Abstract:

Plants are found almost everywhere, but for most, with some exceptions of very common or useful plants, their names are a mystery. Even more, some have called the attitude toward them "plant blindness" [1,2]. There are numerous proposals to reduce plant blindness, and most of them see plant identification as the key to preventing it. Plant species identification is a standard exercise in botany and biology classes and may also be of interest to more general audiences. From this perspective, plant identification can be considered a lifelong skill that should be learned during formal education. There are several ways to identify plants, and most of them rely on identification keys that are available in print or online. The traditional methods for plant identification are dichotomous, politomous, and image-based identification keys. With the invention of the computer, identification keys have been transferred to digital and interactive formats, and more recently to smartphone formats.

The objective of the study was to determine the added value of Pl@ntNet [3] compared to the use of traditional image-based printed identification keys and unstructured searches on the Internet. We wanted to compare identification results and accuracy between the three approaches. We were also interested in student satisfaction and differences in perceived obstacles between the three methods. Of particular interest was satisfaction with mobile technology-based plant identification, which can be considered a bridge to avoid plant blindness. According to references, mobile technology-based learning increases intrinsic motivation [4], which may thus promote satisfaction.

The task of the 86 14-year-old students was to identify six plant species. Two with the help of the book, two with the help of the Internet and two with the help of Pl@ntNet. After completing the task, the differences between the three methods were evaluated. The students were also asked their opinion about the difficulty of the task and satisfaction with the lesson.

It was noted that students will prefer the book. When asked which implementation of plant identification they had the least problems with, 59.3% of the respondents answered that they had the least problems identifying plants with the Pl@ntNet application. They had the most problems with plant identification via the Internet (79.1%). When asked which identification method they would choose if given the choice, they answered that they (54.7%) would identify the plant using a book. Students also ranked the plant identification methods according to their level of difficulty, with 1 being the least difficult and 3 being the most difficult. Based on their experience with all methods, they determined that the least difficult method of plant identification was using the Pl@ntNet application and the most difficult method of plant identification was using the Internet.

After testing all three methods for plant identification, we would suggest a combination of Pl@ntNet and a pictorial identification key to be used during fieldwork. The students express high level of satisfaction with this experience. By teaching identification principles, we can provide students with lifelong skills that they can use even after they graduate from high school. It is suggested that the transfer to identification of other species be tested.

Keywords:

Identification keys, plant blindness, plant identification, Pl@ntNet, smartphones.