Treatment of Sensitive Taxon Data in CCH2
Announcement of Community Discussion and Request for Statements
|
The CCH Admin Committee invites you to participate in a dialogue about how we as the community will approach the protection (if any) of locality and coordinate data for sensitive taxa (e.g., rare and threatened taxa) in the CCH2 specimen data portal.
Currently no data are globally redacted from the public search features in CCH2 or CCH1. Individual collections can and do redact individual records. The question has come up as to whether certain rare plant data should be hidden from public view. If we are to do that and to what extent are open questions for debate among participants. In March, we invited any and all stakeholders to submit a written statement to be shared with the CCH community. These statements are shared under "Community Statements" below. On May 13th, 2021, we held a CCH community webinar in which we heard prepared statements from several stakeholders about how herbarium specimen data for sensitive taxon data are used and/or potentially misused. A recording of this meeting and the slides from the presenters can be found at the links below. We now ask our community to amend their statements if their viewpoints have changed since the webinar, or to issue a statement if they have not already. You can do so at the following link.
Please feel free to share this page with anyone who produces or uses herbarium data. We would like to hear from as many stakeholders as possible.
|
Community Statements
Below are the written statements provided in response to the request for stakeholder statements described above, in the order they were received. Please note that the writers' affiliations are provided only as a reference and do not imply official endorsement of the statement by the named organization or institution.
|
|
Keir Morse
California Botanic Garden
March 3, 2021
California Botanic Garden
March 3, 2021
I think overall, location data on rare plants should be available to the public. If you want the public to learn about, help become stewards of, and help take additional data on rare plants, access to those plants is often a must. iNaturalist is a great example where obscuring the coordinates of rare plants really is a burden for anyone who wants to learn more about them and to perhaps visit a location to more thoroughly survey for plants there and to assess threats. For the most part, obscuring location data is just an unnecessary hindrance to all, especially in a state where the number of rare taxa is very larger and a significant percent of the state's flora.
On the other side of the argument, some plant taxa may be very threatened by having their coordinates easily accessible, but many of those plant taxa may not be rare yet. How many of the Dudleya species that have been targeted for poaching are not listed as rare in California? What about cactus species? Which plants actually are at risk from their locations being available to the public? Probably not the majority of plants listed as rare in California. If coordinates were to be obscured, I think a thoughtfully considered list of both rare and common taxa that really do run a serious risk due to the public having coordinates would make the most sense. As mentioned, poaching is a real concern for some taxa. Most other risks would likely involve development. Making it difficult to know if rare plants have been collected in a particular area of land in the past could bring developers in to destroy them before official surveys but they might also use that information to avoid those areas. Likewise having it known to the public that there were rare plants in an area should make it harder for developers to avoid the question of why they didn't find it in their surveys, why their surveys were at the wrong time of year for that taxon, or what they plan to due to mitigate for impacts to those plants. Some developers do their best to make sure rare taxa don't make it into reports and hope that no one will notice. By making that data public to begin with, it is harder for them to hide the fact that those taxa are there.
On the other side of the argument, some plant taxa may be very threatened by having their coordinates easily accessible, but many of those plant taxa may not be rare yet. How many of the Dudleya species that have been targeted for poaching are not listed as rare in California? What about cactus species? Which plants actually are at risk from their locations being available to the public? Probably not the majority of plants listed as rare in California. If coordinates were to be obscured, I think a thoughtfully considered list of both rare and common taxa that really do run a serious risk due to the public having coordinates would make the most sense. As mentioned, poaching is a real concern for some taxa. Most other risks would likely involve development. Making it difficult to know if rare plants have been collected in a particular area of land in the past could bring developers in to destroy them before official surveys but they might also use that information to avoid those areas. Likewise having it known to the public that there were rare plants in an area should make it harder for developers to avoid the question of why they didn't find it in their surveys, why their surveys were at the wrong time of year for that taxon, or what they plan to due to mitigate for impacts to those plants. Some developers do their best to make sure rare taxa don't make it into reports and hope that no one will notice. By making that data public to begin with, it is harder for them to hide the fact that those taxa are there.
Michael Simpson
San Diego State University
March 6, 2021
San Diego State University
March 6, 2021
I agree that specific localities of certain sensitive species should be hidden from public view. I'm afraid there are still plant poachers out there who would take advantage of having access to specific localities and impact populations of sensitive plants for personal gain.
Of course, individual herbaria could do this on their own, but it would be nice to have a consensus. What are the criteria for redaction of data. Is it Federally or State Endangered? What about Federally or State Threatened, or Rare? Would CNPS CRPR rankings of 1A or 1B.1 be redacted? What about 1B.2, etc.? Where does one draw the line? I'm sure others have thought about this.
However, I would want two things to happen:
1) The specific locality data would, of course, be available to those doing valid research projects. Known researchers could be registered to have access to the data without a specific request. It looks like this has already been done, e.g., at RSA, as I (a verified researcher) can access localities for sensitive plants (based on one test), but the locality information and specimen image are redacted for the public. Others would need to request registration to acquire these data, providing documentation for a valid research study.
2) The locality field could be hidden from the public (requiring the specimen image also to be hidden), but any georeference data (lat/long) would still be listed, but approximate. Perhaps others have worked out a system, but maybe something like change the lat/long to the nearest 10th of a degree (32.1358, -117.5624 changed to 32.1, -117.6)? That way, the point in a low resolution map (e.g., for CalFlora, GBIF) would still show up. I map plants out all the time, esp. using GBIF, and would not want these records to totally disappear. I hope this could be set up as an automatic procedure for locality redaction in these broader databases.
Of course, another issue is people requesting to use the physical collections. Suppose someone unknown to the curator wishes to access, say, the Dudleya collections (and could of course photograph or write down information from the labels). Would they be allowed without known credentials? Of course, rare plants could be physically separated from the main collection, but I think this would be unwieldy in general, except maybe for certain very sensitive plants. Herbaria would have to evaluate their policies for public access to the collection and how much that would be monitored. I think this scenario might be quite rare, and maybe not controllable, but still worth evaluating.
Also, many of us upload our data to SEINet. Do they automatically redact locality information for rare/sensitive plants for all collection data, or leave that up to the herbaria? If so, what are their criteria?
Despite these challenges, I believe that redaction of locality data for specific rare plants is a good idea. The question is, do we do it (require it?) as a group? If not, we should at least develop guidelines that individual herbaria can choose to implement or not. And, we should make sure data uploads to SEINet, CCH1, CalFlora, etc. respect the decisions of individual herbaria.
Thanks for organizing this important discussion!
***Update: April 29, 2021***
After reading the comments, talking to colleagues, and experiencing the effect of this first hand, I now think that redacting locality data has far more cons than pros and should not be a policy of the CCH. The only exception, as some have mentioned, might be exceedingly rare plants or plants threatened by malevolent extirpation or poaching, and these only if imperiled by releasing specific locality information. There would need to be some real evidence for these exceptions, which should be discussed by the group. When in doubt, keep the data open for all. I suppose any collector can choose to obscure precise locality information if they feel it necessary to protect a sensitive plant population. But I am not in favor of redacting data based on criteria such as a CNPS, Federal, or State status.
Of course, individual herbaria could do this on their own, but it would be nice to have a consensus. What are the criteria for redaction of data. Is it Federally or State Endangered? What about Federally or State Threatened, or Rare? Would CNPS CRPR rankings of 1A or 1B.1 be redacted? What about 1B.2, etc.? Where does one draw the line? I'm sure others have thought about this.
However, I would want two things to happen:
1) The specific locality data would, of course, be available to those doing valid research projects. Known researchers could be registered to have access to the data without a specific request. It looks like this has already been done, e.g., at RSA, as I (a verified researcher) can access localities for sensitive plants (based on one test), but the locality information and specimen image are redacted for the public. Others would need to request registration to acquire these data, providing documentation for a valid research study.
2) The locality field could be hidden from the public (requiring the specimen image also to be hidden), but any georeference data (lat/long) would still be listed, but approximate. Perhaps others have worked out a system, but maybe something like change the lat/long to the nearest 10th of a degree (32.1358, -117.5624 changed to 32.1, -117.6)? That way, the point in a low resolution map (e.g., for CalFlora, GBIF) would still show up. I map plants out all the time, esp. using GBIF, and would not want these records to totally disappear. I hope this could be set up as an automatic procedure for locality redaction in these broader databases.
Of course, another issue is people requesting to use the physical collections. Suppose someone unknown to the curator wishes to access, say, the Dudleya collections (and could of course photograph or write down information from the labels). Would they be allowed without known credentials? Of course, rare plants could be physically separated from the main collection, but I think this would be unwieldy in general, except maybe for certain very sensitive plants. Herbaria would have to evaluate their policies for public access to the collection and how much that would be monitored. I think this scenario might be quite rare, and maybe not controllable, but still worth evaluating.
Also, many of us upload our data to SEINet. Do they automatically redact locality information for rare/sensitive plants for all collection data, or leave that up to the herbaria? If so, what are their criteria?
Despite these challenges, I believe that redaction of locality data for specific rare plants is a good idea. The question is, do we do it (require it?) as a group? If not, we should at least develop guidelines that individual herbaria can choose to implement or not. And, we should make sure data uploads to SEINet, CCH1, CalFlora, etc. respect the decisions of individual herbaria.
Thanks for organizing this important discussion!
***Update: April 29, 2021***
After reading the comments, talking to colleagues, and experiencing the effect of this first hand, I now think that redacting locality data has far more cons than pros and should not be a policy of the CCH. The only exception, as some have mentioned, might be exceedingly rare plants or plants threatened by malevolent extirpation or poaching, and these only if imperiled by releasing specific locality information. There would need to be some real evidence for these exceptions, which should be discussed by the group. When in doubt, keep the data open for all. I suppose any collector can choose to obscure precise locality information if they feel it necessary to protect a sensitive plant population. But I am not in favor of redacting data based on criteria such as a CNPS, Federal, or State status.
Brent Mishler
University and Jepson Herbaria, UC Berkeley
March 6, 2021
University and Jepson Herbaria, UC Berkeley
March 6, 2021
Over its nearly two decades of operation, CCH has become one of the best herbarium data sharing projects anywhere, while being open access the entire time. There have been no documented evil uses of data, yet there have been thousands and thousands of documented good uses. I favor keeping CCH completely open access into the future.
The notion of redacting data on rare plants has raised its head again. It has been discussed several times in the past and we have always decided as a group to show everything. The argument (that I personally still favor) is that 99.99% of our users need all the data and use it responsibly, particularly the rare plant data that scientists, agencies, NGOs, consultants, land managers, grassroots conservationists, etc. need to use on a daily basis for their work. The good of having data openly available far outweighs the bad that might be caused by the 0.01% of users who could potentially be bad actors (if any -- as far as I have seen, no one has provided evidence that someone has using CCH data for bad purposes like illegal harvesting).
People favoring redaction have said that “we can allow legitimate access to the full data on a case by case basis” but who is going to make those decisions, and how? It is not just researchers who need full data, it is consultants, teachers, students, land managers, agency botanists, CNPS activists etc. 99.99% of our users need full access! It would be a nightmare to decide who belongs in the other 0.01%, to deny them access. We could get serious criticism for elitism if we only let fellow academics see the full data and not the public (who after all paid for digitizing the data). We’d almost certainly default to giving automatic access upon request, but if we do that, then what’s the point of restricting access at all?
