Proposal to replace the Plant Phenology annotation

The newly discovered annotation tooltips motivated a discussion regarding the Plant Phenology annotation. A proposal to replace the Plant Phenology annotation with a new annotation (called Reproductive Structures) grew out of the discussion:

Reproductive Structures

  1. Flower bud: At least one closed flower bud is visible and attached to the plant
  2. Flower: At least one open flower is visible and attached to the plant
  3. Fruit: At least one seed-bearing fruit is visible and attached to the plant
  4. No reproductive structures: No sexual reproductive structures (in whole or part) are visible

For details regarding the proposal, see:

If you support this proposal, please join the conversation!

Publicado el jueves, 16 de noviembre de 2023 a las 01:05 PM por trscavo trscavo

Comentarios

@tsn let's start here. We can pull others into the conversation as needed.

Anotado por trscavo hace 4 meses

@cgbb2004 can you check the proposed annotation for grammar and correctness? TIA

Anotado por trscavo hace 4 meses

I support the proposal, with a few additional suggestions:
a) Please clarify somewhere in the text how existing plant phenology annotations will automatically migrate to new values.
b) Please rename (or further explain) the "Issues" section for clarity. Is this "Unresolved issues that need to be discussed and resolved before this proposal can be implemented" or "Unresolved issues that can remain on the back burner for future refinement, after the proposal is implemented" or something else...?
c) It should already be clear from the stated definitions, but it might be worth pointing out explicitly that stolons do not qualify as "other reproductive structures" in this system.

Anotado por tsn hace 4 meses

@tsn I really appreciate the suggestions. I'll rewrite the content offline and let you know when that's done.

I agree with you about the "Issues" section. I think that needs to be removed altogether. Redesigning the annotation for simplicity and clarity will avoid some issues but others will remain regardless. There will always be issues.

Adding a fifth annotation value ("other reproductive structures") represents a tradeoff (as mentioned in the googledoc). It's probably better to keep things simple by excluding that step. Let's try that and see how it goes.

Anotado por trscavo hace 4 meses

@trscavo -- grammar looks great! I confess that for spelling, I had to look up "annotator." And I smiled at the comment about most people not knowing what "phenology" means. So true! Overall, what a worthy project!

Anotado por cgbb2004 hace 4 meses

@cgbb2004 thanks for checking!

Anotado por trscavo hace 4 meses

You're welcome :-)

Anotado por cgbb2004 hace 3 meses

Your input on this proposal is appreciated!

@m_whitson @graysquirrel @frontyardscientist @gijsroaming @annkatrinrose @lynkos @tpollard @sedgequeen

(You were tagged based on your interest in a related forum thread)

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

How about adding "seed" to the list? It is a reproductive structure, and for plants like rosary pea, the whole observation might be just a handful of seeds. It would be incorrect to tag that as "no reproductive structures".

Anotado por m_whitson hace 3 meses

I'm fine with the wording as it is. I don't think this is an improvement. However, it doesn't seem to mess with the categories, so I don't have big objections. Well, I do have some issues.

First: Are you really going to write all those words? Or just "Flowers" instead of "Flowering"? If the latter, fine. If the former, please don't.

"Fruit: At least one seed-bearing fruit is visible and attached to the plant" No, this doesn't work. Often the fruit is found beneath the tree and that's just because it's ripe and just fell, and it should be marked "Fruiting" or "Fruit."

The "seed-bearing" bit is esoteric, an attempt to solve a problem (people who want to apply this category to non-flowering plants?) but making it worse. First problem, seed-bearing is what fruits do; this is redundant. Second, how are we supposed to know if the fruit actually has seeds? Cut into it? Does this mean we aren't supposed to mark intact fruits as Fruits? Third, do you really want aborted fruits not marked as Fruits?

