Plant Cuttings

This image entitled “HTC Android mobile phone HT722G700375”, by Kai Hendy is used under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

It’s often the case that reviewing a book generates ideas for follow-up Cuttings item(s). This post was inspired by reading Simon Barnes’ How to be a bad botanist*.

One of the main goals of this blog is to enhance the public’s botanical literacy. In that way it is hoped to do its bit to tackle the phenomenon known as plant blindness [check out the site’s stated aim of “Reducing plant blindness, one post at a time…”]. Botanical literacy can take many forms, but it’s largely promoting knowledge about, and appreciation of, plants, and an understanding of their importance to humankind and all other lifeforms on the planet. One way of achieving that is to encourage people to look at plants and identify them, to be able to give them a name**. The plant-blindness-banishing importance of which is underlined by Simon Barnes, “A name is not a label but a portal – walk through it and your understanding grows: of the individual, of the ecosystem it inhabits, of the world we all share” (p. 70, How to be a bad botanist by Simon Barnes).

Although identifying plants is something that gets easier with practice, it’s often tricky knowing where to begin. When I used to teach undergraduates about plant identification I stressed that one – arguably, the least ‘painful’ – way to get started with this was to go out into the field with a knowledgeable botanical friend*** and learn the names of some plants – and their important identification features – from them. All you have to do is remember what you’ve been told, and give the same name to the same plant when next you meet it(!)

Even if the expert can’t be with you all of the time, that initial introduction to plant identification [ID] will hopefully give you the necessary confidence to start to name plants (that are new to you) for yourself. But, how to do that without your botanical mentor? The traditional way is to use a plant ID guide or flora that provides information about the plants in a particular area. A good flora will contain a key to help you whittle down the possible identities of a plant to just the one that it is. But, such aids can be quite daunting for the uninitiated – as Barnes tells us in How to be a bad botanist (and in which book he’s not afraid to name some that are probably too scary for the beginning/novice botanist). Certainly, some plant ID books are better than others****.

Increasingly these days, a more IT-savvy generation wishing to know their plants might be inclined to turn to ‘apps‘ (Chiradeep BasuMallick, Joe Miller, Robert Sheldon). Using that technology, all you need to do is take a photo of the ‘mystery’ plant and let the app do the identifying for you. As acknowledged by Barnes: “There are also apps for smartphones that will do a very great deal of the legwork for you. Or have a damn good shot at it anyway” (p. 76, How to be a bad botanist).

And there are a lot of apps available that can help. But, as with ID books, how do you choose the best one? Or, at least, one that works for you? You can ask those who use plant ID apps to let you know how good, bad, or indifferent they are. But you have to find them in the first place. Or, and probably the main route down which you’re likely to go, is to check out the internet, where you will find lots of advice in the form of scientific articles and internet posts, that can help with that. But, you don’t necessarily have to do that for yourself. Ever-helpful – well, anything that helps to get newbies up to speed with plant ID and therefore better plant-appreciation, Mr Cuttings has done some of the ‘donkey work’ on your behalf.

But! You will still need to make your own decision regarding which app(s) you want to check for your own particular plant ID purposes. Here’s a round-up of internet items about plant ID apps.

Some guidance about plant ID apps

Susan Harris evaluates plant ID apps PlantNet (which widely-used version seems to work as an acceptable alternative to Pl@ntNet), and iNaturalist. Ellen Airhart considers “the best plant identification app”, and looks in-depth at Pl@ntNet, and iNaturalist. Other apps – PictureThis, LeafSnap, Seek (“iNaturalist’s app for kids”), What’s That Flower?, and Flora Incognita – are mentioned, but with much less in-depth coverage.