People need to step back and reflect on what a public portal is for. It is for the public, not for a small in-group of friends. If you only want to send your data out on request after vetting the person requesting, then you should not be part of a public portal to begin with.
The notion of redacting data on rare plants has raised its head again. It has been discussed several times in the past and we have always decided as a group to show everything. The argument (that I personally still favor) is that 99.99% of our users need all the data and use it responsibly, particularly the rare plant data that scientists, agencies, NGOs, consultants, land managers, grassroots conservationists, etc. need to use on a daily basis for their work. The good of having data openly available far outweighs the bad that might be caused by the 0.01% of users who could potentially be bad actors (if any -- as far as I have seen, no one has provided evidence that someone has using CCH data for bad purposes like illegal harvesting).
People favoring redaction have said that “we can allow legitimate access to the full data on a case by case basis” but who is going to make those decisions, and how? It is not just researchers who need full data, it is consultants, teachers, students, land managers, agency botanists, CNPS activists etc. 99.99% of our users need full access! It would be a nightmare to decide who belongs in the other 0.01%, to deny them access. We could get serious criticism for elitism if we only let fellow academics see the full data and not the public (who after all paid for digitizing the data). We’d almost certainly default to giving automatic access upon request, but if we do that, then what’s the point of restricting access at all?
People need to step back and reflect on what a public portal is for. It is for the public, not for a small in-group of friends. If you only want to send your data out on request after vetting the person requesting, then you should not be part of a public portal to begin with.
Kristi Lazar
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
March 9, 2021
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
March 9, 2021
I would be in support of redacting location information in public facing databases ONLY if there is an easy way for people who need the information for their work to access the information. My comments are mostly related to CCH1 and CCH2 which are the databases the CNDDB uses the most but I think my comments also apply to other public databases.
The CNDDB uses information in CCH1 and CCH2 on a daily basis and it is an essential part of the CNDDB by providing us with documentation on both the historic and current distribution of rare species. Back in 2019 when nearly all the rare species information on CCH2 was being redacted, Jason Alexander indicated that the only way for me to access the unredacted information was to send requests to each institution with the species and/or accessions from which we would like the data. It would have had a severe impact on what we can accomplish if we had to request information from each institution individually; luckily for us CCH2 un-redacted the rare species information so we could proceed with our work. There are a few species that still have redacted information from certain institutions and we end up ignoring that information since we just don’t have the time/resources to contact individual herbaria to ask that they send us an extract of their unredacted information.
The impact of CCH redacting its information without an easy way for those who need the information to access it would likely be similar to iNaturalist; iNaturalist obscures coordinates for all of their rare species information. The only way to access the specific coordinates is to message each observer individually. This is a huge issue for the CNDDB and we now spend a significant amount of our time requesting permission to access unobscured coordinates from iNaturalist observers. The time we are spending requesting access to iNaturalist information is time taken away from the core functions of our job which is to enter rare species into our database so that the information is available for conservation and land management.
If you were to go the route of redacting location information and only providing it to those who need it, there would need to be someone to manage the access permissions which can be a pretty big task. If the resources are not there to have someone manage data access, I think it would be more beneficial than detrimental to have the data unredacted. CCH has such a wealth of information and is used by so many people for important work; I think redacting the information (and not having an easy way to access it) would have significant impacts to the world of plant conservation.
The CNDDB uses information in CCH1 and CCH2 on a daily basis and it is an essential part of the CNDDB by providing us with documentation on both the historic and current distribution of rare species. Back in 2019 when nearly all the rare species information on CCH2 was being redacted, Jason Alexander indicated that the only way for me to access the unredacted information was to send requests to each institution with the species and/or accessions from which we would like the data. It would have had a severe impact on what we can accomplish if we had to request information from each institution individually; luckily for us CCH2 un-redacted the rare species information so we could proceed with our work. There are a few species that still have redacted information from certain institutions and we end up ignoring that information since we just don’t have the time/resources to contact individual herbaria to ask that they send us an extract of their unredacted information.
The impact of CCH redacting its information without an easy way for those who need the information to access it would likely be similar to iNaturalist; iNaturalist obscures coordinates for all of their rare species information. The only way to access the specific coordinates is to message each observer individually. This is a huge issue for the CNDDB and we now spend a significant amount of our time requesting permission to access unobscured coordinates from iNaturalist observers. The time we are spending requesting access to iNaturalist information is time taken away from the core functions of our job which is to enter rare species into our database so that the information is available for conservation and land management.
If you were to go the route of redacting location information and only providing it to those who need it, there would need to be someone to manage the access permissions which can be a pretty big task. If the resources are not there to have someone manage data access, I think it would be more beneficial than detrimental to have the data unredacted. CCH has such a wealth of information and is used by so many people for important work; I think redacting the information (and not having an easy way to access it) would have significant impacts to the world of plant conservation.
Len Lindstrand III
Sierra Pacific Industries
March 10, 2021
Sierra Pacific Industries
March 10, 2021
Herbaria are valuable information sources for numerous land managers, consultants, students, and researchers. The CCH portal makes using these data sources much easier and efficient. Presumably, the “easy access” is causing this issue to arise; we probably wouldn’t be having a discussion about restricting a member of the public from following all procedures and entering herbaria to view rare plant specimens in person. This issue of resource databases and professional versus public users is long-standing. That said, I would be interested in learning how this question has been raised and of actual instances where public access has been an issue; and if these issues are isolated or systemic. If isolated, we should also be asking if isolated issues dictate wholesale changes or if they can be addressed in some other way.
Restricting access becomes complicated by the fact that CCH data is used (as it should be…) by numerous other publicly available data sources, again, begging the question of what is the real issue and do we need specific versus wholesale changes. Other issues will certainly arise, even as simple as how are we defining “sensitive taxa.” Sierra Pacific Industries’ conducts our botanical work in a transparent manner and reports all our findings in publicly available sources. We also submit our survey findings to publicly available databases, and we submit any collections made to various (public) herbaria. So, in our case, if our data included in CCH is redacted, there will still be numerous other sources where if someone wanted, they could access that information. Other CCH contributors may have similar situations.
I see by the statement in the invitation “…In your written statement you can address what you see as pros and cons to restricting access to a few/some/all rare species data portal-wide (meaning that all specimens of that species will be hidden from those without rare species reader status)…” that there is already some thought given to “those with rare species reader status” and at least an idea as to how that type of system will be used. I think this is an important issue, as the CCH data is valuable tool for botanical assessments, project scoping, and survey planning. At a minimum, if any changes were made to the CCH portal, resource professionals must have access to rare plant information. Additionally, if such changes were made, the professional access must be simple and easy to manage. Our profession is already wrought with usernames, accounts, passwords, and systems that often do not keep up with changes to those accounts in a timely manner.
Overall, I think we should really examine what truly is the issue, and whether that issue can be addressed at a more specific level. Additionally, we really need to assess and navigate the tangled web of multiple data sources, connected data sources, other publicly available sources, etc. If this somehow becomes elevated to some type of “status” level access for professional use, we should also assess the feasibility and what type of an administrative system, with a plan for necessary funding, would be necessary that can truly handle that system.
Restricting access becomes complicated by the fact that CCH data is used (as it should be…) by numerous other publicly available data sources, again, begging the question of what is the real issue and do we need specific versus wholesale changes. Other issues will certainly arise, even as simple as how are we defining “sensitive taxa.” Sierra Pacific Industries’ conducts our botanical work in a transparent manner and reports all our findings in publicly available sources. We also submit our survey findings to publicly available databases, and we submit any collections made to various (public) herbaria. So, in our case, if our data included in CCH is redacted, there will still be numerous other sources where if someone wanted, they could access that information. Other CCH contributors may have similar situations.
I see by the statement in the invitation “…In your written statement you can address what you see as pros and cons to restricting access to a few/some/all rare species data portal-wide (meaning that all specimens of that species will be hidden from those without rare species reader status)…” that there is already some thought given to “those with rare species reader status” and at least an idea as to how that type of system will be used. I think this is an important issue, as the CCH data is valuable tool for botanical assessments, project scoping, and survey planning. At a minimum, if any changes were made to the CCH portal, resource professionals must have access to rare plant information. Additionally, if such changes were made, the professional access must be simple and easy to manage. Our profession is already wrought with usernames, accounts, passwords, and systems that often do not keep up with changes to those accounts in a timely manner.
Overall, I think we should really examine what truly is the issue, and whether that issue can be addressed at a more specific level. Additionally, we really need to assess and navigate the tangled web of multiple data sources, connected data sources, other publicly available sources, etc. If this somehow becomes elevated to some type of “status” level access for professional use, we should also assess the feasibility and what type of an administrative system, with a plan for necessary funding, would be necessary that can truly handle that system.
Nona Chiariello
Oakmead Herbarium, Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, Stanford University
March 11, 2021
Oakmead Herbarium, Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, Stanford University
March 11, 2021
Current policy at Jasper Ridge is to obscure locality data for rare and sensitive plants. There are multiple reasons for that policy, and we adhere to it closely. It allows us to screen and interact with inquiries, and then accommodate and track legitimate requests. Jasper Ridge relies heavily on the efforts of volunteers, not only for maintaining our herbarium but also for our vigorous outreach and education programs. It would be an added and probably untenable burden if our tour leaders or herbarium volunteers had to take responsibility for resource protection as well. It could also lead to conflicts between our outreach and conservation missions.
We see some benefits of different entities having different policies. One is that it may provide opportunities over the long term to study whether posting location information is correlated with changes in sensitive species/populations over time. It would not be a perfect study because it would not be randomized, but it still might be valuable for informing policy on locality data.
We see some benefits of different entities having different policies. One is that it may provide opportunities over the long term to study whether posting location information is correlated with changes in sensitive species/populations over time. It would not be a perfect study because it would not be randomized, but it still might be valuable for informing policy on locality data.
John Game
UC/Jepson Herbaria, Berkeley
March 11, 2021
UC/Jepson Herbaria, Berkeley
March 11, 2021
I strongly support redacting species locality data for certain rare plant species, specifically those that are both very rare and of horticultural, commercial, or other interest to collectors. Examples would be rare cacti, since these are sometimes "harvested" by unscrupulous people in large quantity for sale to collectors; Some Lewisia species that are extremely rare and of interest to rock-gardeners in the UK and elsewhere; rare Fritillaria and Lilium species; some orchids; rare Dudleya species; and perhaps some insectivorous plants. It requires careful thought to compile a list. Plants that are only moderately rare or that are of no interest to collectors usually do not require redaction.
Staci Markos
University and Jepson Herbaria, UC Berkeley
March 11, 2021
University and Jepson Herbaria, UC Berkeley
March 11, 2021
One of the shared goals of the CCH and the Jepson eFlora is to provide public access to information about the plants of California. These resources, and the data contained therein, are used by professional botanists and plant enthusiasts. Herbaria data are incorporated into the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). They provide a significant source of information for other resources that have been developed for the California flora (e.g., Calflora and Calscape) and have also been shared with national and global databases and researchers from around the world for countless studies on topics ranging from single-species studies to state-wide analyses of biodiversity.