I have the same objection but even stronger to "No reproductive structures: No sexual reproductive structures (in whole or part) are visible" that I do to "No evidence of flowering." It's probably an insolvable issue, but often last years reproductive structures are visible when the plant is past bloom and past fruiting. It sounds like you want to have the plant marked fruiting or something if it has empty glumes or old panicle branches or an old, dried fruit. I don't think that's what you should want. (You could be using "seed-bearing" [see above] as a way to weasel out marking of old, dead fruiting structures as fruits, but it doesn't really work because if it did, it would force old, dead fruiting structures into limbo, neither fruits nor "No Reproductive Structures.")

If you want to write, "Fruits or Seeds," OK, but if you want to make a new category for seeds, don't.

Anotado por sedgequeen hace 3 meses

@m_whitson thanks for the comment. In a previous discussion thread, @annkatrinrose lumps seed dispersal into the overall fruiting stage. What do you think of that approach?

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

If you wanted to use something like the above suggestion -- fruit or seeds -- that would also work. It's just that observations of seeds alone need some category other than not reproducing to fall into. Plus, realize that many observers will think that an acorn or a maple samara is a seed and not a fruit.

Anotado por m_whitson hace 3 meses

@sedgequeen I think you're missing an important part of the overall proposal. Please click on the link "annotation tooltips" in the first sentence.

A week ago, no one knew that the annotation tooltips existed. This proposal is a first attempt to validate those definitions across a wider audience.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

Good a lot of my issues are not issues. That's good.

Still, defining fruit as only fruit still hanging on the plant is not appropriate. And if we were to take that "seed-bearing" wording seriouly, it would cause issues, too, but so it goes.

Good to try to clarify these issues, but I don't think it's entirely possible.

-- Barbara

Anotado por sedgequeen hace 3 meses

Sorry. I'm tired and probably should not have responded to this at all.

Anotado por sedgequeen hace 3 meses

I don't think that the paucity of phenology annotations on existing observations is because the Plant Phenology terms are confusing. I think most users would naturally use the existing annotations correctly. I think the issue is mainly that they just aren't aware that they're expected to make these annotations - I don't think it's even possible to add these annotations from the iPhone app, for example.

So, the proposal to update the terms seems harmless to me, and possibly helpful, but if the issue it's intended to address is the lack of annotations on observations, I would be very surprised if it made much difference. I don't really think the existing terms are confusing to most users, nor that non-botanist users can't quickly see what "phenology" means.

Anotado por tpollard hace 3 meses

@m_whitson there are many observations that can not be annotated with the Plant Phenology annotation. Examples include: a failed bud, a flowerless stalk, a withered flower, or an empty seed pod. We tried to fix that as part of this proposal, but in the end, we decided to leave things as they are. There is no easy fix, I'm afraid.

In my experience, there's seldom a need to distinguish between fruit and seed. Can you give an example of the type of observation you have in mind? TIA

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@sedgequeen I appreciate your comments. You bring up some very good points. The current definition for fruiting is: Fruit visible and still attached to the plant. Are you okay with that definition? If not, what should be changed?

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@tpollard thanks for the comments. I agree this is a modest proposal. However, if you factor in that the tooltip definitions are virtually unknown, the proposal may help spread info about the definitions more than anything else. That's okay, I think.

Yes, mobile users need easy access to annotations but the mobile app developers are not taking new feature requests right now. Similarly, annotations should be added to the web upload page but that feature request has already been made (March 2019).

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

If there are many observations that can't be annotated with the Plant Phenology annotation (a failed bud, a flowerless stalk, a withered flower, or an empty seed pod) then can an "other/doesn't fit/can't annotate/unsure" type of choice be added? By providing a list of choices for annotation, you imply that one or more of them can be used, and I think one source of confusion and error for users is that if they want to annotate, they choose one of the annotations, even if it doesn't quite fit.
As far as an example of where a seed (or "other/unsure") annotation could be useful, for many colorful seeded legumes like Abrus, Erythrina, and Ormosia, people often just find a seed and photograph it ( https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/190546792 ) and so there wouldn't be a correct choice. Also, many non-botanists interpret dry fruit as seeds (acorns, maple samaras, sunflower "seeds") and so might be hesitant to annotate those as "fruit".

