The use of identification tools in a variety of contexts, including for citizen science, is topical. This manuscript reports on the tool Pl@ntNet and use in two different contexts. Overall the English use is very poor and this does impede understanding but I am also not convinced that the depth or breadth of information is sufficient. Description of the tool in two study sites with no formal evaluation does not seem sufficient for peer-review.

The term "invasive alien species" should be consistent throughout.
line 30-31 what does "structuring and animating a broad community" mean?
line 33 add reference after and points of views).
line 36 poor English "huge amount of data" but also poor throughout
line 54 The research?
line 65 what is meany by "easy"
In this section I think there needs more evidence / description of attributes that describe the two contexts (including supporting evidence)
line 85 useful and cultivated plants - what is meant by useful?
line 133 what is meant by overseas territories and far from?
Section 3.1 is not novel or well written and could be summarised
Section 3.3 Enhancing = Acknowledging?