31.03.2026 à 15:35
Introducing a new citizen science nature app that’s geared towards the scientific community
Identifying weeds, checking out the pollen map, or discovering new plant life-forms are among the promising wealth of data available to users of PlantNet – a “Shazam!” for plants. Pierre Bonnet and computer scientist Alexis Joly introduced us to the digitally enhanced plant recognition application they developed.
The Conversation: What can you tell us about PlantNet users?
Pierre Bonnet and Alexis Joly: An impact study carried out a few years ago identified that 12% of users used the app for work, either for research, land management, farming or teaching purposes. The large majority of users use PlantNet out of curiosity or personal interest.
Looking at who and where PlantNet users are based reflects the way technology is used in different parts of the world. In Asia, we have quite a few young users, because they are the most connected. We can also observe that the Chinese flora, which is nevertheless very rich, is poorly represented by the users of the application, and this is explained in particular by the fact that non-state or non-Chinese platforms, which are not carried by Chinese companies or partners, are much less present on this market.
Tropical parts of the world are very biodiversity-rich, is PlantNet particularly big there?
P.B. and A.J.: Brazil is in eighth place with just over 600,000 annual users. Indonesia and India are in the top 20. Currently, the bulk of PlantNet’s activity is still in Europe and North America. Several things explain this. PlantNet has already been launched in France and in Europe, and has therefore been further promoted and attracted media attention in this region of the world. Backed by user demand, the application was also initially adapted to the French and Mediterranean flora before it was gradually extended to include other European flora, then North American, and tropical.
It should also be taken into account that in tropical areas, species richness is certainly far greater, but access capacities are often more limited. The road network is less developed; 3G connectivity can be poor, particularly in forested mountain areas.
In the field, plant biodiversity can also be more complex to photograph, take for example, the many tropical plants that are epiphytic that is to say, that grow on another plant, especially at canopy level. When we talk about trees that are several tens of metres high, it immediately becomes more complex to photograph.
All this makes tropical plants and flowers considerably less known. The application covers almost 100% of European flora, compared with coverage of a few tens of percent for tropical countries. This is something that is not unique to PlantNet, and generally applies to all institutional databases, especially since covering tropical areas costs more.
But despite this, we are working with partners in Costa Rica, Guyana, Brazil, Cameroon, Madagascar and Malaysia, in particular to extend our coverage of the number of species.
In the tropics or elsewhere, what can be noted about the plants that users are looking to identify? Are the most common plants the most in demand or not necessarily?
P.B. and A.J.: There is necessarily a correlation, because very rare plants are necessarily rarely observed. But we also note that certain plants are very common, but of little interest, because they are “discreet”. These can be crop weeds, plants found by the roadside but which do not have noticeable flowers, which are pollinated by the wind with slender, greenish flowers, such as species of fescue (Festuca spp.), or bromes (Bromus spp.). They are less observed because they are actually less attractive. We can also note that tree searches are popular, whereas certain herbaceous or epiphytic plants tend to be extremely rare.
People actually often observe plants that they like, or plants that seem useful to them. Incidentally, we get a lot of requests about fruits, berries, and plums, probably because people want to know if they are edible or not.
But the goal of tracking useful plants for humans was not the main objective of the PlantNet project from the get-go. We had to adapt it, however, to meet expectations in terms of this type of use while remaining fairly moderate regarding the volume of information we provide.
At the same time, we are working more and more with people who study animal health, either in human health and who use the PlantNet service or data for their own work. Like for instance, people who worked for ToxiPlant which identifies plants that are toxic for horses. We also regularly consult doctors on different uses of PlantNet for identifying allergenic plants, especially those that cause skin allergies. We also liaise with the French regional agency for monitoring air quality ATMO Occitanie, which uses shared data on flowering plants listed through PlantNet that it integrates into its air quality estimation models indicating pollen counts.
Are there certain plants that would benefit from being photographed more?
P.B. and A.J.: Yes. There are plants that interest us, or our partners, but for which we have very little data. These include allergenic plants for respiratory allergies, such as male junipers, which release pollen when their cones open.