Priorities of the first meeting - I think the focus of our first meeting should be addressing basic questions and finding common ground that keeps the CCH operating as a collaborative and supportive network and finding solutions that allow our online floristic resources to serve the community in the best way possible.
Redacting data - When considering redacting rare plant data from public view, it’s important to ask, what is the goal? One objective that has been suggested is to prevent the use of herbarium data for locating rare plants that are then poached and sold on the private market. If our goal is to prevent poaching of wild plants, we must first decide what plants are high-value targets and then, if possible, obtain accurate information about how poachers are finding the plants (which may include some common species). If members of the CCH decide that hiding some rare plant data from public view is necessary to prevent poaching of rare plants, a series of questions must be answered. I have outline some of those questions here (link #1 below). In addition to the administrative overhead required, we must also consider the down-stream consequences of redacting data (some of which are outlined in link #1, below) and understand that (1) some CCH2 users may choose not to take the extra step of requesting access to data so while our intent is to allow only verified users to have access to the data, we may be creating situation where data are not accessed even by those who should have it and (2) the choice to redact data cascades through all of the portals and resources that serve specimen data and rely on that data for accuracy. It is important to note that, as far as I know, there are no documented instances of poachers using herbarium data to locate wild populations of rare plants.
Everything is connected - Our community has built amazing floristic resources that support the work of researchers, consulting biologists, agencies, NGO’s, land mangers, etc. In order for resources like the Jepson eFlora to continue, access to data is needed. For example, via CCH1, coordinates from herbarium specimens are displayed in the eFlora, locations outside the known range of a species are flagged as “yellow flags”, the eFlora distributions are then improved, and this all gets incorporated into the filtered keys, which then improves the ability of people to accurately identify plants in a particular region. If we remove rare plant data, the entire system starts to break down.
Other examples - If it is decided that a small number of taxa need to have special consideration, redacting data for a few species would not significantly disrupt floristic references. It is worth noting that the CNDDB only redacts data for 10 species. That list is under link #2, below. The list used to be bigger but what CNDDB experienced is that even though redacted rare plant data were available upon request, users of the data did not request the redacted rare plant data and the result was that the rare species were ignored. In this case, redacting data hindered professional botanists who could have benefited from access to the data. If rare plant data are redacted in CCH2, there could be similar consequences, for example, species of Dudleya, cacti, and orchids would not appear in standard CCH2 searches and would be missing from other sites and resources. As a result, taxa with redacted data may be largely ignored by the user community.
Summary - I support public access to specimen data. We need to weigh the risk of people using herbarium data for illicit activity against people using herbarium data for plant surveys and conservation work. There is already evidence that redacting data interferes with the work done by professionals who rely on data.
Link #1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DkZ6MZrfq4Q2PiL8IFKD8lV-NAs4zdkWuhpOE0sp8Ao/edit
Link #2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t-zL1TbD9DuHLeRggW93Vx5XHcafn3NG/view?usp=sharing
Priorities of the first meeting - I think the focus of our first meeting should be addressing basic questions and finding common ground that keeps the CCH operating as a collaborative and supportive network and finding solutions that allow our online floristic resources to serve the community in the best way possible.
Redacting data - When considering redacting rare plant data from public view, it’s important to ask, what is the goal? One objective that has been suggested is to prevent the use of herbarium data for locating rare plants that are then poached and sold on the private market. If our goal is to prevent poaching of wild plants, we must first decide what plants are high-value targets and then, if possible, obtain accurate information about how poachers are finding the plants (which may include some common species). If members of the CCH decide that hiding some rare plant data from public view is necessary to prevent poaching of rare plants, a series of questions must be answered. I have outline some of those questions here (link #1 below). In addition to the administrative overhead required, we must also consider the down-stream consequences of redacting data (some of which are outlined in link #1, below) and understand that (1) some CCH2 users may choose not to take the extra step of requesting access to data so while our intent is to allow only verified users to have access to the data, we may be creating situation where data are not accessed even by those who should have it and (2) the choice to redact data cascades through all of the portals and resources that serve specimen data and rely on that data for accuracy. It is important to note that, as far as I know, there are no documented instances of poachers using herbarium data to locate wild populations of rare plants.
Everything is connected - Our community has built amazing floristic resources that support the work of researchers, consulting biologists, agencies, NGO’s, land mangers, etc. In order for resources like the Jepson eFlora to continue, access to data is needed. For example, via CCH1, coordinates from herbarium specimens are displayed in the eFlora, locations outside the known range of a species are flagged as “yellow flags”, the eFlora distributions are then improved, and this all gets incorporated into the filtered keys, which then improves the ability of people to accurately identify plants in a particular region. If we remove rare plant data, the entire system starts to break down.
Other examples - If it is decided that a small number of taxa need to have special consideration, redacting data for a few species would not significantly disrupt floristic references. It is worth noting that the CNDDB only redacts data for 10 species. That list is under link #2, below. The list used to be bigger but what CNDDB experienced is that even though redacted rare plant data were available upon request, users of the data did not request the redacted rare plant data and the result was that the rare species were ignored. In this case, redacting data hindered professional botanists who could have benefited from access to the data. If rare plant data are redacted in CCH2, there could be similar consequences, for example, species of Dudleya, cacti, and orchids would not appear in standard CCH2 searches and would be missing from other sites and resources. As a result, taxa with redacted data may be largely ignored by the user community.
Summary - I support public access to specimen data. We need to weigh the risk of people using herbarium data for illicit activity against people using herbarium data for plant surveys and conservation work. There is already evidence that redacting data interferes with the work done by professionals who rely on data.
Link #1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DkZ6MZrfq4Q2PiL8IFKD8lV-NAs4zdkWuhpOE0sp8Ao/edit
Link #2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t-zL1TbD9DuHLeRggW93Vx5XHcafn3NG/view?usp=sharing
Emily Magnaghi
California Academy of Sciences
March 11, 2021
California Academy of Sciences
March 11, 2021
CAS: The obvious major benefit to redacting information on locality is to limit the knowledge of poachers which I whole-heartedly agree with. However, this also limits efforts at preservation, conservation, and restoration. Individuals responsible for these conservation actions could contact herbaria directly for specific details on rare plant localities. CNDDB already restricts information on rare plant localities so users must find a way around that unless they have permission to access it directly.
In the CAS collection, we have many global species to consider and our current filing practices do not mark all species sheets or folders as threatened unless they are considered under CITES. Even then, we do not do a comprehensive job as we are under-staffed. Many plants are not listed under CITES, such as California state-listed species and those that are recently described and may not have enough data to list. It would take a great deal of time to put together national and international lists of threatened and endangered species to consider.
In the CAS collection, we have many global species to consider and our current filing practices do not mark all species sheets or folders as threatened unless they are considered under CITES. Even then, we do not do a comprehensive job as we are under-staffed. Many plants are not listed under CITES, such as California state-listed species and those that are recently described and may not have enough data to list. It would take a great deal of time to put together national and international lists of threatened and endangered species to consider.
Mare Nazaire
California Botanic Garden
March 11, 2021
California Botanic Garden
March 11, 2021
Only 36 areas on earth contain almost half of the world’s vascular plant diversity. World biodiversity hotspots occupy only 2.3% of the earth’s land surface but harbor a high proportion of endemic species and house most undescribed plant diversity. To qualify as a biodiversity hotspot a region must meet two strict criteria: 1) they must contain at least 1,500 vascular plant species as endemics; and 2) that they have lost at least 70% of their primary vegetation.
The California Floristic Province, a world biodiversity hotspot, has over 8,000 species of native plants, 61% of which are endemic. The state of California itself has over 7,700 minimum rank vascular plant taxa. Approximately 1/3 of the state’s native flora are of special concern and nearly 4% are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. While a large proportion of the threats to these taxa are population growth, urban development, invasive species, and climate change, poaching also poses a threat to these sensitive species. There are numerous recent incidents of poaching some of our iconic California plants, including Dudleya and many cacti.
Many herbaria and herbarium consortia have policies and protocols in place with respect to the redaction of location information for sensitive species served on their web portals. These measures aid in preventing unscrupulous collectors from finding collections sites and removing sensitive plants either for sale or to extirpate populations in the hopes that removing the population(s) will also remove restrictions on the use of the site. The protection tools implemented on various herbarium portals (e.g., Symbiota) have capabilities to redact collection location, collector date and collection number, as well as the image.
Redaction of location information for sensitive species is undoubtedly a controversial issue. My discussions with numerous botanists, curators, and collections managers across the U.S. and abroad over the last several months have demonstrated a wide range of opinions on this issue. Those in favor feel that it is our moral and ethical obligation as collections stewards to protect sensitive species through redaction of its location. Those who are opposed to redaction are of the view that restrictions may limit the inclusion of data in research – research that might ultimately lead to better protection of the site and population / species; others have voiced that it violates a strongly held principle among scientists that biodiversity data should be available without restrictions of any kind. Some may argue that redacting information does not accomplish its intended purpose: those intent on finding a location for a sensitive species can do it through other means than the specimens, and most often through the literature. Other arguments against redaction include the extra time and effort for curators and collections managers (that may already lack the time and/or staffing for normal operations) to blur images and place restrictions on location information.
However, it seems that no herbarium wants to facilitate the extirpation of a population or a species. Such a circumstance would be in direct opposition to the herbarium’s mission (I would presume) and possibly the bad publicity that could result if it led to the loss of a species. Because of its high plant diversity and high proportion of endemic species, California has significantly more at stake in terms of commercializable flora than many other states in the U.S. Rare plant research is a primary focus for many California botanists (certainly most of my colleagues at CalBG), with much time and effort devoted to the research, fieldwork, and conservation efforts of rare plants. For these reasons it seems that redaction of location information for sensitive species is would be part and parcel of the effort to protect and conserve the plants and populations, and not doing so seems contrary to all of our conservation efforts.
Increased digitization of our collections has permitted us to advance research in the California flora in myriad ways that we did not imagine 30 years ago or perhaps even 10 years ago. Digitization of herbarium specimens has created capabilities and functionality for many of the tools available on both Consortium of California portals and the Jepson flora, and greater access to specimen data. Some are concerned that redaction will undermine those efforts. However, it seems that we can find ways to develop capabilities and functions to provide permissions to users who need the data while at the same time ensuring that sensitive species remain protected. I think some balance can be reached between appropriate protections and access. Applications like iNaturalist already do this, so it seems entirely feasible that we could as well.
Considerations for species protections would be to implement the NatureServe list of G1 and G2 species and perhaps anything especially vulnerable that is highly sought after (e.g., Dudlya). It is less clear to me what IUCN red-listed taxa California herbaria have in their holdings, but I do have concerns for those as well, especially in consideration of digitizing for the Endless Forms project.
There is a plethora of literature out there on this subject and guidance on implementing best practices for protecting species. We should utilize these resources. I think key issues that we as a consortium should consider when discussing the issue: is redaction a consortium-wide decision or shall it be left for the individual institutions to decide? If we chose to redact sensitive species, which species do we chose? Can we develop functions or features in our portals for users to access the data while protecting species appropriately (CCH2 already has this, can CCH1 implement too)?