Anotado por m_whitson hace 3 meses

@m_whitson we tried adding a catch-all annotation value but we were unable to justify the added complexity. See Version 2 of the proposal for the resulting annotation.

The reason annotations were added to the user interface in the first place was to provide a data source for various charts on the taxon page. The Plant Phenology annotation feeds directly into the Plant Phenology chart on the taxon page. However, since a catch-all annotation value has no phenological value, it would have no effect on the Plant Phenology chart.

More importantly, a catch-all annotation value is mutually exclusive of all other annotation values. The user interface should enforce exclusivity but we know this is difficult to implement since a related feature request to add this capability to the "no evidence of flowering" annotation value has been pending since 2020.

I'm not convinced that adding a new annotation value (seed) will improve the Plant Phenology chart on the taxon page. It might be possible to rewrite the definition of fruit to include visible fruit or seed but that precludes "attached to the plant", which is the current requirement. Why was that requirement added in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question)

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

Thanks for adding me to this discussion. I support this update but have some additional thoughts:

I am struggling to accept the sentence "Everyone knows a flower when they see one whereas the word “flowering” tends to cause confusion". I agree with the assessment that 'flower' is more straightforward of a word than 'flowering', but there are many plant structures that can be confusing even in commonplace specimens (Bougainvillea leaves can easily be confused for flower petals, Droseraceae structures are commonly thought of as flowers, Cocos flowers could be interpreted as fruits/seeds, etc.). Also, replacing 'flowering' with 'flower' raises the issue that there is no real definitive end to the existence of the flower (fruits are ultimately just the expansion of the flower's ovary, so you can still discern the remains of the flower on many fruits, e.g. on the bottom of an apple).

That being said, I think the proposed wording is definitely an improvement, but the real value of updating the annotation options would be to add annotation options for structures that are currently ambiguous or excluded from the options. I understand the issues with including a catch-all, but perhaps we could add something more specific.

Based on the discussion raised by @pdabell I am thinking about two annotiation options: persistent fruit parts (would include "an empty seed pod", seeds, husks, and entire fruits that remain attached from previous reproductive cycles) and persistent flower parts (would include "a failed bud, a flowerless stalk, a withered flower"). I believe this would substantialy improve utility of plant annotations (both for help with IDing and for understanding the lifecycles of reproductive structures) without adding excessive complexity or requiring a major overhaul to existing annotations.

Two small additional remarks:
1) I think it is very important that the 'Fruit' annotation includes fruit and seed, since the distinction between fruit and seed can be confusing and in the common vernacular fruits and seeds are often mixed up
2) I second that seed-bearing should be omitted from the definition of 'Fruit', since it is redundant (fruits are inherently seed-bearing structures) and actual seed-bearing is often impossible to determine from a photo

Anotado por gijsroaming hace 3 meses

@gijsroaming thanks so much. Your detailed comments are very helpful. I agree that the phrase "everyone knows a flower when they see one" is too strong. I will fix that in the next version of the document.

I don't think replacing "flowering" with "flower" creates any new issues. Based on comments in the forum, users are already annotating plants as though the values were "flower" and "fruit", so the proposal is merely making current behavior the desired behavior. The current definition of "flower" is intentionally vague and I think it has to stay that way until new values are added to the annotation.

I agree that something like "persistent fruit parts" needs to be added at some point but "persistent flower parts" (as defined above) is a catch-all value, so that needs a bit more thought. In any case, I'm not in favor of adding new values at this time. I don't believe staff would be willing to accept such a proposal. I'm afraid it would be dead in the water before it got out the door.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

Thanks to everyone for your input. Please take a few moments to consider the following modified proposal based on comments:

Reproductive Structures
1. Flower bud: At least one closed flower bud is visible
2. Flower: At least one open flower is visible
3. Fruit: At least one fruit or seed is visible
4. No reproductive structures: No sexual reproductive structures (in whole or part) are visible

Thumbs up or down?

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

Thumbs up.

