Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 48(1): January 2022 misidentified in 1 of 4 leaf images. PictureThis also failed to offer an identification for 1 photo: the bark of Pseudotsuga menziesii. While this might seem to be a drawback that the app might not make any identifica- tion at all, this failure to offer an identification when unsure indicates that when the app is not confident, it will not make a potentially faulty identification. Ulti- mately, PictureThis, and arguably the iNaturalist app, offered identifications with a high confidence to genus that might be deployed in a number of practical approaches, particularly in early training or educa- tional situations, or as an early support for emerging professionals. For situations in which only a broad context of community is desired, identification to genus might be acceptable. For example, a study which seeks to determine the number of tree families or genera pres- ent in a patch of woods or a portion of a community might only require such identifications for useful data. Use of an app can help to attain large amounts of broad data in a short amount of time (and with inex- perienced naturalists), which could then be refined by more experienced foresters as needed. This could be in the form of successively working through genera until all have been identified to a finer degree or to target desired genera for more specific detail. These apps can also assist inexperienced or unsure arborists, foresters, or ecologists who are not confi- dent in their identifications by narrowing down their observations to the genus or species level. For exam- ple, the user could take a picture of the leaf of a pal- mately lobed tree to use the app to distinguish Acer from Platanus and Liquidambar with high confi- dence. The user could then utilize a more specific key or more refined section of a reference guide to distin- guish between species within a genus. Such apps could be used by foresters or ecologists who simply want a second opinion on identifications to prevent potential consistent misidentifications. Apps could also be used as an educational tool in preparation for credentialling or licensure exams to practice leaf identifications to the genus. PictureThis is, however, a paid app, which may reduce its accessibility for those without the resources (or long-term need) to purchase the app. This there- fore might make the standardized use of this app less probable, especially for students and volunteers. The investment might be worthwhile for beginning forest- ers or ecologists to help in validating their 37 identifications and to expose any biases they might have in their identifications. As an alternative to a paid app, the second most accurate app, iNaturalist, offers many of the same values as PictureThis and includes some community- based assistance, which can help to attain more confi- dent identifications. iNaturalist had an observed 92.27% identification rate to genus and a 69.55% identification rate to species for leaf photos, as well as a 48.18% identification rate to genus and a 31.82% identification rate to species for bark photos. With a percent leaf identification to genus of over 90.00%, iNaturalist can be used in a similar manner as stated for PictureThis, however, with only moderate confidence. In contrast to the singular identification provided by PictureThis, iNaturalist provided many suggestions as possible species. This can be useful for individuals with some knowledge of tree identification who can look through the list and reject some of the sugges- tions due to previous knowledge (e.g., rejecting trees with similar leaves that have widely different barks than the unknown specimen). This could result in a relatively short list of species to sort through and turn an almost unmanageable list of possibilities into one that can be used to quickly narrow the scope of a field guide, such as when guided as a “quest” (Kingsley and Grabner-Hagen 2015). iNaturalist offered higher level identifications if the software was confident in its identification, such as being “pretty sure” for dif- ferent families and genera. Of all of the photos which received a listing of “pretty sure” to a specific family, 90.03% of them were correct, and identifications listed as “pretty sure” to a specific genus were correct 95.83% of the time across both bark and leaf pictures. Even when the identified broader taxon is not correct, there is a 99.17% chance that the correct genus will be listed in the suggestions and a 95.83% chance that the correct species will be in the suggestions. The iNaturalist app also utilizes community and expert verification on photos submitted through the app. Other apps such as PlantNet and PlantSnap also offer a community support function with their tool. While this may pose a challenge for large-scale iden- tification efforts, such as comprehensive tree invento- ries, in smaller projects where time is not as much of a limiting factor, it can help to ensure higher accuracy. A community support function can also be helpful to identify a species (or at least get a second opinion on a specimen) that is particularly difficult to identify or ©2022 International Society of Arboriculture
January 2022
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