The California Floristic Province, a world biodiversity hotspot, has over 8,000 species of native plants, 61% of which are endemic. The state of California itself has over 7,700 minimum rank vascular plant taxa. Approximately 1/3 of the state’s native flora are of special concern and nearly 4% are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. While a large proportion of the threats to these taxa are population growth, urban development, invasive species, and climate change, poaching also poses a threat to these sensitive species. There are numerous recent incidents of poaching some of our iconic California plants, including Dudleya and many cacti.
Many herbaria and herbarium consortia have policies and protocols in place with respect to the redaction of location information for sensitive species served on their web portals. These measures aid in preventing unscrupulous collectors from finding collections sites and removing sensitive plants either for sale or to extirpate populations in the hopes that removing the population(s) will also remove restrictions on the use of the site. The protection tools implemented on various herbarium portals (e.g., Symbiota) have capabilities to redact collection location, collector date and collection number, as well as the image.
Redaction of location information for sensitive species is undoubtedly a controversial issue. My discussions with numerous botanists, curators, and collections managers across the U.S. and abroad over the last several months have demonstrated a wide range of opinions on this issue. Those in favor feel that it is our moral and ethical obligation as collections stewards to protect sensitive species through redaction of its location. Those who are opposed to redaction are of the view that restrictions may limit the inclusion of data in research – research that might ultimately lead to better protection of the site and population / species; others have voiced that it violates a strongly held principle among scientists that biodiversity data should be available without restrictions of any kind. Some may argue that redacting information does not accomplish its intended purpose: those intent on finding a location for a sensitive species can do it through other means than the specimens, and most often through the literature. Other arguments against redaction include the extra time and effort for curators and collections managers (that may already lack the time and/or staffing for normal operations) to blur images and place restrictions on location information.
However, it seems that no herbarium wants to facilitate the extirpation of a population or a species. Such a circumstance would be in direct opposition to the herbarium’s mission (I would presume) and possibly the bad publicity that could result if it led to the loss of a species. Because of its high plant diversity and high proportion of endemic species, California has significantly more at stake in terms of commercializable flora than many other states in the U.S. Rare plant research is a primary focus for many California botanists (certainly most of my colleagues at CalBG), with much time and effort devoted to the research, fieldwork, and conservation efforts of rare plants. For these reasons it seems that redaction of location information for sensitive species is would be part and parcel of the effort to protect and conserve the plants and populations, and not doing so seems contrary to all of our conservation efforts.
Increased digitization of our collections has permitted us to advance research in the California flora in myriad ways that we did not imagine 30 years ago or perhaps even 10 years ago. Digitization of herbarium specimens has created capabilities and functionality for many of the tools available on both Consortium of California portals and the Jepson flora, and greater access to specimen data. Some are concerned that redaction will undermine those efforts. However, it seems that we can find ways to develop capabilities and functions to provide permissions to users who need the data while at the same time ensuring that sensitive species remain protected. I think some balance can be reached between appropriate protections and access. Applications like iNaturalist already do this, so it seems entirely feasible that we could as well.
Considerations for species protections would be to implement the NatureServe list of G1 and G2 species and perhaps anything especially vulnerable that is highly sought after (e.g., Dudlya). It is less clear to me what IUCN red-listed taxa California herbaria have in their holdings, but I do have concerns for those as well, especially in consideration of digitizing for the Endless Forms project.
There is a plethora of literature out there on this subject and guidance on implementing best practices for protecting species. We should utilize these resources. I think key issues that we as a consortium should consider when discussing the issue: is redaction a consortium-wide decision or shall it be left for the individual institutions to decide? If we chose to redact sensitive species, which species do we chose? Can we develop functions or features in our portals for users to access the data while protecting species appropriately (CCH2 already has this, can CCH1 implement too)?
Fred Roberts
RSA Research associate/CNPS rare plant coordinator
March 11, 2021
RSA Research associate/CNPS rare plant coordinator
March 11, 2021
Others can best focus on why any locality redaction would benefit conservation of sensitive plant species in CCH2 (or CCH1) so I will concentrate solely on why I don’t believe the localities for sensitive plants should not be obscured. I am a firm believer in transparent data and strongly believe the availability of locality data far outweighs the conservation benefits it would presumably provide.
As a researcher focusing on floristics and rare plant geography, the CCH portals are an integral part of my research. I am a heavy user of both portals, more frequently CCH2 these days. Some months I access the portals daily and the portals have been instrumental in southern California county flora/checklist construction, plant identification guide development, and rare plant surveys on Conservation lands. Having an easily accessible and comprehensive portal to access California plant collections including those for sensitive plants has been invaluable, especially the increasingly availability specimen images on CCH2.
We are all aware, California has a fairly high sensitive species component and this will only grow as locally rare plants gain focus. Thus, if locality obscuring were applied liberally, as it is on iNaturalist, it could be quite disruptive to CCH users.
As someone how has conducted dozens of sensitive plant status review projects, I would simply have been thrilled to have the CCH portals as a tool. Obtaining such data in the 1980s and 1990s required a vast amount of time and effort. For example, in 2010, I relied heavily on CCH1 to conduct an overview of the CRPR plant Calochorthus fimbriatus in the central Santa Ynez Mountains. I could not have done the project had the locality data been redacted. This data was crucial for understanding the relationship of populations in the CNDDB and collections. Without this data, I would not have been able to relocate previous collection sites. I am certain I would not have been aware of others.
On a broader floristic level, it is not necessary to know where a rare plant site is with high precision. However, if you are monitoring the long-term status of a site or relocating a site, those precise coordinates are very important. Thus, I would argue that having ready access to the locality data is critical. Even with CCH locality data fully available, there will be plenty of troublesome sensitive species sites that will require a good deal of work to sort out, we should not force researches to put excessive effort into finding those sites were there is already good data.
Consider climate change. For all our hopes and potential efforts to avoid this human-caused crisis, we are entering a time when whole communities will suffer sweeping changes but we still don’t know where all the sensitive plant locations are. CCH can be an extremely useful took to track sensitive plant sites and inspire new contributors to add to the database. We literally will be losing the opportunity to document sensitive plant species sites. Redacting localities will make it harder to track what is declining and what has not been discovered and may even discourage researchers from making the attempt..
Any botanical researcher who has used iNaturalist will recognize the failings of liberal locality redactions. Effectively all sensitive plants (including some that are sensitive elsewhere but not in California) have redacted locality data. An image alone has limited value in floristic or biogeography without accompanying locality information. iNat further complicates this by providing a “marker” observation within a ±10km box. The false observation point can mislead researchers into hastily believing the location is real, though a second look usually corrects this. The box can also thwart research because there is no way to be sure this is a known location or if this is a significant new sighting without contacting the observer for the coordinates.
Contacting observers when it involves only a few records is not difficult but can be an extensive effort if many observations are available for a species or the researcher is examining many species. In my own case, it has discouraged me from using iNat sensitive plant location data.
Simply knowing a specimen is in a herbarium is not at all as useful as having easy access to it. CCH2 combines the knowledge of nearly 30 herbariums but most of us only have easy access to perhaps two or three of these institutions.
When we obscure locality data from those that abuse data, we are also obscuring data from those that could use the locality data to the conservation benefit of sensitive species.
A determined poacher will find the plants they are seeking. In some cases, the individuals or the knowledgeable locals they rely upon often know more about their target’s distribution then experts. It would be unfortunate if the actions of a small number of individuals resulted in a diminished value of CCH for everyone else.
Unscrupulous developers have also been cited as a possible risk to sensitive plant species. There are indeed many examples in Riverside County where landowners have knowingly destroyed sensitive plant habitat (this was a common feature of proposals to list endangered species when I helped write these while at the US Fish and Wildlife Service; the San Jacinto River flood plain abounds with examples). However, land owners and developers can easily hire botanists to locate these plants independently of online resources and often do. Or in some cases, they only need to know that their land might have sensitive species and clear any potential habitat on their property. Thus obscuring CCH sensitive plant localities would likely have limited benefits here.
The flip side of restricting locality data from those that would abuse data is that it also restricts the locality data to those that would use the information to provide conservation benefits. Knowledgeable public input on EIRs is most powerful when those responding to these documents have easily accessible tools to respond. In its current form, CCH provides significant information on not the higher ranked plants but it is an irreplaceable source for information on lower ranked sensitive plants. These species often are given minimal attention in EIRs. I can only imagine how much more I could have down for rare plant conservation had I had a resource like the CCH portals available during my heyday of botanical conservations. I could only imagine how frustrated I would be to know that the data exists, I just didn’t have easy access to it. Knowing precisely where the sensitive plant sites is far more effective when comparing with development footprints or monitoring sites for evidence of decline.
Freely available locality data is also a key element in inspiring a community to monitor the status and threats to sensitive species in wildlands surrounding these communites. The citizens of South Laguna have been more effective in plant conservation, especially for lower ranked species, then the Wildlife agencies. However, this can only happen if the aggressive conservationist in the community have knowledge of the sensitive plants. Having sensitive plant locality data readily available to the public in general can provide significant opportunities for education, inspiration, and add to the tool kit citizen conservationist have to protect rare plants in California.
Consider many of the desert energy projects. In some cases, the data in CCH is about the only data readily available to conservationists for areas they have no personal familiarity with. If those sensitive plant localities are obscured, it may lead to lose of those plants supposedly benefiting from locality obscuration. You can’t always trust the data in EIRS and the EIR data is not always complete.
In summary, I believe, at least the majority of sensitive plant species, having a transparent locality will far outweigh the benefits of obscuring it. Locality obscuring should be used only in limited circumstances were there is clear evidence that the locality availability places a species at risk. Rather then blinding the science, we should focus on improving regulations, education, inspire the next generation of botanists, and encourage its use as a powerful conservation tool for sensitive plants.
As a researcher focusing on floristics and rare plant geography, the CCH portals are an integral part of my research. I am a heavy user of both portals, more frequently CCH2 these days. Some months I access the portals daily and the portals have been instrumental in southern California county flora/checklist construction, plant identification guide development, and rare plant surveys on Conservation lands. Having an easily accessible and comprehensive portal to access California plant collections including those for sensitive plants has been invaluable, especially the increasingly availability specimen images on CCH2.
We are all aware, California has a fairly high sensitive species component and this will only grow as locally rare plants gain focus. Thus, if locality obscuring were applied liberally, as it is on iNaturalist, it could be quite disruptive to CCH users.
As someone how has conducted dozens of sensitive plant status review projects, I would simply have been thrilled to have the CCH portals as a tool. Obtaining such data in the 1980s and 1990s required a vast amount of time and effort. For example, in 2010, I relied heavily on CCH1 to conduct an overview of the CRPR plant Calochorthus fimbriatus in the central Santa Ynez Mountains. I could not have done the project had the locality data been redacted. This data was crucial for understanding the relationship of populations in the CNDDB and collections. Without this data, I would not have been able to relocate previous collection sites. I am certain I would not have been aware of others.
On a broader floristic level, it is not necessary to know where a rare plant site is with high precision. However, if you are monitoring the long-term status of a site or relocating a site, those precise coordinates are very important. Thus, I would argue that having ready access to the locality data is critical. Even with CCH locality data fully available, there will be plenty of troublesome sensitive species sites that will require a good deal of work to sort out, we should not force researches to put excessive effort into finding those sites were there is already good data.