These cones are very discreet. Junipers are therefore photographed, but rarely with illustrations that show the development stage of the cones. Seeing as they cause allergies, some of our partners would like to collect more data on the subject. We hope to remedy this through animation features, either directly through the platform or through social media, to generate interest in collecting data on this type of plant or on rare, endangered plants or plants that have conservation issues, such as Marsilea strigosa Willd. and Arenaria provincialis Chater & P. Halliday (native to the South-eastern France).
We also have the case of certain plants that interest us for agriculture, weeds, for example, which we have barely identified at the stage of young shoots, such as ‘Imperatacylindrica_ (L.) Raeusch. or that Galium aparine L.
Your application encourages users to take several different pictures. This can be photos of flowers, leaves, fruits, bark, or of the entire plant, for example, to help them identify plants. What type of data do you have the most of?
P.B. and A.J.: Data on flowers, especially in their blooming seasons – during spring and early summer. Flowers attract interest and trigger observation. They are also the most effective visually, and have typically been used a lot by botanists in the past.
On PlantNet, after flowers, we notice a decreasing degree of performance for fruit, leaves, and then twigs and bark, which are sometimes more difficult to take pictures of, even if users are always encouraged to combine several criteria (flower and fruit, flower and leaf…) each time to maximise their chance of correctly identifying a plant.
What happens when PlantNet can’t match a photograph with an existing species?
P.B. and A.J.: Troubleshooting “no results found” is still a tricky business for all forms of AI, and PlantNet is no exception. Some species are very poorly represented, and it is very difficult to teach the model behind the app to differentiate between something that is very rare in the learning database and something that we do not have at all. We therefore seek to quantify the uncertainty, rather than decide when the model is uncertain or not. We are working with our team on creating confidence intervals. That is why, in some cases, the application will provide several species.
One thing that makes this work difficult is that new species often resemble existing species. A new species is thought to be very picturesque, but it isn’t always the case, hence the confusion.
There is also the issue of hybrid, ornamental plants. You will always come across new plant creations. We cover them, but not as well as other plants, even though we are trying to overcome this difficulty.
We also set out to simply identify more and more plants. Today PlantNet covers 85,000 species out of an estimated 400,000, with 2,000 new species being discovered each year. These discoveries are made by taxonomists worldwide and via the World Flora Online network, which brings together several dozen universities, herbaria and botanical gardens, which PlantNet joined in 2025.
Working closely with these networks will enable us to improve cases where PlantNet performs poorly, particularly when new species emerge thanks to the research carried out by the taxonomists, who actually further knowledge by dividing what was previously thought as a single species, but which represents, in fact, several of them or, conversely, by grouping together what were thought to be different species, but which turns out in reality to be only one plant.
Let’s come back to the 10% of users who use PlantNet for work. Who are they? What line of work are they in?
P.B. and A.J.: PlantNet’s data is very useful for building species distribution models predicting where a given species is commonly found. There are certainly biases in our data, depending on where people do and don’t go, but they can help us to gain a better understanding of the factors that influence these distributions, including climate change. This provides answers to questions like, “will species change habitats or stay put?” or “what is the human impact on species distribution?” Many ecologists download the PlantNet data and couple it with other data for species distribution modelling.
PlantNet data can also help in the detection of invasive species that are often notable for their size, density, visual appearance, or novelty, such as Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E.Br or Mirabilis jalapa L. We are working on this subject with the French Biodiversity Office, which is interested in using plant monitoring cameras to detect the presence of invasive plants, in order to contain their expansion within the areas where they are found.
We have an ongoing project that focuses on improving the classification of species that are present in farming environments and recognition of plant pathogens whether they are viruses, bacteria, fungi…
Have you discovered any unusual uses of the app that have surprised you?
P.B. and A.J.: Perhaps the most surprising was a Dutch museum which used PlantNet to identify plants featured in the paintings it had on display.
