Amid the rise of machine learning models, a substantial portion of plant growth models remains mechanistic, seeking to capture an in-depth understanding of the underlying phenomena governing the system’s dynamics. The development of these models typically involves parameter estimation from experimental data. Ensuring that the estimated parameters align closely with their respective “true” values is crucial since they hold biological interpretation, leading to the challenge of uniqueness in the solutions. Structural identifiability analysis addresses this issue under the assumption of perfect observations of system dynamics, whereas practical identifiability considers limited measurements and the accompanying noise. In the literature, definitions for structural identifiability vary only slightly among authors, whereas the concept and quantification of practical identifiability lack consensus, with several indices coexisting. In this work, we provide a unified framework for studying identifiability, accommodating different definitions that need to be instantiated depending on each application case. In a more applicative second step, we focus on three widely used methods for quantifying practical identifiability: collinearity indices, profile likelihood, and average relative error. We show the limitations of their local versions, and we propose a new risk index built on the profile likelihood-based confidence intervals. We illustrate the usefulness of these concepts for plant growth modeling using a discrete-time individual plant growth model, LNAS, and a continuous-time plant population epidemics model. Through this work, we aim to underline the significance of identifiability analysis as a complement to any parameter estimation study and offer guidance to the modeler.