Consider climate change. For all our hopes and potential efforts to avoid this human-caused crisis, we are entering a time when whole communities will suffer sweeping changes but we still don’t know where all the sensitive plant locations are. CCH can be an extremely useful took to track sensitive plant sites and inspire new contributors to add to the database. We literally will be losing the opportunity to document sensitive plant species sites. Redacting localities will make it harder to track what is declining and what has not been discovered and may even discourage researchers from making the attempt..
Any botanical researcher who has used iNaturalist will recognize the failings of liberal locality redactions. Effectively all sensitive plants (including some that are sensitive elsewhere but not in California) have redacted locality data. An image alone has limited value in floristic or biogeography without accompanying locality information. iNat further complicates this by providing a “marker” observation within a ±10km box. The false observation point can mislead researchers into hastily believing the location is real, though a second look usually corrects this. The box can also thwart research because there is no way to be sure this is a known location or if this is a significant new sighting without contacting the observer for the coordinates.
Contacting observers when it involves only a few records is not difficult but can be an extensive effort if many observations are available for a species or the researcher is examining many species. In my own case, it has discouraged me from using iNat sensitive plant location data.
Simply knowing a specimen is in a herbarium is not at all as useful as having easy access to it. CCH2 combines the knowledge of nearly 30 herbariums but most of us only have easy access to perhaps two or three of these institutions.
When we obscure locality data from those that abuse data, we are also obscuring data from those that could use the locality data to the conservation benefit of sensitive species.
A determined poacher will find the plants they are seeking. In some cases, the individuals or the knowledgeable locals they rely upon often know more about their target’s distribution then experts. It would be unfortunate if the actions of a small number of individuals resulted in a diminished value of CCH for everyone else.
Unscrupulous developers have also been cited as a possible risk to sensitive plant species. There are indeed many examples in Riverside County where landowners have knowingly destroyed sensitive plant habitat (this was a common feature of proposals to list endangered species when I helped write these while at the US Fish and Wildlife Service; the San Jacinto River flood plain abounds with examples). However, land owners and developers can easily hire botanists to locate these plants independently of online resources and often do. Or in some cases, they only need to know that their land might have sensitive species and clear any potential habitat on their property. Thus obscuring CCH sensitive plant localities would likely have limited benefits here.
The flip side of restricting locality data from those that would abuse data is that it also restricts the locality data to those that would use the information to provide conservation benefits. Knowledgeable public input on EIRs is most powerful when those responding to these documents have easily accessible tools to respond. In its current form, CCH provides significant information on not the higher ranked plants but it is an irreplaceable source for information on lower ranked sensitive plants. These species often are given minimal attention in EIRs. I can only imagine how much more I could have down for rare plant conservation had I had a resource like the CCH portals available during my heyday of botanical conservations. I could only imagine how frustrated I would be to know that the data exists, I just didn’t have easy access to it. Knowing precisely where the sensitive plant sites is far more effective when comparing with development footprints or monitoring sites for evidence of decline.
Freely available locality data is also a key element in inspiring a community to monitor the status and threats to sensitive species in wildlands surrounding these communites. The citizens of South Laguna have been more effective in plant conservation, especially for lower ranked species, then the Wildlife agencies. However, this can only happen if the aggressive conservationist in the community have knowledge of the sensitive plants. Having sensitive plant locality data readily available to the public in general can provide significant opportunities for education, inspiration, and add to the tool kit citizen conservationist have to protect rare plants in California.
Consider many of the desert energy projects. In some cases, the data in CCH is about the only data readily available to conservationists for areas they have no personal familiarity with. If those sensitive plant localities are obscured, it may lead to lose of those plants supposedly benefiting from locality obscuration. You can’t always trust the data in EIRS and the EIR data is not always complete.
In summary, I believe, at least the majority of sensitive plant species, having a transparent locality will far outweigh the benefits of obscuring it. Locality obscuring should be used only in limited circumstances were there is clear evidence that the locality availability places a species at risk. Rather then blinding the science, we should focus on improving regulations, education, inspire the next generation of botanists, and encourage its use as a powerful conservation tool for sensitive plants.
Bruce Baldwin
Jepson Herbarium, UC Berkeley
March 11, 2021
Jepson Herbarium, UC Berkeley
March 11, 2021
In my view, restricting access to rare species data in CCH2 likely has far more cons than pros. The sole benefit to doing so that I can see is preventing intentional depredation of plants by those who would use CCH data to locate populations to plunder. Although we all know of instances of plant poaching in California, such activity often involves relatively common rather than rare plants and it is unclear whether online databases are being used by poachers to find plants. On the other hand, we do know that CCH data are invaluable for research and conservation purposes and that loss of ready access to those data for rare plants has a high likelihood of negatively impacting research and conservation of all plants, including rarities, by constraining what can be learned about Californian plant biodiversity. The interconnectivity of Californian floristic resources means that restricting access to records will almost certainly have major fallout for all of our efforts to generate and provide high quality floristic data for diverse purposes. If or until we know that CCH data are being used in ways that negatively impact native plants in significant ways, it seems premature to take action to limit data access. The New York Botanical Garden, which has taken a hard look at this problem, does block access to data for Appendix 1 CITES-listed plants, of which only orchids apply for California, where our orchid flora is of relatively low diversity and includes few if any taxa with commercial potential.
Alison Colwell
Center for Plant Diversity Herbarium, UC Davis
March 12, 2021
Center for Plant Diversity Herbarium, UC Davis
March 12, 2021
At DAV, we are in the process of reimaging two type specimens of Drosera hybrids stored on Jstor Global Plants Type image collection to remove locality and coordinate information, except for State and County. This request came via Jstor from a user concerned about poaching.
As human population and social inequity grow, and natural habitats dwindle, illegal collecting becomes more widespread more species and habitats become its victims. The recent discovery of large-scale international poaching of Dudleyas in California is a wake-up call that this problem is accelerating and even common species can be severely impacted.
Although curtailing information availability is definitely going to be an impediment to researchers and enthusiasts, and costly for portal managers to implement and maintain, it appears the benefit of curtailing detailed information sharing for certain groups of plants is warranted. Herbarium staff have traditionally served as a gate-keeper against misuse of specimen information and this will continue to be the case with in-person visits, and specimen images out in the world deserve equal protection. This is true not just for rare species, but I believe certain groups of “collectible” species also would benefit from information fuzzing: carnivorous plants, orchids, lilies, caudiciforms and succulents.
As human population and social inequity grow, and natural habitats dwindle, illegal collecting becomes more widespread more species and habitats become its victims. The recent discovery of large-scale international poaching of Dudleyas in California is a wake-up call that this problem is accelerating and even common species can be severely impacted.
Although curtailing information availability is definitely going to be an impediment to researchers and enthusiasts, and costly for portal managers to implement and maintain, it appears the benefit of curtailing detailed information sharing for certain groups of plants is warranted. Herbarium staff have traditionally served as a gate-keeper against misuse of specimen information and this will continue to be the case with in-person visits, and specimen images out in the world deserve equal protection. This is true not just for rare species, but I believe certain groups of “collectible” species also would benefit from information fuzzing: carnivorous plants, orchids, lilies, caudiciforms and succulents.
Joy England
California Botanic Garden
March 12, 2021
California Botanic Garden
March 12, 2021
As someone who is both a contributor and user of herbarium specimen data, I believe that location information should be globally redacted from the general public for any taxon ranked as imperiled at a global or state level. This would include a relatively small number of rare plant taxa. The Consortium plays an important role in plant conservation and would do well to place a higher value on protection of these taxa than on disseminating convenient information regarding their whereabouts. That said, I wonder if geographical coordinates in decimal degrees could still be published but clipped to one digit beyond the decimal point. This would offset the mapped point by 4-6 km from the true location, based on my quick experimentation, but would still paint a somewhat informative picture of the taxon's distribution.
Ron Vanderhoff
California Native Plant Society, Orange County
March 12,2021
California Native Plant Society, Orange County
March 12,2021
Although I have considerable thoughts on the topic I am afraid I will need to be fairly brief here:
I generally lean toward less LESS geoprivacy than more, but this is a very complex topic.
IN GENERAL:
The CCH2 is essentially intended to inform status and distribution of California's wildland plants, especially for scientific purposes. If this is true, then this data needs to be accessible.
I believe the collector should essentially ""own"" their own record and should be the person to make any initial decision re geo-privacy of that record.
However, only a limited number of species should be available for geoprivacy, in order to avoid unnecessary concealment of important data. The specific species ""available"" for geoprivacy should be established by CCH2. This specific list should also have the ability for regional geoprivacy - or not. (A Mammillaria may be quite common in the Sonoran Desert and under limited collection pressure. But the same species on a coastal highly urbanized terrace in San Diego is much more likely to be poached.)
The individual institutions (Herbariums), as members of the consortium, should NOT have rights that supersede those of the consortium. In essence, the CCH should have one policy, but, as mentioned above, the collector should have the privilege of obscuring a location of a specific collection, if they feel it is warranted. The collector, in most cases, is more knowledgeable of the specifics of the site and the potential for mischief.
SPECIFICALLY:
If specific georeferences are obscured in CCH2:
- the process to obtain these geolocations should be easy and quick. Quick is the most important requirement!
My specific suggestion:
- When a location is obscured, initiate a simple online form that a requestor must complete prior to the geolocation being revealed.
- This online form will include full name, contact information (phone, email, address), affiliations (company, university, agency, etc.).
- The requestor will also be required to enter a statement re their specific research or their reason for needing the data. Perhaps, they may even be required to include two or three personal references (and contact info) within the botanical/land management/research community.
- Once completed and submitted, the requestor would receive a login code, sent to their email address, that would allow immediate access to the geolocation data. The login code would expire after some period of time, perhaps 30 days.
Of course, this information from the requestor would be logged on the CCH2 server and associated with that species (or collection) for an indefinite time.
This request process would be immediate and automatic. There would be no ""approval"" per say, but it would provide some degree of awareness CCH and a record of who and why these records are being accessed.
That's about all I should say for now, so as not to upset too many. A tricky issue.
I generally lean toward less LESS geoprivacy than more, but this is a very complex topic.
IN GENERAL:
The CCH2 is essentially intended to inform status and distribution of California's wildland plants, especially for scientific purposes. If this is true, then this data needs to be accessible.
I believe the collector should essentially ""own"" their own record and should be the person to make any initial decision re geo-privacy of that record.
However, only a limited number of species should be available for geoprivacy, in order to avoid unnecessary concealment of important data. The specific species ""available"" for geoprivacy should be established by CCH2. This specific list should also have the ability for regional geoprivacy - or not. (A Mammillaria may be quite common in the Sonoran Desert and under limited collection pressure. But the same species on a coastal highly urbanized terrace in San Diego is much more likely to be poached.)
The individual institutions (Herbariums), as members of the consortium, should NOT have rights that supersede those of the consortium. In essence, the CCH should have one policy, but, as mentioned above, the collector should have the privilege of obscuring a location of a specific collection, if they feel it is warranted. The collector, in most cases, is more knowledgeable of the specifics of the site and the potential for mischief.