James Common specifically looked at apps with beginners in mind, and appraises PlantNet [also known – more properly – as Pl@ntNet], PlantSnap, Picture This, Seek, and LeafSnap. Pam Baker, looking at the “Best plant identification apps for mobile in 2024”, covers PlantNet in detail, and also mentions FlowerChecker, LeafSnap Premium, PlantID, and PlantSnapPro. And, writing for gardentrip.co.uk [https://gardentrip.co.uk/], contributor ‘plighto’ assesses four free apps – PlantSnap, Flora Incognita, PlantNet, and GardenAnswers. And Simon Barnes gives a good mention of Pl@ntnet and Google Lens (p. 76, How to be a bad botanist) For a handy guide to using Google Lens on either an iPhone or an Android device, see Cheryl Spencer’s article.

Academic journal articles that evaluate plant ID apps include:

Hamlyn Jones (2020a), in which 9 free apps or websites for automated plant identification – of species from the British flora – that were suitable for use on mobile phones or tablet computers in the field were evaluated – Bing, Candide (Plant ID), Flora Incognita, Google Lens, iPlant Plant identifier, plant.id, PlantNet, PlantSnap, and Seek. Comparison of a similar set of plant ID app is also contained in another of his articles, Hamlyn Jones (2020b). Adam Hart et al. (2023) involved professional ecologists in assessing the accuracy of the free automated plant identification applications, PlantNet, PlantSnap, LeafSnap, iNaturalist Seek, and Google Lens. A plain language summary of which article is available (Adam Hart et al.,)). The Flora Incognita app is described and discussed by Patrick Mäder et al. (2021), and compared to PlantNet and iNaturalist.

Finally (for this limited review of the literature), if you’re interested specifically in identifying toxic plants, Jenna Otter et al. (2021) compare the accuracy of “three popular iPhone plant ID apps, PictureThis, PlantSnap, and Pl@ntNet, to identify 17 commonly encountered toxic plants” (which included Nerium oleander, Cascabela thevetia, Brugmansia suaveolens, Datura wrightii, Ricinus communis, Nicotiana glauca, Phytolacca americana, Lantana camara, Digitalis purpurea, and Conium maculatum – “commonly encountered toxic plants in Southern California from September 2019 to June 2020, and several other common species found during travel within the USA”). That paper also provides interesting background to the apps they tested: “PictureThis was created by Glority Global Group Ltd., a company that creates several picture-based smartphone identification apps; it claims 95% accuracy in plant identification (source: picturethisai.com). PlantSnap was created by an American entrepreneur and utilizes an online encyclopedic database of plants for identification (source: plantsnap.com). Pl@ntNet is a self-described “citizen-science project on plant biodiversity” whose origin is with a French group interested in open-access botany education and biodiversity research (source: plantnet.org/en)”.

A reminder: Mr Cuttings will not tell you which app to use. That will depend upon many factors – e.g. your location, the make and model of smartphone you have, the operating system you use, personal preference, etc. Instead, you are encouraged to look at the sources made available to help you to make an informed decision.

Some take-away messages…

Although I’ve not provided much by way of assessment of the sources indicated above, some of the overall conclusions of the academic studies are worth stating.

As a result of his extensive evaluation of several apps, Jones (2020a) felt able to conclude that “Notwithstanding the limitations for quantitative studies, any of the better-performing apps here should be of great value to beginners and amateurs in plant identification and may even stimulate interest in plants, plant identification and nature in general”. Regardless of the accuracy of Flora Incognita’s plant identification, Mäder et al. (2021) “found that the proposed intuitive identification process [of Flora Incognita] stimulates social awareness for plant diversity and biodiversity”. In other words, the app does promote botanical literacy amongst the public, which is great to know. Hart et al. (2023) found that “subject to some caveats, free phone-based plant identification applications are valid and useful tools for those wanting rapid identification and for anyone wanting to engage with the natural world”. And, “For the inexperienced or non-professional user applications provide an excellent entry point for finding out more about plants, albeit with some limitations” (Hart et al., 2023). The aspiration that plant ID apps will stimulate interest in plants – i.e. increase botanical literacy – is encouraging, and is a view that was previously espoused several years ago by Andrew Robinson: “In China the latest version of the Baidu browser (a so-called Chinese Google) comes with a plant recognition feature built into it. … Such apps are triggering a new wave of botanical interest among the general population in China”.

