Taking a look back at our state’s first-ever Alaska Botany Bioblitz

This past July, more than a hundred people roamed across the Alaska landscape, helping to document many of the plant species that inhabit our state. By the time the first-ever Alaska Botany Bioblitz ended, 118 participants had contributed some 11,000 observations and found more than 600 species of plants.

As I reported in July, the bioblitz was something of a botanical orgy, organized by the Alaska Native Plant Society (AKNPS) and intended to compile as many observations of Alaska’s plants as possible between July 1 and July 31—and perhaps add to our collective knowledge of the state’s community of plants (or rather communities, given the wide range of ecosystems that occur within Alaska).

To participate as an “observer” in Alaska’s bioblitz—one of many projects conducted worldwide through the site www.inaturalist.org — a person could simply sign up online, then head outdoors and, equipped with a smartphone and the (free) iNaturalist app, upload images of wildflowers and other plants that occur in any part of Alaska. iNaturalist would then assist in identifying the various species, along with a human contingent of botanists and naturalists who serve as “identifiers.”

Nearly 300 people (288 to be exact) contributed their skills as identifiers for this bioblitz project, more than twice the number of in-the-field observers. That initially surprised me, because I’d much prefer to ramble through Alaska’s wilds and find as many plant species as possible, rather than verify (through online images) what others have found. But as Aaron Wells of the AKNPS points out, “there are millions of iNaturalist users and they can weigh in on an ID from anywhere,” while observers had to be here in Alaska, actually looking for plants.

Here I’ll summarize some of the more notable results from this inaugural Alaska Botany Bioblitz, using information compiled and generously shared with me by Wells, the society’s treasurer and one of the bioblitz organizers.

When Wells analyzed the data in early September, bioblitz participants had contributed 11,039 plant observations (he noted that some late-arriving data would increase that number slightly). Of that number, 6,741 observations, or 61 percent, were considered “research grade.” That means at least two-thirds of the people who reviewed the plant (including the initial observer) agreed on its identity.

The “vast majority” of observations were located less than two miles from communities and Alaska’s road system, with the greatest concentrations near major cities and towns, among them Anchorage, Juneau, Eagle River, Palmer, and Fairbanks. That made good sense to me, given that the iNaturalist app can only function where cell phone reception exists.

What I didn’t know, until recently informed by Wells, is that “you can make observations in areas without cell service by taking geotagged photos (which most modern cell phones take), or take non-geotagged photos and record the location on a GPS and then upload the photos later.”

I suppose that’s something I should learn how to do, before participating in any future iNaturalist projects.

Wells pointed out some “noteworthy exceptions” that demonstrate smartphones’ geotagging capability: a few observations were made in the Steese National Conservation Area, approximately 75 miles northeast of Nome, and some also came from Misty Fjords National Monument in the Tongass National Forest east of Ketchikan, both locales presumably far from any cell phone service.

What surprises me now, given these new insights (new at least for me), is that more bioblitz observations didn’t come from Alaska’s remote wilderness. Were other participants similarly unaware of the geotagging and GPS options?

Though few came from deep wilderness, bioblitz observations did stretch across the state, from the southern reaches of the Panhandle (Ketchikan and Misty Fjords) north to the high Arctic (Utqiagvik); and east-to-west from the town of McCarthy, near the Canadian border, to the northwest tip of Alaska’s coastline, at Point Hope, an impressive geographic spread indeed.

The most observations recorded in a single day was 714, on July 3, shortly after the bioblitz began and during a holiday weekend.

Of the 6,741 research-grade observations, 99 percent were vascular plants, those that have specialized tissues to transport water and nutrients throughout the plant along with “the products of photosynthesis” (or so my online research tells me). Such plants typically have stems, leaves, and roots and they include wildflowers, trees, shrubs, grasses, sedges, and ferns. Among those thousands of observations, 641 distinct “species, subspecies, or varieties of vascular plants” were observed.

Though 641 seems like a substantial number for a far-north place like Alaska, Wells points out that it represents only 29 percent of the “approximately 2,200 species, subspecies, or varieties of vascular plants known to occur in Alaska.”

The five most commonly observed species—all of them vascular plants—were tall fireweed (135 research-grade observations), monkshood (80), northern yarrow (76), dwarf fireweed (73), and black crowberry (72).

The remaining 1 percent, or 59 research-grade observations, were nonvascular plants, which include mosses, liverworts, hornworts (collectively known to scientists as bryophytes), and algae. In all, 28 species of non-vascular plants were identified, 24 of them bryophytes and the other 4 algae. Those 24 bryophyte species represent a tiny percentage of the 1,100 or so known bryophyte taxa to occur in Alaska.

It’s also worth noting that of the hundreds of plant species observed and identified, eight species are considered “rare” in Alaska. To give some perspective, Wells notes that Alaska’s “rare plant list” includes 303 vascular plant taxa. Of course, being rare means such plants are hard to find, so it makes sense few would be found in an effort like this one.

Also of note is that 89 species of non-native plants were observed, scattered around our state (again it makes sense that so many non-native species were found since most observations occurred in or near urban areas).

Though the participation, observations, and species identification in this first-ever Alaska Botany Bioblitz is impressive, I’m even more impressed by the great number of plant species (and other taxa), both vascular and non-vascular, that bioblitz participants did not find, which to me reflects the amazing diversity of plants in our state’s more remote landscapes, far from Alaska’s communities and road system.

As to whether the Alaska Native Plant Society might organize future bioblitzes, the group’s president, Elizabeth Bluemink, says, “We’re considering that and we’re encouraged that some of this year’s participants are interested in helping out with future botany bioblitzes. We’d love to partner up with other organizations, too, if they are interested.”

My own hope is that any future Alaska bioblitzes will include increased observations from more remote parts of the state. That seems more likely to happen as low-tech people like me learn the ins and outs of photo geotagging, GPS, and other smartphone and iNaturalist capabilities—and more participants go deeper “into the wild” in their bioblitz ramblings.

Anchorage nature writer and wildlands/wildlife advocate Bill Sherwonit is a widely published essayist and the author of more than a dozen books, including “Living with Wildness: An Alaskan Odyssey” and “Animal Stories: Encounters with Alaska’s Wildlife.” Readers wishing to send comments or questions directly to Bill may do so at akgriz@hotmail.com.