Anotado por tsn hace 3 meses

The new proposal should work. No system will be perfect, but this looks pretty straightforward to use for people both with and without a lot of botanical background.

Anotado por m_whitson hace 3 meses

Thumbs up

Anotado por gijsroaming hace 3 meses

You want to replace a significant annotation about plant phenology with one about reproductive structures? And add "seed is visible" to the definition of fruit? Without seed yet, a plant can still be fruiting, but it can't be called fruit. So too when a fruit is no longer whole but only includes some of its organs. If you are trying to make understanding this annotation simpler for the average user, I don't think this is helpful. If a store advertises they have apples but all I see when I get there are bushels of apple cores--with the seeds (of course)--I would be rather displeased!

Your new annotation would mark the 1st of the following observations of Allium burdickii in the month of May as having fruit and the 2nd one it wouldn't mark at all: 1) https://inaturalist.ca/observations/77819586 ; and 2) https://inaturalist.ca/observations/6379781 . Interesting. As it is, the specimens in the latter observation are fruiting but the specimens in the former one completed that active, developmental stage the summer before.

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

@pdabell I think this has been discussed already. The most recent definition clearly says "fruit OR seed is visible", so if there is neither seed nor fruit visible it will not be marked as fruit, but if either fruit or seed is visible it can be marked fruit. Because seed is considered part of the fruit and fruiting process, a plant with any part of the fruit still attached (incl. those with just the seed or husk) will be considered 'fruit'.

For the example observations, the 1st would be marked as fruit, since a part of the fruit (i.e. the seed and some husks) are visible, and the 2nd would be marked as flower bud, flower, and fruit, as flower buds, open flowers and immature fruits are all visible on the plant. The new definition would thus keep the annotations of the 2nd obs attached while including a new option for the 1st.

Anotado por gijsroaming hace 3 meses

@gijsroaming , where on iNaturist is that definition of fruiting?' At the discussion, 'When Do You Apply the Annotation "Fruiting" to Flowering Plants?' that @trscavo started at iNat Forums (see https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-do-you-apply-the-annotation-fruiting-to-flowering-plants/46015 ) that portion of an iNat definition wasn't given. For how the USA National Phenology Network (https://www.usanpn.org) defines "Fruit" (and "Ripe fruit") for a monitoring program it operates for citizen scientists, see my quote in that discussion from its document, 'Phenophase Primer for Plants: Understanding Plant Phenophases for Nature’s Notebook (June 2017 DRAFT, USA-NPN Education & Engagement Series 2016-002) (a link to the document is with the quote) at https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-do-you-apply-the-annotation-fruiting-to-flowering-plants/46015/36?u=pdabell .

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

@pdabell the definition of an annotation value is displayed in the web user interface. If you hover your cursor over the word "fruiting", the following tooltip will appear: Fruit visible and still attached to the plant. Click the link "annotation tooltips" in the first sentence of this article to see all the tooltip definitions at a glance.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@trscavo , yes, I am familiar with that. I am referring to the words, "fruit OR seed is visible" that @gijsroaming mentioned. The definition that is currently there does not include eaten apples (see my 2nd last comment).

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

@pdabell I'm referring to the most recent proposed definition in this thread, which is meant to replace the annotation values and tooltips that @trscavo mentioned.

EDIT - Rereading this, I'm guessing your quotes around "seed is visible" was actually paraphrasing the "seed-bearing fruit" definition from the google doc? If that's accurate, it's relevant to know the doc is yet to be updated based on the discussion in this thread, and the latest proposed definition is in the previous comments. -

Copying for clarity:

Reproductive Structures

Flower bud: At least one closed flower bud is visible
Flower: At least one open flower is visible
Fruit: At least one fruit or seed is visible
No reproductive structures: No sexual reproductive structures (in whole or part) are visible

Anotado por gijsroaming hace 3 meses

What objective does changing these annotations' names and tooltips serve? I'm not certain that they should change at all. However I like the idea of switching active verbs for nouns, as the latter do not require active budding, flowering or fruiting on the part of the annotated plant. It's especially important to broaden the scope of the fruit/fruiting annotation, so that observations of lone fruits or plants whose fruits have been shed can be annotated as such. I would retain Plant Phenology over Reproductive Structures though

Anotado por frontyardscientist hace 3 meses

@frontyardscientist What's your argument for retaining Plant Phenology? Don't you think that it would also (aside from being confusing to laypersons) be inaccurate if we refer to the different states of plant development in noun form but continue referring to it as a seasonal event (=phenology)?