SPECIFICALLY:
If specific georeferences are obscured in CCH2:
- the process to obtain these geolocations should be easy and quick. Quick is the most important requirement!
My specific suggestion:
- When a location is obscured, initiate a simple online form that a requestor must complete prior to the geolocation being revealed.
- This online form will include full name, contact information (phone, email, address), affiliations (company, university, agency, etc.).
- The requestor will also be required to enter a statement re their specific research or their reason for needing the data. Perhaps, they may even be required to include two or three personal references (and contact info) within the botanical/land management/research community.
- Once completed and submitted, the requestor would receive a login code, sent to their email address, that would allow immediate access to the geolocation data. The login code would expire after some period of time, perhaps 30 days.
Of course, this information from the requestor would be logged on the CCH2 server and associated with that species (or collection) for an indefinite time.
This request process would be immediate and automatic. There would be no ""approval"" per say, but it would provide some degree of awareness CCH and a record of who and why these records are being accessed.
That's about all I should say for now, so as not to upset too many. A tricky issue.
Naomi Fraga
California Botanic Garden
March 12, 2021
California Botanic Garden
March 12, 2021
I see the value in restricting or redacting data from a limited set of specific taxa based on known threats of poaching or intentional destruction of known populations. Data restrictions should only be put in place if there is evidence that populations are actively being poached or harmed and that maintaining publicly available herbarium data would be a point of vulnerability for the populations. CNDDB maintains a small list of taxa where location data must be requested, and I imagine CCH could develop a similar list of proposed taxa where data could be restricted, or accessed with request and approval. Species in the genus Dudleya are an example of a group where data redaction could be beneficial.
I am concerned that redaction of data for a large set of taxa (e.g. all rare taxa in the state) would hinder research, conservation, education, and engagement opportunities. There are many user groups who benefit from this data and we need to recognize that restricting data would be a form of gatekeeping. Who determines legitimate use the data and who gets access and who doesn’t? Herbarium data should remain freely accessible, and as open as possible. If data redaction is implemented, I hope it would be in a very limited capacity, and only in cases where it could prevent extirpation, extinction, or severe population decline.
I am concerned that redaction of data for a large set of taxa (e.g. all rare taxa in the state) would hinder research, conservation, education, and engagement opportunities. There are many user groups who benefit from this data and we need to recognize that restricting data would be a form of gatekeeping. Who determines legitimate use the data and who gets access and who doesn’t? Herbarium data should remain freely accessible, and as open as possible. If data redaction is implemented, I hope it would be in a very limited capacity, and only in cases where it could prevent extirpation, extinction, or severe population decline.
Larry Hendrickson
California State Parks, Colorado Desert District herbarium (BSCA)
March 15, 2021
California State Parks, Colorado Desert District herbarium (BSCA)
March 15, 2021
I realize that this debate regarding redaction of location data for sensitive plant species has been going on for some time with mixed results. I know that some institutions do not redact location data. Now that much of this data is available to the public, our main concern should be to stop the illegal harvesting of rare plants for the nursery trade and private collectors within the State Parks in our region.
Many of our specimens are duplicates from other herbaria, so to redact location data from our herbarium might not be totally effective if those institutions do not choose to do so.
Of course, researchers and institutions should have access to this data. I am open to a discussion of options regarding this issue.
I am not knowledgeable about how institutional filters work. For example, when I record an observation of a sensitive species on iNaturalist I have the option to obscure the location. I have noticed that some of our regional sensitive species are automatically obscured. I do not know who does this, perhaps the individual projects.
Many of our specimens are duplicates from other herbaria, so to redact location data from our herbarium might not be totally effective if those institutions do not choose to do so.
Of course, researchers and institutions should have access to this data. I am open to a discussion of options regarding this issue.
I am not knowledgeable about how institutional filters work. For example, when I record an observation of a sensitive species on iNaturalist I have the option to obscure the location. I have noticed that some of our regional sensitive species are automatically obscured. I do not know who does this, perhaps the individual projects.
Aaron E. Sims
California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Program Director
March 15, 2021
California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Program Director
March 15, 2021
I recommend not redacting any data for sensitive plant taxa in the CCH2 portal unless the following conditions are met:
1) Only redact data for a minimum of the most highly imperiled and/or highly poached sensitive taxa based on a list of taxa reviewed and agreed upon by key California conservationists and agency personnel.
Q: this assumes such a list could even be possible to agree upon
I am also potentially open to redacting all rare plant data if condition 2 below can be met.
2) All redacted information must become available upon request by conservationists, agencies, professional botanists, and academic institutions, as well as the public that need to use the information for conservation or legal work purposes. The process would need to be smooth and timely, with all data becoming available at once without the need to inquire with each contributing institution.
Q: This would require someone to manage and "vet" people who have requested access and must avoid selective bias as much as possible. Is such a vetting process even possible? How would it be determined that a non-recognized name in California botany be approved access or not? Will they need to provide a CV in order to prove their use case? Will all consulting botanists be given access when they request it? Will they be granted access to all rare plant data or just from select herbaria? For how long?
My determination is based on findings that a lack of accessible data can lead to consequences in providing research and conservation for rare plants in California, apparently more so than the detrimental effects from poaching and misuse from accessing the data. Note, however, this could change, and perhaps is changing with increased horticulture collecting in time.
I am also of the opinion that if people really want to find rare plant locations they can do so using one or a combination of other resources, including but not limited to Calflora, CCH1, CalPhotos, NANSH (and other Symbiota portals that contain rare CA plant data). Also, people can sleuth the location of rare plants using unobscured location data from common plants that were collected on the same day or consecutive days from the same collector.
This is only a fraction of the opinion I have on this topic and would be happy to provide further input. The CNPS Rare Plant Program Committee has also been discussing this topic and has excellent feedback and considerations to take into account, which I can share with you if members do not provide their input in time for this request.
1) Only redact data for a minimum of the most highly imperiled and/or highly poached sensitive taxa based on a list of taxa reviewed and agreed upon by key California conservationists and agency personnel.
Q: this assumes such a list could even be possible to agree upon
I am also potentially open to redacting all rare plant data if condition 2 below can be met.
2) All redacted information must become available upon request by conservationists, agencies, professional botanists, and academic institutions, as well as the public that need to use the information for conservation or legal work purposes. The process would need to be smooth and timely, with all data becoming available at once without the need to inquire with each contributing institution.
Q: This would require someone to manage and "vet" people who have requested access and must avoid selective bias as much as possible. Is such a vetting process even possible? How would it be determined that a non-recognized name in California botany be approved access or not? Will they need to provide a CV in order to prove their use case? Will all consulting botanists be given access when they request it? Will they be granted access to all rare plant data or just from select herbaria? For how long?
My determination is based on findings that a lack of accessible data can lead to consequences in providing research and conservation for rare plants in California, apparently more so than the detrimental effects from poaching and misuse from accessing the data. Note, however, this could change, and perhaps is changing with increased horticulture collecting in time.
I am also of the opinion that if people really want to find rare plant locations they can do so using one or a combination of other resources, including but not limited to Calflora, CCH1, CalPhotos, NANSH (and other Symbiota portals that contain rare CA plant data). Also, people can sleuth the location of rare plants using unobscured location data from common plants that were collected on the same day or consecutive days from the same collector.
This is only a fraction of the opinion I have on this topic and would be happy to provide further input. The CNPS Rare Plant Program Committee has also been discussing this topic and has excellent feedback and considerations to take into account, which I can share with you if members do not provide their input in time for this request.
Tom Chester
March 17, 2021
March 17, 2021
I echo Keir Morse's comments, and his bottom line: "a thoughtfully considered list of both rare and common taxa that really do run a serious risk due to the public having coordinates would make the most sense".
I strongly disagree with the need to obscure the locations for all species meeting some rareness criteria. Poachers are not interested in the vast majority of those. Obscuring those locations will make the CCH useless for those taxa and offer no benefit.
But there is definitely a problem with some Dudleyas and some Mammillarias being desired by poachers. A known poacher contacted me some time ago asking for locations of Mammillaria tetrancistra. And there was a report I read a longer time ago about all the Dudleyas being stripped from one canyon in Anza Borrego Desert State Park. I would vote to obscure those species at risk, but there ought to be a way that researchers should be able to get easy access to those coordinates when needed.
I also note that in reality, coordinates for the vast majority of vouchers, especially older ones, are not accurate enough for a poacher to locate the specimen. But they are still useful for making maps except when high precision is needed. And even low-precision coordinates are useful in searching for species in a generous lat - lon box. But coordinates obscured as much as they are in iNaturalist pollute all lat-lon searches.
I strongly disagree with the need to obscure the locations for all species meeting some rareness criteria. Poachers are not interested in the vast majority of those. Obscuring those locations will make the CCH useless for those taxa and offer no benefit.
But there is definitely a problem with some Dudleyas and some Mammillarias being desired by poachers. A known poacher contacted me some time ago asking for locations of Mammillaria tetrancistra. And there was a report I read a longer time ago about all the Dudleyas being stripped from one canyon in Anza Borrego Desert State Park. I would vote to obscure those species at risk, but there ought to be a way that researchers should be able to get easy access to those coordinates when needed.
I also note that in reality, coordinates for the vast majority of vouchers, especially older ones, are not accurate enough for a poacher to locate the specimen. But they are still useful for making maps except when high precision is needed. And even low-precision coordinates are useful in searching for species in a generous lat - lon box. But coordinates obscured as much as they are in iNaturalist pollute all lat-lon searches.
Katie Gallagher
H. T. Harvey & Associates
March 18, 2021
H. T. Harvey & Associates
March 18, 2021
In the private industry, we use location data found in online resources like CCH for every project. The location data allows us to search out a reference population so we can check on the bloom time and confirm when we should be performing rare plant surveys for target species. Restricting location data would hinder our ability to do sound science for impact analyses of development projects. For conservation purposes, please keep it open.
Dr. Tim Krantz spoke for two CNPS chapters last night. His topic was how the public can become better advocates for rare plants. His argument is that the public should be knowledgeable of the CEQA process and provide planning commissions more data about rare plant populations on a project site than what has already been studied. In order for the public to become good advocates of rare plants, they need to know where they are. Please keep the location data accessible.
Dr. Tim Krantz spoke for two CNPS chapters last night. His topic was how the public can become better advocates for rare plants. His argument is that the public should be knowledgeable of the CEQA process and provide planning commissions more data about rare plant populations on a project site than what has already been studied. In order for the public to become good advocates of rare plants, they need to know where they are. Please keep the location data accessible.
Michelle Tollett
Biological Consultant
March 18, 2021
Biological Consultant
March 18, 2021
Perhaps obscuring location information from general public queries would be a solution, while still allowing students, land managers, and various professionals full access to the "sensitive" taxa for use in their research. Obscuring non-status "poaching imperiled" and protected species from the general public in an attempt to curtail poaching and general misuse of the data is likely an important step towards conservation, although I do not know to what extent the CCH is being accessed by poachers or nefarious developers (distribution for profit and destruction prior to surveys for development come to mind).
