RESUMO
We designed 3 image-based field guides to tropical forest plant species in Ghana, Grenada, and Cameroon and tested them with 1095 local residents and 20 botanists in the United Kingdom. We compared users' identification accuracy with different image formats, including drawings, specimen photos, living plant photos, and paintings. We compared users' accuracy with the guides to their accuracy with only their prior knowledge of the flora. We asked respondents to score each format for usability, beauty, and how much they would pay for it. Prior knowledge of plant names was generally low (<22%). With a few exceptions, identification accuracy did not differ significantly among image formats. In Cameroon, users identifying sterile Cola species achieved 46-56% accuracy across formats; identification was most accurate with living plant photos. Botanists in the United Kingdom accurately identified 82-93% of the same Cameroonian species; identification was most accurate with specimens. In Grenada, users accurately identified 74-82% of plants; drawings yielded significantly less accurate identifications than paintings and photos of living plants. In Ghana, users accurately identified 85% of plants. Digital color photos of living plants ranked high for beauty, usability, and what users would pay. Black and white drawings ranked low. Our results show the potential and limitations of the use of field guides and nonspecialists to identify plants, for example, in conservation applications. We recommend authors of plant field guides use the cheapest or easiest illustration format because image type had limited bearing on accuracy; match the type of illustration to the most likely use of the guide for slight improvements in accuracy; avoid black and white formats unless the audience is experienced at interpreting illustrations or keeping costs low is imperative; discourage false-positive identifications, which were common; and encourage users to ask an expert or use a herbarium for groups that are difficult to identify.