Anotado por gijsroaming hace 3 meses

@gijsroaming , I was quoting what you wrote in an above comment. That was, "The most recent definition clearly says "fruit OR seed is visible.""

Phenology is has developmental stages. They are not inactive. The simplest way to address the issue of how to note fruit parts after they are no longer developing is to add observation fields such as, 'Persistent seed,' and 'Persistent fruit' (not the same as fruiting since the persistent fruit is no longer developing). We just need for a field tp be added for making them easily searchable (not just by downloading a data query).

It would be more complicated to do but I wonder if an annotation field such as 'Persistence' could be added with various options. Yes, it's a term that, like 'plant phenology' isn't known to the average user but learning new botanical terms and their applicability to an observation is far from difficult anymore!

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

@frontyardscientist thanks for the comments. I think you may have answered your own question but I'm not sure. The current tooltip definitions rule out the use case you describe so @m_whitson suggested adding the word "seed" and dropping the phrase "attached to the plant".

It sounds like you're onboard with the overall proposal except for the annotation name. Can you explain why you prefer "Plant Phenology" over "Reproductive Structures"? Thanks!

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@pdabell I love this observation! It makes a strong case for an additional annotation value. Would you be in favor of adding "Persistent fruit" to the Reproductive Structures annotation? Once the current proposal is out the door, I'd be willing to work on a second proposal to add a new value.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@trscavo @gijsroaming I misunderstood the definition of phenology actually, so I'm on board with the name change

Anotado por frontyardscientist hace 3 meses

@trscavo , although I don't currently support your proposed changes, I do think adding a way to annotate or note the post-fruiting, persistent fruit and seeds. I certainly don't own the idea so if you want to use the 'Persistent seed' annotation, that is fine with me.

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses
Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@pdabell the only way we'll get the attention of the developers is if we speak with one voice. Since the current proposal already has broad support, the compromise is obvious: We make two proposals. The first proposal is the current (modest) proposal. The second proposal is to add a new annotation value (I'll call it "persistent fruit" for now). The two proposals can (and probably should) be made at the same time, so that staff can understand the true scope of work to be done. Speaking for myself, it's both or none.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are lingering feature requests that need attention. Perhaps the most important of these is the addition of a user interface to the web upload page. The new mobile app should support annotations as well. All of this requires significant developer support (which is limited). To succeed, we need to make a strong case with one voice.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@trscavo, et al,
I am confident that this has been fine-tuned appropriately.
Thumbs up.
(Love the allusion to "A Modest Proposal.")

Anotado por cgbb2004 hace 3 meses

Thanks @cgbb2004 Happy Thanksgiving to you! :-)

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

You are welcome, Tom, @trscavo. Happy Thanksgiving to you, as well :-)

Anotado por cgbb2004 hace 3 meses

@trscavo , I agree that your case will need broad support. I only learned of it because @gijsroaming mentioned me in a comment. To broaden the support, and still-necessary feedback, I suggest you post it at iNatForum. Not as or in a comment with another post (as I did with a discussion you started) but as a new post.

Happy 2nd Thanksgiving! (In Canada, we celebrated it in early October.)

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

@pdabell thanks for the advice. Yes, I agree, the proposal is destined for the forum, probably as a feature request. One more iteration of the proposal document and we should be ready for a wider audience.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@trscavo , that is good to hear.

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

Greetings! I updated the wikipedia page re persistence. At least one of the sources used on that page (Deciduous and Persistent) is essential reading, I think.