As a consultant, I use the location data for reference site populations nearby a project site that is slated for development or other type of impact. Reference sites are invaluable to compare existing setting, slope, aspect, soils, species assemblages, to confirm species ID and bloom period, etc. etc. The resource agencies sometimes require use of a reference site for surveys, prior to issuing permit authorizations. It also happens often where we might be able to access a known location in the vicinity of the site, but not yet have access to the subject parcel, for various reasons. If we know that our target species are/are not blooming in a nearby location, we can bolster survey timing discussions with the developers, say, if a developer wants all surveys completed outside of the bloom season for target species, which is often requested.
I know that many consultants, no matter their interest in conservation, are barred from submitting findings to outside databases, due to NDAs. Therefore, the available information is only a portion of known populations and becomes more valuable to those of us aiming for a fair mitigation strategy on our projects. It also helps to be able to check on the "extirpated" vs. "extant" rating (if that is in the observers notes), as we did, on two occasions, observe species that were reported as extirpated from the region (then reconfirmed by a 3rd party botanist to show impartiality - those botanists also used reference sites). For the aforementioned reasons, wholesale redacting of sensitive data would be a great disservice to the community of well-intentioned biologists who strive to accurately disclose biological resources and find amicable solutions for protection of those resources. Finally, thank you for your efforts. This is not an easy situation.
As a consultant, I use the location data for reference site populations nearby a project site that is slated for development or other type of impact. Reference sites are invaluable to compare existing setting, slope, aspect, soils, species assemblages, to confirm species ID and bloom period, etc. etc. The resource agencies sometimes require use of a reference site for surveys, prior to issuing permit authorizations. It also happens often where we might be able to access a known location in the vicinity of the site, but not yet have access to the subject parcel, for various reasons. If we know that our target species are/are not blooming in a nearby location, we can bolster survey timing discussions with the developers, say, if a developer wants all surveys completed outside of the bloom season for target species, which is often requested.
I know that many consultants, no matter their interest in conservation, are barred from submitting findings to outside databases, due to NDAs. Therefore, the available information is only a portion of known populations and becomes more valuable to those of us aiming for a fair mitigation strategy on our projects. It also helps to be able to check on the "extirpated" vs. "extant" rating (if that is in the observers notes), as we did, on two occasions, observe species that were reported as extirpated from the region (then reconfirmed by a 3rd party botanist to show impartiality - those botanists also used reference sites). For the aforementioned reasons, wholesale redacting of sensitive data would be a great disservice to the community of well-intentioned biologists who strive to accurately disclose biological resources and find amicable solutions for protection of those resources. Finally, thank you for your efforts. This is not an easy situation.
Kristen Nelson
County of San Luis Obispo (public sector)
March 21, 2021
County of San Luis Obispo (public sector)
March 21, 2021
Location data associated with rare species included in the CCH data portals is a valuable resource for private consultants (my recent past affiliation) and public sector staff (current affiliation) in completing desktop evaluations of rare and sensitive species that occur or may occur in the vicinity of development, improvement, mitigation, and conservation projects. The background research completed is a critical first step in determining what sensitive resources (including species populations) have been previously documented in a particular area, for the purposes of recommending appropriately timed surveys to update/map and identify/document those resources, avoidance measures, and - where applicable - mitigation and conservation measures. This research is only as valuable as the data that is available to inform it. When sensitive resource information is redacted from public or otherwise accessible datasets (e.g., license/password protected data available to a limited group through some sort of screening process), it significantly reduces the ability of professional botanists and biologists to conduct thorough resource evaluations for projects.
If this information is redacted from public view, I recommend identifying a path for allowing access to certain individuals and groups that are screened based on need for the information. However, I imagine that would be cumbersome and potentially infeasible.
If this information is redacted from public view, I recommend identifying a path for allowing access to certain individuals and groups that are screened based on need for the information. However, I imagine that would be cumbersome and potentially infeasible.
Maria Jesus
California Botanic Garden
April 5, 2021
California Botanic Garden
April 5, 2021
I've had an opportunity to review statements as of 4/5, and I thank everyone for their thoughtful and nuanced comments. I'd like to expand on one challenge that others have brought up: What criteria must be met in order for an individual or organization to have access to otherwise restricted data?
In particular, I encourage the CCH Admin Committee to consider the potential impacts to Indigenous communities who already face many barriers to cultural practices involving plants. I know of at least one effort in southern California that plans to use CCH-derived data to connect members of this particular tribal nation with culturally important plants. On the other hand, there could be a benefit to Indigenous communities if the locations to culturally important and commonly "wildharvested" plants (e.g. Salvia apiana) were obscured from the general public. If the CCH Admin Committee decides to move forward with redacting data, then there must be a way for Indigenous communities to retain access.
In particular, I encourage the CCH Admin Committee to consider the potential impacts to Indigenous communities who already face many barriers to cultural practices involving plants. I know of at least one effort in southern California that plans to use CCH-derived data to connect members of this particular tribal nation with culturally important plants. On the other hand, there could be a benefit to Indigenous communities if the locations to culturally important and commonly "wildharvested" plants (e.g. Salvia apiana) were obscured from the general public. If the CCH Admin Committee decides to move forward with redacting data, then there must be a way for Indigenous communities to retain access.
Al Keuter
University of California, Santa Cruz
April 29, 2021
University of California, Santa Cruz
April 29, 2021
Let’s talk actual collection records.
In Santa Cruz County
- Locally rare, several small populations of Monolopia gracilens (CNPS 1B.2) are currently known to local botanists. But this information is not readily available to the public because M. gracilens hasn’t been collected/recorded in CCH2 herbaria since a single specimen in 1995 (and then another almost 40 years before that).
- The most recent CCH2 herbarium collection date of Erysimum teretifolium (CNPS 1B.1, CE, FE) was a single specimen 25 years ago (and then another 10 years before that); nonetheless numerous sandhill populations are well known to local botanists and the appropriate government agencies.
- Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana (CNPS 1B.1, FE) has not been proffered to CCH2 herbaria for nearly 15 years yet is locally abundant in certain sandhill locations well known to local botanists.
- Polygonum hickmanii (CNPS 1B.1, CE, FE) has not been collected since 1994; sadly, that location has been thoroughly developed since then. The developers didn’t have a clue. And wouldn’t have cared.
Botanists just aren’t currently collecting the rarest Santa Cruz County plants for CCH2 herbarium vouchers.
Although these Santa Cruz County rare plant locations may be available to the public via iNaturalist, we’re instead considering here obscuring location data for CCH2 herbaria specimens, not iNaturalist observations.
Based on these local examples it would seem that collection location data should not be obscured because that data provides (if nothing else) important historical locality information.
Might I add there is only a single RAD-Seq confirmed F1 Quercus ×ganderi in the entire world (I’m guessing this would make it pretty rare). Most recently collected in 2015, its location near Santa Ysabel is public and well known to anyone interested. Because it’s a tree it cannot run away or hide yet it has survived since its published description in 1944; it has even grown since then (though losing one of its major limbs … presumably on its own). If you know where to look you can even sit comfortably at your computer and visit it via Google Maps street view. Enjoy.
In Santa Cruz County
- Locally rare, several small populations of Monolopia gracilens (CNPS 1B.2) are currently known to local botanists. But this information is not readily available to the public because M. gracilens hasn’t been collected/recorded in CCH2 herbaria since a single specimen in 1995 (and then another almost 40 years before that).
- The most recent CCH2 herbarium collection date of Erysimum teretifolium (CNPS 1B.1, CE, FE) was a single specimen 25 years ago (and then another 10 years before that); nonetheless numerous sandhill populations are well known to local botanists and the appropriate government agencies.
- Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana (CNPS 1B.1, FE) has not been proffered to CCH2 herbaria for nearly 15 years yet is locally abundant in certain sandhill locations well known to local botanists.
- Polygonum hickmanii (CNPS 1B.1, CE, FE) has not been collected since 1994; sadly, that location has been thoroughly developed since then. The developers didn’t have a clue. And wouldn’t have cared.
Botanists just aren’t currently collecting the rarest Santa Cruz County plants for CCH2 herbarium vouchers.
Although these Santa Cruz County rare plant locations may be available to the public via iNaturalist, we’re instead considering here obscuring location data for CCH2 herbaria specimens, not iNaturalist observations.
Based on these local examples it would seem that collection location data should not be obscured because that data provides (if nothing else) important historical locality information.
Might I add there is only a single RAD-Seq confirmed F1 Quercus ×ganderi in the entire world (I’m guessing this would make it pretty rare). Most recently collected in 2015, its location near Santa Ysabel is public and well known to anyone interested. Because it’s a tree it cannot run away or hide yet it has survived since its published description in 1944; it has even grown since then (though losing one of its major limbs … presumably on its own). If you know where to look you can even sit comfortably at your computer and visit it via Google Maps street view. Enjoy.
Andy Sanders
University of California, Riverside Herbarium
May 11, 2021
University of California, Riverside Herbarium
May 11, 2021
A. In many cases hiding the data works against plant conservation for at least two major reasons:
1.) The bulk of rare plants, those not subject to commercial harvest/trade, are not benefited much if at all by data redaction. These plants suffer from incidental destruction during commercial (often land development) and recreational activities and any hope of protecting them on those fronts requires knowledge by the relevant agencies, NGOs, etc. Hiding data interferes with that knowledge but destruction still happens, as it traditionally has, in the “dark” — no one knows populations are present or being destroyed. Establishing a solid public record of what is where could/should have significant conservation benefits: no one will be able to claim that they had no way of knowing these plants were around when a clear record exists (with images!) in CCH and other databases.
2.) Rare species also suffer from directed attacks by land owners intentionally destroying habitat in order to facilitate future development activities. In southern CA what I’ve seen has been widespread plowing of intact habitat because of knowledge that rare species are present somewhere in the general area, often accompanied by manuring to suppress native plants and encourage weeds. Fake agriculture is also frequently used as an excuse to plow soil in places where soils are not remotely suitable for agriculture but where rare plants are known or expected to occur — such as in the alkaline vernal pools of western Riverside Co. Precise knowledge of plant locations is not required for these attacks and the general knowledge required for extensive habitat alteration is already out there in numerous floras, monographs, and other publications. Of course, such broad brush habitat destruction eliminates most of the native flora and fauna of the habitats treated, and I sometimes wish precise info were in the hands of the land vandals so they could just spray the specific sites with rare plants and not have to trash everything over many acres to accomplish their ends. Remember that a land owner is only interested in his particular parcel and just wants to be sure there are no issues he must contend with during development. If he has 40 acres within the known range of some species the thinking seems to be ‘just plow the whole thing’. There are apparently lawyers who specialize in providing advice on how to do such things with minimal legal jeopardy.
B. If there are cases where data hiding is beneficial, I expect they will involve species that are subject to commercial harvest (poaching) and even there hiding decisions should be made on a species-by-species basis. Data hiding is most relevant to cacti and other succulents with a significant presence in the commercial trade, but even here hiding needs to be selective. Hiding all cactus data is nothing but an inconvenience to CCH data users. Data hiding probably does not do as much good as we’d like anyway because commercial plant poachers already know about where to look based on existing public knowledge of range and habitat. Unfortunately in many cases poachers know the distribution of their target species better than professional biologists because that’s how they make a living. They’re financially rewarded for every new population they find, and they don’t even have to write it up. Botanists get no financial rewards (usually) for finding new populations of things — so, the incentives in this area work against successfully hiding threatened populations by rewarding those we'd want to hide things from.