Other surprises have included people using PlantNet to identify a tattoo of a plant, or a plant-inspired pattern of an oilcloth… along with other more fun uses of the app like on the Explorama or Geo Quest apps which use our automated identification service.
PlantNet supports the diversity of possible uses, not by trying to integrate them, but rather by sharing its plant-identifying services. We have more than 20,000 accounts that have incorporated PlantNet’s service into their own mobile or web application, or in their data processing workflow.
And what other uses for PlantNet could be developed?
P.B. and A.J.: We have processed just over 1.3 billion plant ID requests. Among this data, there is a lot of material for characterising environments and species… However, the data is still difficult to use due to its sheer volume. These photos most probably contain new species and data on species that do not exist elsewhere. Photos users have posted provide potentially interesting information about the associated communities (not just in the foreground, i.e.; the plant photographed, but in the background) and about plants’ surrounding environments. While it’s not what the photo primarily sets out to do, it does offer potentially very interesting data on plant associations, that for the moment, remain untapped.
Little use has been made of our data to study the impact of current, fairly fast-moving climate change. PlantNet has, in this respect, collected extensive data over the last five to ten years that could allow us to gain greater understanding on how plants react to such swift environmental changes. From one year to the next, there may be a lot of variability, but for now, it is difficult to measure this impact.
What can PlantNet users do to help further research going forward?
P.B. and A.J.: Creating a user profile significantly increases the benefits for research. By creating an account, people agree to terms of use and facilitate re-exploitation for research. The more qualitative the data is, the more relevant it is to research activities. Geolocation is, for example, very valuable to us. It is also beneficial for users with a potentially higher level of determination.
We encourage researchers around the world to feel free to explore the full potential of PlantNet, whether it be via our shared data or the services we offer.
Interview by Gabrielle Maréchaux, Environment Journalist at The Conversation France.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
Pierre Bonnet a reçu des financementsde la commission européenne (projets HORIZON GUARDEN - 101060693 et MAMBO - 101060639) ainsi que de l'agence nationale de la recherche (PEPR AgroEcoNum - 22-PEAE-0009).
Alexis Joly a reçu des financements de la commission européenne (projets HORIZON GUARDEN et MAMBO) ainsi que de l'agence nationale de la recherche (PEPR AgroEcoNum).
31.03.2026 à 14:03
Cinquante ans d’Apple : huit moments clés qui ont changé notre monde
De la démocratisation de l’ordinateur personnel à l’invention de l’écosystème des applications, Apple a souvent imposé de nouvelles manières d’utiliser la technologie. Voici quelques-unes des innovations les plus marquantes de l’entreprise depuis un demi-siècle.
Au début des années 1970, l’idée qu’une personne ordinaire puisse posséder un ordinateur semblait absurde. À l’époque, les ordinateurs ressemblaient davantage à des porte-avions ou à des centrales nucléaires qu’à des appareils domestiques : d’immenses machines installées dans des centres de données, exploitées par des équipes de spécialistes au service de gouvernements, d'universités et de grandes entreprises.
Puis vint Apple.
Fondée le 1er avril 1976 par deux « décrocheurs universitaires », les fameux « college dropouts » Steve Jobs et Steve Wozniak, la start-up de la Silicon Valley n’a pas inventé l’informatique. Mais elle a sans doute accompli quelque chose de plus important : contribuer à transformer l’informatique en technologie personnelle.
Avant Apple, les ordinateurs étaient le plus souvent vendus sous forme de kits à assembler. Jobs a compris que les gens préféraient des machines déjà montées, prêtes à fonctionner. Les tout premiers Apple I, dotés de boîtiers en bois de koa fabriqués à la main, se vendent aujourd’hui aux enchères pour plusieurs centaines de milliers de dollars.
En tant qu’utilisateur précoce d’Apple et développeur d’applications, voici ma sélection personnelle des réalisations technologiques les plus marquantes de l’entreprise – et de Steve Jobs – au cours des 50 dernières années.