However, amidst that general appreciation for these apps, Jones (2020a) issues an important caveat (a note of caution) in suggesting that “their ease of use may actually act as a disincentive to gaining further knowledge”. This point is also raised – and even more explicitly – in another of this author’s publications (Jones, 2020b), “My main concern is that the ease of use of automatic apps might lead to many people becoming lazy and just accepting the given identifications without further questioning, thereby missing out on the development of  botanical skills required to distinguish critical or rare species, especially those where identification depends on subtle or cryptic characters”. Which warnings may be the ultimate example of ‘caveat emptor’ (Julia Kagan)? Nevertheless, Jones (2020b) believes that “Wider use of such apps has great potential for stimulating greater interest in plant identification” (even if, “In most cases, however, the user still needs to use a traditional flora or another identification app to validate the suggested id”).

Otter et al. (2021) concluded that “the three apps evaluated in our study were able to identify toxic plants, with varying degrees of accuracy”. Which is encouraging. However, they also caution that “In a field where incorrect identification of a toxic plant could have dire consequences, these apps are not yet ready for use as a stand-alone tool for use in acute unknown plant poisonings”. And that “Results of plant identification apps for identification of toxic plants can be accurate but should be interpreted with caution and the data used in consultation with experts in the field”. Slavish acceptance of the app’s ‘ID’ is therefore not advisable. Such tools are not infallible, and the back-up provided by human expertise is still important. That recourse to human expertise is also echoed by Jones (2020a): “Nevertheless, any suggested id still needs some independent confirmation, while for quantitative studies, further validation using experts or rigorous floras will still be required for some time, especially for rare or hard-to-distinguish species” Thankfully, apps haven’t – yet! – done away with the need for ‘the Darrels’*** of this world.

Overall, it’s encouraging to see such approval for plant ID apps – even if such comments are cautiously caveat-constrained. And, the apps are likely to get better in their plant identifications because continued improvement of accuracy of ID is likely to come as each app is used by more people. Each use of an app for identification can be used by the technology to ‘train’ the app. Which sounds like a good thing – increased accuracy of ID can only help users, whether they are botanists undertaking vegetation surveys or physicians providing treatment for those poisoned by toxic plants.

But, use of apps to ID plants doesn’t just help the app – and the human plant-hunter – to improve, it may also have a darker side. As expressed by Andrew Robinson in his thought-provoking article, “We are building huge repositories of data related to our natural environments … But there are ethical concerns that should be addressed: about how data is collected and shared, who has the right to share it and how we use public data for machine learning. And there’s a bigger concern – whether such apps change what it means to be human”. His article ends with the rather chilling, “This exploration of the natural world – this observing, comparing, playing, discovering, loving – is an impulse that’s core to our humanity, and one, I’d suggest, we should be careful not to lose” (Andrew Robinson).

Nevertheless, using an app to get to know plants better – and thereby becoming more plant aware, less plant-blind, and enhancing one’s botanical literacy – has to be a good thing. Additionally, plant ID apps can be a powerful force for good, maybe helping you find happiness [Ed. – ‘appiness..?] and satisfaction, as found by Estelle Tang. Using a plant ID app is yet another way that interacting with plants can boost humanity’s well-being – and without getting your hands dirty for the gardening-averse (e.g. Sarah Sloat).

Final thoughts

The overall conclusion appears to be that, if used appropriately – and with acknowledgement that appropriate input by experts still has an important part to play in learning the art of plant identification – plant ID apps can be a great help to those who want to know the names of plants (and a great way of engaging the public and enhancing botanical literacy).

And, for those who may be concerned about such things, Barnes does not consider using an app to be ‘cheating’ because “Anything that advances knowledge seems to me a good thing” (p. 77, How to be a bad botanist). We at Cuttings HQ concur with that statement.

* Although reading Barnes’ book was the inspiration, the impetus to get on and write this post came from a ‘tweet’ by Dr Timothy Utteridge on the 15^th September, 2024, which stated that “Apparently, PlantSnap can “Identify 90% of all known species of plants and trees“. Usefully, Timothy’s tweet included a link to the app in question, PlantSnap, which claims to be “A plant expert at your fingertips”, that will “Identify plants, flowers, cacti, succulents and mushrooms in seconds with the click of a button on your mobile device”.

