ArticleThe New phytologist2026
Using reflectance spectra and Pl@ntNet to identify herbarium specimens: a case study with Lithocarpus.
Article in The New phytologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Drug Discovery From Medicinal Plants: Current Applications and Infrastructural Challenges.Chemical biology & drug design · 2026Review
- Seeing herbaria in a new light: leaf reflectance spectroscopy unlocks trait and classification modeling in plant biodiversity collections.The New phytologist · 2026Article
- AntID_APP: Empowering Citizen Scientists with YOLO Models for Ant Identification in Taiwan.Biology · 2026Article
- Automated identification of honey bee pollen loads for field-applied palynological studies.The New phytologist · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The digitisation of plant collections is bringing large quantities of information into accessible electronic databases. However, in recent decades, traditional taxonomic work in collections has declined, meaning that more specimens are only determined to family or genus, particularly when lacking key identification structures. If unaddressed, large-scale digitisation risks widening the gap between well-studied species and those lacking data. Hyperspectral reflectance and computer vision are two emerging approaches for identifying species, but these have yet to be cross-compared for herbarium-based taxonomy. Using Lithocarpus species as a case study, we compared classification accuracy obtained from leaf reflectance spectra with computer vision (implemented via Pl@ntNet), a RGB (red, green, blue) image-based approach known to work well on specimens presenting reproductive structures. In the spectral approach, we assessed how much data are needed to optimise classification accuracy, how many species could be discriminated between, and whether close relatives were more frequently confounded. We found that Lithocarpus herbarium specimens were accurately identified to species from relatively small spectral datasets. Despite not incorporating reproductive structures, this was only 14% less accurate than Pl@ntNet. We suggest these rapid, nondestructive leaf reflectance measurements, paired with computer vision, could fill identification gaps in collections, particularly for specimens lacking reproductive features.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.