***Update: May 18, 2021***
1.) What species are considered rare changes over time and this complicates attempts to hide data for sensitive taxa since there’s not a stable list of what qualifies. Some things were not thought to be rare at the point when a decision about distributing data on them was being made and so their locations are widely available, but it may later develop that they were rare all along but were not properly understood. Or, species may have subsequently become rare (in fact, not just in our understanding) due to a changing world: common plants becoming rare is unfortunately a regular occurrence.
An example of rareness being recognized late would be Atriplex coronata notatior — which was not on anyone’s radar before the 1980s when I started examining the status of local plants that I knew little or nothing about. I determined that this plant is a local endemic in a fairly small and threatened area of western Riverside Co. I wrote to CNPS about this and presented an argument which got it added to the CNPS list, and the listings expanded from there. There were other species like that, and will be more in the future. Another like this is Deinandra paniculata which is still fairly common but which has lost many square miles of habitat to development during my lifetime and could be considered sensitive in the future (though SLO & Monterey county populations formerly called D. increscens foliosa were added to it, expanding range and numbers a bit).
2.). A somewhat similar case would be when part of a common species is found to be rare due to subsequent research separating the part as a distinct taxon. Much of the locality data for the newly known and rare plant will already be out and available in books and on the internet and it’s usually not difficult to figure out which “old” records apply to which redefined taxon, even just based on range.
3.) There is no point in redacting records that are decades old — the data has probably already “leaked” into print so that populations can be found regardless of what we do now. Just the very generalized descriptions in floras, and especially those in old monographs that cite specimens, will reveal the plants whereabouts. Benson’s “Native Cacti of California” presents dot maps and general ranges of all CA cacti, as far as known in the late 1960s for example. Mammillaria locations — not a problem for poachers. Finding populations large enough to be profitably exploited is another matter, but I wonder if CCH records will help the poachers much with that problem.
Other random notes:
Plants may be endangered or degraded by poachers without being formally listed as sensitive by anyone. The example of the Dudleya presented at the meeting would be in that category. Ferocactus cylindraceus at Whitewater/Devil’s Garden is another: this was apparently historically abundant there but they were dug up and hauled away by the thousands for landscaping — both by commercial nurseries/landscapers and by people who just wanted one for their yard. This apparently happened in the 40s & 50s and the species is not very common there now. But, this happened before the internet and online databases — just word of mouth and financial rewards were enough to cause local devastation. My information on this is by word of mouth from botanical old-timers. This species is not considered rare overall, but like the Dudleya it’s been locally hammered by poachers.
SEINet restricts things excessively, as do some contributors to CCH — e.g., many conifers (Pinus attenuata, P. balfouriana, P. coulteri, P. edulis, P. flexilis, P. jeffrey, etc.) are redacted in CCH by NY; all cacti are hidden by various herbaria. Cacti are not uniformly threatened. Several years ago BLM had a program of cactus salvage in connection with some energy projects (mostly solar) and it wasn’t long before the market for many species was saturated. No one wanted most Cylindropuntia species, for example, even when already dug and offered free. There is essentially no market for Cylindropuntia echinocarpa and so any data hiding with respect to it will not prevent any poaching. Same for C. acanthicarpa, C. bigelovii, etc.
1.) The bulk of rare plants, those not subject to commercial harvest/trade, are not benefited much if at all by data redaction. These plants suffer from incidental destruction during commercial (often land development) and recreational activities and any hope of protecting them on those fronts requires knowledge by the relevant agencies, NGOs, etc. Hiding data interferes with that knowledge but destruction still happens, as it traditionally has, in the “dark” — no one knows populations are present or being destroyed. Establishing a solid public record of what is where could/should have significant conservation benefits: no one will be able to claim that they had no way of knowing these plants were around when a clear record exists (with images!) in CCH and other databases.
2.) Rare species also suffer from directed attacks by land owners intentionally destroying habitat in order to facilitate future development activities. In southern CA what I’ve seen has been widespread plowing of intact habitat because of knowledge that rare species are present somewhere in the general area, often accompanied by manuring to suppress native plants and encourage weeds. Fake agriculture is also frequently used as an excuse to plow soil in places where soils are not remotely suitable for agriculture but where rare plants are known or expected to occur — such as in the alkaline vernal pools of western Riverside Co. Precise knowledge of plant locations is not required for these attacks and the general knowledge required for extensive habitat alteration is already out there in numerous floras, monographs, and other publications. Of course, such broad brush habitat destruction eliminates most of the native flora and fauna of the habitats treated, and I sometimes wish precise info were in the hands of the land vandals so they could just spray the specific sites with rare plants and not have to trash everything over many acres to accomplish their ends. Remember that a land owner is only interested in his particular parcel and just wants to be sure there are no issues he must contend with during development. If he has 40 acres within the known range of some species the thinking seems to be ‘just plow the whole thing’. There are apparently lawyers who specialize in providing advice on how to do such things with minimal legal jeopardy.
B. If there are cases where data hiding is beneficial, I expect they will involve species that are subject to commercial harvest (poaching) and even there hiding decisions should be made on a species-by-species basis. Data hiding is most relevant to cacti and other succulents with a significant presence in the commercial trade, but even here hiding needs to be selective. Hiding all cactus data is nothing but an inconvenience to CCH data users. Data hiding probably does not do as much good as we’d like anyway because commercial plant poachers already know about where to look based on existing public knowledge of range and habitat. Unfortunately in many cases poachers know the distribution of their target species better than professional biologists because that’s how they make a living. They’re financially rewarded for every new population they find, and they don’t even have to write it up. Botanists get no financial rewards (usually) for finding new populations of things — so, the incentives in this area work against successfully hiding threatened populations by rewarding those we'd want to hide things from.
***Update: May 18, 2021***
1.) What species are considered rare changes over time and this complicates attempts to hide data for sensitive taxa since there’s not a stable list of what qualifies. Some things were not thought to be rare at the point when a decision about distributing data on them was being made and so their locations are widely available, but it may later develop that they were rare all along but were not properly understood. Or, species may have subsequently become rare (in fact, not just in our understanding) due to a changing world: common plants becoming rare is unfortunately a regular occurrence.
An example of rareness being recognized late would be Atriplex coronata notatior — which was not on anyone’s radar before the 1980s when I started examining the status of local plants that I knew little or nothing about. I determined that this plant is a local endemic in a fairly small and threatened area of western Riverside Co. I wrote to CNPS about this and presented an argument which got it added to the CNPS list, and the listings expanded from there. There were other species like that, and will be more in the future. Another like this is Deinandra paniculata which is still fairly common but which has lost many square miles of habitat to development during my lifetime and could be considered sensitive in the future (though SLO & Monterey county populations formerly called D. increscens foliosa were added to it, expanding range and numbers a bit).
2.). A somewhat similar case would be when part of a common species is found to be rare due to subsequent research separating the part as a distinct taxon. Much of the locality data for the newly known and rare plant will already be out and available in books and on the internet and it’s usually not difficult to figure out which “old” records apply to which redefined taxon, even just based on range.
3.) There is no point in redacting records that are decades old — the data has probably already “leaked” into print so that populations can be found regardless of what we do now. Just the very generalized descriptions in floras, and especially those in old monographs that cite specimens, will reveal the plants whereabouts. Benson’s “Native Cacti of California” presents dot maps and general ranges of all CA cacti, as far as known in the late 1960s for example. Mammillaria locations — not a problem for poachers. Finding populations large enough to be profitably exploited is another matter, but I wonder if CCH records will help the poachers much with that problem.
Other random notes:
Plants may be endangered or degraded by poachers without being formally listed as sensitive by anyone. The example of the Dudleya presented at the meeting would be in that category. Ferocactus cylindraceus at Whitewater/Devil’s Garden is another: this was apparently historically abundant there but they were dug up and hauled away by the thousands for landscaping — both by commercial nurseries/landscapers and by people who just wanted one for their yard. This apparently happened in the 40s & 50s and the species is not very common there now. But, this happened before the internet and online databases — just word of mouth and financial rewards were enough to cause local devastation. My information on this is by word of mouth from botanical old-timers. This species is not considered rare overall, but like the Dudleya it’s been locally hammered by poachers.
SEINet restricts things excessively, as do some contributors to CCH — e.g., many conifers (Pinus attenuata, P. balfouriana, P. coulteri, P. edulis, P. flexilis, P. jeffrey, etc.) are redacted in CCH by NY; all cacti are hidden by various herbaria. Cacti are not uniformly threatened. Several years ago BLM had a program of cactus salvage in connection with some energy projects (mostly solar) and it wasn’t long before the market for many species was saturated. No one wanted most Cylindropuntia species, for example, even when already dug and offered free. There is essentially no market for Cylindropuntia echinocarpa and so any data hiding with respect to it will not prevent any poaching. Same for C. acanthicarpa, C. bigelovii, etc.
Lua Lopez
California State University, San Bernardino
May 13, 2021
California State University, San Bernardino
May 13, 2021
I strongly support having the data of rare species publicly available. I understand the concerns about “poachers” but, in the overall scheme of things, these are rare when compared with the benefits of providing access to the community to such special plants. I think that the goal of initiatives like the CCH2 is to facilitate data sharing and to provide public access to information about our local flora. If we start restricting access, we will be discouraging the use of CCH2. Also, for those scientists (like myself) interested in monitoring and studying this species, thus helping in their conservation, adding a new layer of complexity to their study might discourage new studies and ultimately impact negatively the future conservation of such rare plants. Finally, there is the issue of where do we draw the line, what species should be regarded as rare and which not? For example, endemic and specialist species tend to be rare by definition but that doesn’t mean that they are in critically endangered. Are we going to draw the line in terms of number of individuals, populations, the status of the habitat where they can be found? In my personal opinion, citizen science, research and conservation greatly benefit from data sharing and adding limitations to such data sharing, because of the fear of plant poachers, will have a much more detrimental effect than the poachers per se.
Susan Mazer
University of California, Santa Barbara
May 13, 2021
University of California, Santa Barbara
May 13, 2021
One vexing issue that (I believe) hasn't been discussed yet is how to handle data (during the publication process) for rare/sensitive species for which scientists have gained access and permission for research. Now that journals require that datasets on which we publish are made freely available for others to use and/or to re-analyze, what are we to do when such datasets include sensitive taxa? For those of us who construct and analyze very large, nationwide, multi-species data sets that include hundreds or thousands of species, I can see some interesting dilemmas ahead. Should we exclude sensitive species from our analyses? Do we refuse to publish our entire data sets (or parts thereof)? I don't have clear answers to these questions, but guidance to researchers is needed if, as a community, we adopt policies and practices other than fully open access to herbarium specimen derived data.
Cynthia Powell
Calflora
Calflora
The Calflora Database is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing information about California plant biodiversity for use in Education, Research and Conservation. We think research and conservation are not best served by a blanket policy of redacting rare plant locations across the state. Instead, let’s create nuanced options from which the curator and/or observer may choose.
For instance, Calflora users may opt to:
For instance, Calflora users may opt to:
- redact rare plant observations completely by keeping them private,
- share the exact locations with a group of people of their choosing,
- obscure the location to the quarter quad, or
- display the rare plant exact location