** And let us not overlook the unalloyed joy and genuine sense of achievement that identifying an ‘unknown’ plant for yourself can be. This is beautifully conveyed by Barnes after having identified yellow archangel with the help of a plant ID book: “And it was a bit of a breakthrough. I had seen, observed, noticed, researched and named a wildflower … I had established a personal relationship with the plant: it was now part of my brain, part of my thinking, part of the way I see the world. I had been walking this lane for five years, and all the while I had been entertaining archangels unawares. Now I always see them. It was a moment of confirmation: I had finally made it. Now I really was a bad botanist” (p. 66, How to be a bad botanist). Now that memory is something to treasure.

*** At the UK university where I taught, we were blessed with the phenomenon known as ‘the Darrel’. Real name Darrel Watts, he was – and no doubt still is – one of the most knowledgeable field botanists it has been my great pleasure to have met and shared field courses with, and good fortune to call a friend. For some more help with plant ID, do look at the BSBI (Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland] site.

But, you don’t have to wait for a chance encounter with a plant ID expert. Joining a national organisation such as the BSBI will give you access to a network of plant ID expertise that you can learn from on their numerous field trips, and be part of a friendly, helpful, plant-appreciative community. More locally, there are many plant groups throughout the country [although I’m speaking from my UK perspective, I’m sure this situation applies globally] that have trips to locations of plant interest. An excellent example of this sort of organisation is the Somerset Rare Plants Group, which has a wealth of plant ID expertise that is freely-shared with the group’s members on forays into the field (and which considers all of Somerset’s plants, not just the rarities!).

**** Whilst I have nothing against the plant ID book Wild Flowers of Britain and Northern Europe (Collins handguides) by RSR Fitter, Alastair H Fitter & Marjorie Blamey, it does provide the opportunity to share a plant ID-related anecdote. Back in my botany teaching days we had a first year exercise that involved recording the vegetation in two woodland sites on campus (near Bath, UK), in November. As you might imagine there was hardly anything in flower at that time of year in that location. The best advice I would give the students about that book was for each of them to take two copies into the woods. Place them on the ground about two feet apart. Then kneel on the books to avoid getting knees muddy and/or wet. Why was such advice given? Because identification of plants using that book was based upon floral characteristics. With no flowers to look at, using it for the purposes of plant ID was not appropriate.  Furthermore, the book concentrated on ‘flowers’ to the exclusion of grasses and sedges. And was silent on the ferns that we had at those sites. This taught the students a valuable lesson: you need to choose your flora or plant ID book carefully – certainly having in mind the vegetation at the site of interest, and the time of year. Not to worry, we weren’t as cruel to the students at that tale might imply because a, we had the Darrel*** with us, and b, we provided the students with prepared lists of likely vegetation at the sites – to focus their ID attention. My ‘use of Fitter et al‘s book advice’ predates publication of John Poland & Eric Clements’ The Vegetative Key to the British Flora: A New Approach to Plant Identification, an excellent innovation that allows plants – in Britain – to be identified in the absence of flowers.

REFERENCES

Adam G. Hart et al., 2023. Assessing the accuracy of free automated plant identification applications. People and Nature 5(3): 929-937; https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10460

Hamlyn G. Jones, 2020a. What plant is that? Tests of automated image recognition apps for plant identification on plants from the British flora. AoB PLANTS 12(6): plaa052; https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plaa052

Hamlyn Jones, 2020b. Artificial Intelligence for plant identification on smartphones and tablets. BSBI News 144: 34-40

Patrick Mäder et al., 2021. The Flora Incognita app – Interactive plant species identification. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 12(7): 1335-1342; https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13611

Jenna Otter et al., 2021. Swipe Right: a Comparison of Accuracy of Plant Identification Apps for Toxic Plants. J Med Toxicol. 17(1): 42-47; doi: 10.1007/s13181-020-00803-6