Les premiers ordinateurs personnels relevaient davantage de la curiosité que de l’outil réellement utile. L’Apple II, lancé en juin 1977, introduisit quelque chose de nouveau : le style. Même sa couleur – beige ! – était originale, contrastant avec les boîtiers métalliques noirs courants à l’époque.
L’affichage en couleurs était nouveau et enthousiasmant, et le clavier offrait une sensation agréable à l’usage. Un simple haut-parleur, doté d’une sortie d’un seul bit, était ingénieusement exploité pour produire des tonalités et même des sons ressemblant à la parole. Le design était révolutionné jusqu’à l’emballage : Jerry Manock, premier designer salarié d'Apple, installa la machine dans un boîtier en plastique moulé à l’allure élégante et professionnelle.
En 1979, Steve Jobs, alors âgé de 24 ans et convaincu que le géant technologique IBM était en train de rattraper Apple, se mit en quête de la prochaine grande innovation. L’entreprise de photocopieurs Xerox, qui souhaitait obtenir des actions Apple avant même son entrée en bourse, lui proposa en échange une visite de ses laboratoires de recherche voisins. Jobs comprit alors que des chercheurs du centre de recherche de Xerox à Palo Alto, comme Alan Kay, étaient en train d’inventer la prochaine génération d’interfaces informatiques.
Au cœur de cette révolution se trouvait un dispositif mis au point au milieu des années 1960 par le mentor d'Alan Kay, Douglas Engelbart, à l’université Stanford, et surnommé « la souris ». La vision de Douglas Engelbart, qui voyait l’ordinateur comme une machine destinée à augmenter les capacités de l’esprit humain, inspira Alan Kay et ses collègues, qui conçurent des interfaces graphiques dans lesquelles les utilisateurs interagissaient avec des barres de défilement, des boutons, des menus et des fenêtres.
Steve Jobs pensait que n’importe qui devait pouvoir utiliser un ordinateur. En janvier 1984, le premier Apple Mac poussa cette idée à un niveau inédit. Fini les commandes informatiques sibyllines et les manuels qui les accompagnaient. Les premiers utilisateurs, dont je faisais partie, avaient l’impression de savoir instinctivement comment tout faire.
Mais le lancement du Mac ne se résume pas à ce saut technologique. Il inspira aussi ce qui est devenu un moment culturel désormais ancré dans nos vies : le lancement de produit. Après une publicité aguicheuse diffusée lors du Super Bowl et réalisée par Ridley Scott, Steve Jobs mit en scène dans un théâtre de 1 500 places un lancement de produit centré sur un présentateur charismatique et seul en scène. Il sortit d’un sac un petit ordinateur carré – encore beige – alors appelé Macintosh, qui se mit à parler de lui-même sous les applaudissements enthousiastes de la salle.
Au cours de sa première décennie, Apple connut une croissance exceptionnelle – mais frôla aussi la faillite à plusieurs reprises. Des difficultés qui conduisirent l’entreprise à l’un des épisodes les plus spectaculaires de son histoire lorsque, en mai 1985, Apple força Jobs à quitter la société.
Un an plus tard, alors qu’il dirige la start-up NeXT Inc, Steve Jobs rachète une division de la société de production de George Lucas, qu’il rebaptise rapidement Pixar. Son logiciel RenderMan permettait de générer des images en répartissant les calculs entre plusieurs machines travaillant simultanément.
Pixar, souvent décrit avec humour comme le « projet parallèle » de Jobs, deviendra l’un des studios d’animation les plus influents – et les plus rentables – au monde, en produisant notamment le premier long métrage entièrement animé par ordinateur, Toy Story (1995).
Après une tentative infructueuse de développer un nouveau système d’exploitation avec IBM, Apple finit par racheter la société NeXT de Steve Jobs. En septembre 1997, celui-ci revient alors comme PDG par intérim alors que l’entreprise se trouve, selon ses propres mots, à « deux mois de la faillite ». Si ce retour est salué par de nombreux utilisateurs d’Apple, il inquiète une partie des salariés. Jobs commence en effet rapidement à licencier du personnel et à fermer les produits jugés défaillants.