Also, I added an observation field for persistent plant part and used it to annotate a couple of observations. Please add this observation field to observations as needed.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

Nice work, observation field is a nice next step! Good to note that fruit here also refers to persistent seeds and individual parts/organs of fruits?

Anotado por gijsroaming hace 3 meses

On the Wikipedia page for Persistence (botany), did you, @trscavo , create the table in the section, "Species with persistent parts?" The one currently requiring a citation is Allium tricoccum, which lists "fruit" as the persistent part. Perhaps for a couple months after fruiting but very, very rarely--if ever--late into the fall or into the winter; sometimes through it and into the spring like the fruit on most of the other species listed in the table. Dehisced fruit of A. tricoccum but not the whole, fleshy fruit that animals might eat is what is commonly persistent into and through the winter and even the spring. I am doubtful that you will find a citation for 'fruit' for A. tricoccum but you might find one for the dehisced fruit or, more likely, the persistent seed(s). The "Persistent fruit" obs field you added will be useful for noting whole fruits that remain attached to a plant into the late fall and winter, and sometimes into the spring.

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

@gijsroaming I intentionally did not add a definition to the observation field since I don't really know what the definition should be. After struggling with this for awhile, I suspect it's going to be difficult to come up with a definition that works for everyone. I'm prepared to accept a final proposal that gives no definition for "persistent fruit". (There are other annotation values currently in that boat, so a definition is not strictly required for implementation.)

That said, our current working definition of "fruit" includes the phrase "fruit or seed", and I expect any reasonable definition of "persistent fruit" will include that phrase as well. You've convince me of that :-)

I don't know what you mean by "individual parts/organs of fruits"? Can you give an example?

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@pdabell the wikipedia history tab records my edits so I won't duplicate that here, but yes, I added Allium tricoccum to the list. Are you suggesting that "persistent seed" is more appropriate in this case? That distinction is easily made on that page but it won't carry over to the annotation. Do you agree?

PS. I'm looking for a reliable secondary source for Allium tricoccum.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@trscavo , yes, I think the distinction of the persistent fruit (with flesh) and persistent seed in the abovementioned table in the Wikipedia entry is important. I also think it should be in the proposed annotation. If you haven't yet, please see the text I quoted from the USA National Phenology Network document that I provide a link to at https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-do-you-apply-the-annotation-fruiting-to-flowering-plants/46015/36?u=pdabell . If you familiarize yourself with the USA-NPN, you'll likely appreciate the significant distinction between fruit (even past fruiting but with the fleshy parts remaining) and dehisced fruit with persistent seed (such as is common with Allium tricoccum.

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

Surely you're not planning to change the phenology annotations to distinguish between fruit and dehiscend fruit with persistent seeds. I'm sure the difference is important! But in this citizen's science project are you really expecting people to correctly assign one or the other name to this?

On the other hand, perhaps you're saying both conditions should be included in the definition of fruiting. I'm fine with that.

Anotado por sedgequeen hace 3 meses

With "individual parts/organs of fruits" I mean non/seed parts of the fruit that persist. So where Allium tricoccum loses its fleshy fruit and only retains the fruit part ´seed´ other plants might retain other parts after shedding its seed. Take poppies (Papaveroideae) for example, which will release their seeds from its seed pod for wind dispersal and retain the seed pod long after all seeds are gone. The same could be said for plants with bursting fruits like peas (e.g. Lathyrus oleraceus). The dry, empty seed pod might not be a full fruit with all organs in place anymore, but I believe it should still be marked as persistent fruit. I agree completely with @sedgequeen in that the difference is important and should be marked appropriately on the wikipedia page, but should be combined in this citizen science project.

Therefore, I believe it should also be clear in the annotation field that it refers to both "fruit and seed" in the same way that the working definition does. If you want to wait with including this in the annotation field until the working definition is implemented as a standard on the platform, that is fine, but we shouldn´t rely on people reading up on the iNat definition of fruit to understand how to use the annotation ´persistent fruit´ correctly in the way that the USA National Phenology Network does. How people enter into the Nature's Notebook project and end up on the iNaturalist platform are substantially different, which justifies a more all-encompassing annotation that requires less learning on iNat.

