see it as wild, because it wasn’t initially planted there by humans.

Both are valid and defensible interpretations, but the majority would probably call it wild.

[susanhewitt]

On iNat, “cultivated” does not mean “being taken care of by a human”. For plants it means that the plant was originally deliberated planted in that spot by a human, or the seeds were deliberate planted or scattered by humans in that spot, no matter what happens to the plant afterwards.

[dianastuder]

I hope that iNat will change that word.
Having to keep remembering that in iNatese Cultivated simply = Not Wild.

[Star3]

See, that confuses me, because iNat recognizes that a wild animal can become cultivated once a human begins caring for it (the “zebra in a zoo” example from the FAQ), or that a pet that escapes and becomes feral is wild. There’s nuance there, but not for flora?

I guess I could just accept that plants aren’t animals, and moreover that cultivated on iNat doesn’t mean managed, but none of the official iNat pages I’ve seen say anything to that effect (though I’d be happy if someone can point me to something from the staff that I missed).

[susanhewitt]

iNaturalist terminology:

With animals the choices are “wild” versus “captive”.
(Feral animals count as wild.)

With plants it is "“wild” versus “cultivated”, meaning deliberately planted.
(Self-seeded volunteer plants count as wild.)

If anyone can think of a much better term than “cultivated” for plants that were originally deliberately planted by humans, regardless of whether they were subsequently cared for or not, then they could suggest it to the iNat staff.

In the Data Quality Assessment section of an observation page, iNat also allows you to respond thumbs up or thumbs down to the statement “Organism is wild”.

You could argue that the iNat staff could have used the phrase “Not wild” for both animals and plants, but I think that using “Captive” for animals and “Cultivated” for plants makes things a little bit clearer.

“Cultivated plants” as opposed to “wild plants” is a common enough piece of terminology in real life also.

Ultimately the iNat terminology is something you just have to get used to.

[dianastuder]

There are already a few long threads about this.
The confusion bubbles back to the surface with each new person who comes from real life, where cultivated means someone actively cultivated that plant.
But not on iNat.

Planted would be clearer, and more neutral than cultivated.