Au cours de cette restructuration, il visite le studio de design d’Apple et s’entend immédiatement avec un jeune designer britannique, Jony Ive. De cette rencontre naît en 1998 l’iMac translucide aux couleurs acidulées. Essentiellement des machines NeXT plus petites et moins chères, les iMac (le « i » signifiant Internet) inaugurent aussi une autre innovation d’Apple, aujourd'hui devenue une habitude : abandonner les technologies vieillissantes. Le lecteur de disquettes est supprimé au profit d’un lecteur de CD – un choix très critiqué à l’époque, mais largement imité par la suite.
Pour Apple, l’informatique n’a jamais consisté uniquement à faire de l’informatique. En 2001, l’entreprise commence à s’intéresser au traitement du son et de la vidéo, et plus seulement du texte et des images. En novembre de la même année, elle lance l’iPod – un baladeur capable de stocker « 1 000 chansons dans votre poche », contre au maximum 20 à 30 par cassette sur un Walkman de Sony.
L’iPod se pilote grâce à une élégante « click wheel » permettant de naviguer à l’écran. La musique est synchronisée via une nouvelle application appelée iTunes. Dès 2005, les utilisateurs s’en servent aussi pour gérer des fichiers audio téléchargés automatiquement depuis Internet grâce à un système appelé RSS. C’est ce qui donnera le « pod » de podcast.
En 2007, de nombreux fabricants de téléphones mobiles avaient approché Apple pour fusionner l’iPod avec leurs appareils. Steve Jobs choisit une autre voie. Le 9 janvier, il dévoile le produit le plus ambitieux jamais lancé par Apple : un appareil combinant téléphone, lecteur de musique et ordinateur Mac – le tout au format d’un simple combiné, sans clavier physique et doté d’un large écran.
La plupart des « experts » des médias, de TechCrunch au Guardian, prédisaient un échec. Steve Ballmer, alors PDG de Microsoft, se moquait du prix de 500 dollars, affirmant que personne n’achèterait un tel appareil. En réalité, 1,4 million d’iPhone furent vendus avant même la fin de l’année – et plus de 3 milliards depuis. Pour la première fois, un véritable ordinateur se retrouvait dans toutes les mains – ouvrant la voie aux réseaux sociaux tels que nous les connaissons aujourd’hui.
À la mi-2008, l’iPhone offre à tous les développeurs la possibilité de créer une multitude vertigineuse de nouvelles applications. Dans le même temps, l’App Store – lancé le 10 juillet 2008 – résout l’un des problèmes les plus complexes : la distribution et la commercialisation de ces « apps ». Historiquement, les logiciels étaient souvent copiés et diffusés librement. L’App Store change la donne en utilisant un chiffrement robuste pour garantir que la copie achetée ne puisse être utilisée que par l’utilisateur concerné, réduisant ainsi le piratage.
En lançant le premier App Store au sens moderne du terme, Apple a transformé la manière dont les utilisateurs découvrent et achètent des logiciels. Cela déclenche une explosion du nombre d’applications et impose une idée simple mais puissante : quoi que vous souhaitiez faire, quelqu’un, quelque part, a déjà créé l’application pour le faire. Apple résume cette évolution dans un slogan devenu célèbre : « There’s an app for that » (« Il y a une application pour ça »).
À maintes reprises, cette entreprise hors norme a anticipé l’intérêt d’ouvrir l’informatique au plus grand nombre. Joyeux anniversaire, Apple !
Nick Dalton ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
31.03.2026 à 13:02
Red flags in the workplace: why whistleblowers are still few and far between
Whether it’s the Mediator pharmaceutic scandal in France or the outcry over the Dieselgate emissions case that rocked Europe’s largest carmaker, when a scandal breaks, we often hear about one or two whistleblowers, but we are also left wondering why all those who knew said nothing as the disaster unfolded.
A recent study in corporate whistleblowing practices by Transparency International reveals that 15% of employees believe wrongdoing is taking place in their workplace. Two thirds of them say they share their concern with others. Most of the time with their direct manager.