Anotado por gijsroaming hace 3 meses

@gijsroaming thanks for clarifying what is meant by "individual parts/organs of fruits". I'm afraid I don't have a solution for that use case.

As it exists today, the Plant Phenology annotation is not exhaustive, that is, there are some observations that can not be annotated. For example, consider an empty seed pod. I don't consider that to be "fruiting", and yet it is evidence of flowering (in the sense of the current tooltip definition), so in the case of an empty seed pod, I simply leave the annotation blank. What do you do in a situation like that?

There are many observations that provide evidence of flowering but are neither "flower budding", "flowering", nor "fruiting". Examples include: a failed bud, a flowerless stalk, a withered flower, or an empty seed pod. Such observations simply can not be annotated. If an observation of a flowerless stalk were annotated with "no evidence of flowering", I would be inclined to add a disagreeing annotation.

We've already discussed the possible addition of a catch-all annotation value to compensate for this shortcoming. However, a catch-all value adds complexity with little or no benefit. In particular, it has no effect on the Plant Phenology chart on the taxon page. IMO the addition of a catch-all annotation value is not justified.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@sedgequeen I agree with you...modifying the Plant Phenology annotation to distinguish between "fruit or seed" and "persistent fruit or seed" leads to significant complexity. I don't know how to implement such a change without introducing new terminology. The word "persistent" is not used consistently by botanists, let alone non-botanists. See: Deciduous and Persistent

But let me ask a different question. How would you annotate the following observation? https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/77819586

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@trscavo , although I realize your last question was for @sedgequeen , I added the observation field value, 'Persistent seed(s)' to that observation and specified the approximate number with "approx. 10%." Since I added it, I can edit or delete it but I added it so that I can get your, and others in this thread, feedback regarding noting such seeds (in that observation) given the current way that plant phenology is annotated.

Regarding your comment about how to mark that there was evidence of flowering when there is an empty seed pod, I certainly might be wrong but unless there is 'no evidence of flowering' (i.e. clumps of Allium tricoccum that I observe over multiple years flower variably and occasionally not at all (without foraging))--phenologically significant, I think--I doubt there is a need to add what is presumed to have occurred if it isn't noted as not having occurred. In any event, adding an observation field such as 'Persistent seed(s)' helps address the issue.

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

I'd call it fruiting. I'd leave it to anybody doing research on the phenology of the group to work out the subtleties, if they felt it important.

Anotado por sedgequeen hace 3 meses

@trscavo , regarding the Wikipedia entry for "Persistence (botany)' and specifically your editing the persistent part of the dehisced fruit of Allium tricoccum from "fruit" to "seed," I think that is more accurate. Although the whole, fleshy fruit rarely persists past mid fall, if any were to, it would be included in your proposal under 'fruit.' It of course could also be included in the observation field, 'Persistent fruit.'

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

Re: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/77819586

@sedgequeen I agree with you...I too would annotate that observation as "fruiting" since the plant is dispersing seed (which is the rule-of-thumb I use in situations like this). I suspect most people would agree the plant is "fruiting".

@pdabell I see that you added an observation field called "Persistent seed(s)". That's fine but what is its intended use? An open text field limits your search options.

To illustrate, I added an observation field called "Persistent plant part" with a controlled vocabulary. In that way, I can search for all observations with persistent fruit or all observations with persistent seed, and so forth.

Your mileage may vary of course.

Anotado por trscavo hace 3 meses

@trscavo , the intended uses of adding such observation fields vary. But adding them allows me and potentially other users to query obs with the OFs of interest.

Anotado por pdabell hace 3 meses

You can, of course, add any field that you find useful for your work. In the case of "persistent seeds" as something different from "fruit," it would be unwise to assume anybody else would have the knowledge to fill out the field the way you feel it should be.

Anotado por sedgequeen hace 3 meses

Añade un comentario

Entra o Regístrate para añadir comentarios