During a team meeting they might ask whether they understood the process correctly, or they might ask a colleague whether what they are supposed to do is in line with company policy. At that point, they express a concern, but that doesn’t necessarily make them a whistleblower or at least they do not see themselves as a whistleblower.
Previous research indicates the most common response to this low level of sharing a concern is that the employee is ignored.
Being ignored is for most of us also why we don’t take a concern further. At this stage, we then tend to remain silent. Very few employees will raise their concern with higher management or through a dedicated whistleblowing channel.
According to Navex], one of Europe’s market leaders in operating internal whistleblowing systems and software within firms, on average the number of employees reporting wrongdoing through an internal whistleblowing channel sits at 1.57 in 100 employees.
Now let’s appreciate how little this is with actual figures. Imagine a company of 200 employees, according to the study by Transparency International, among 30 employees who witness wrongdoing, 19 will express some doubt.
The Navex study suggests that when ignored, only 3 will report their concern through an internal whistleblowing channel.
Summing this up, if you have 200 employees and 30 of them see wrongdoing, 27 remain silent and only 3 speak up.
Speaking up largely depends on the type of wrongdoing: we are most likely to report wrongdoing that poses a threat to someone’s health or safety, and least likely to report wrongdoing that concerns a breach in company policy. But here is the catch: before someone’s life is in danger, we have already spent much time remaining silent on the slippery slope of company policy breaches. Our silence on “lesser wrongdoings” provides behavioural training that actually encourages silence on bigger misconduct we might witness.
What seems to hold us back is a perception that speaking up is risky. In the TI study, only 17% of employees said they felt confident that reporting wrongdoing to their employer would be acted upon and they would not suffer as a result of reporting their concern. This stands in contrast to the over-confidence observed among top management: 68% of employers in the survey believed that if someone reported wrongdoing through the organization’s whistleblowing channel, it would be acted upon by the organization and the whistleblower would remain unharmed. In other words, employees remain silent because they do not trust reporting channels.
The TI study also gives insight into the barriers employees see. Fear of retaliation is the biggest barrier, with 32% of employees saying they feared losing their job if they reported a wrongdoing. The second highest barrier is also important, with 24% indicating they remained silent because they did not believe their report would make any difference.
Hence, employee silence is driven by fear and futility.
Since 2019, the EU whistleblowing directive requires that all organizations of more than 50 employees have an internal whistleblowing channel, and that they have the capacity to carry out a diligent follow up of reports that come through those channels.
Transpositions into national legislation across the European Union’s 27 Member States have been in place for a while. With enhanced protection measures and channel requirements, the aim of the EU Whistleblowing Directive was to create an environment for employees to raise their concerns safely and effectively.
The fact remains that among organizations there is a lot of room for improvement.
As part of the EDHEC Business school’s European Commission backed BRIGHT project - Building Resilience through Integrity, Good Governance, and Honesty Training, a free online Speak-Up Self Assessment tool (SUSA) was developed for integrity professionals across Europe to self-assess the speak-up culture and whistleblowing systems in their organizations.
The tool is designed to provide feedback on how firms such as France’s EDF group for example, align with the EU requirements, the ISO37002:2021 standard, and the guidelines from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
SUSA data indicates that whistleblowing channels exist but are too often of poor quality. Whilst most organizations seem to hope for a quick fix, what is really needed is a continuous management effort to build and strengthen speak-up cultures.
We should not rest on our laurels in the hope that the silence of the old generation is on its way out, making way for the voice of the new generation. On the contrary, a study by Protect, the UK’s leading charity that supports and advises whistleblowers, shows that Gen Z is even more silent that the Baby Boomers.
Their recent study found that young workers (18-24 years old) are less likely to speak up than any other age group, regardless of the type of wrongdoing. The silent majority facing barriers of fear and futility seems to be growing, and that should be a cause for concern.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
Wim Vandekerckhove was the coordinator for EDHEC Business School of the BRIGHT project, funded by the European Commission.