Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41530767›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2026

Evaluation of one-image 3D reconstruction for plant model generation.

Zihe Gao, Zane K J Hartley, Andrew P French

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zihe GaoSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK. zach.gao@nottingham.ac.uk.
Zane K J HartleySchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK.
Andrew P FrenchSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK.

Funding

EPSRC Doctoral Prize Fellowship EP/R513283/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generating accurate and visually realistic 3D models of plants from single-view images is crucial yet remains challenging due to plants' intricate geometry and frequent occlusions. This capability matters because it supplements current plant datasets and enables non-destructive, high-throughput phenotyping for crop breeding and precision agriculture. More broadly, 3D reconstruction is particularly important because plant morphology is inherently three-dimensional, while 2D representations miss occluded leaves, branching geometry, and volumetric traits. However, plants present unique challenges compared to common rigid objects, and most current generative methods have not been systematically tested in this domain, leaving a gap in understanding their reliability for realistic plant reconstruction. This study systematically evaluates six advanced generative techniques-Hunyuan3D 2.0, Trellis (Structured 3D Latents), One2345++, InstantMesh, Direct3D and Unique3D-using the existing PlantDreamer dataset. Specifically, this research reconstructs mesh models from images of Bean plants and quantitatively assesses each method's performance against ground-truth models using Chamfer Distance, Normal Consistency, F-Score, PSNR, LPIPS, and CLIP Score. The paper also presents qualitative results of Kale and Mint plants. The results indicate that Hunyuan3D 2.0 achieves superior performance overall, suggesting its effectiveness in capturing complex plant structures. This work provides valuable insights into strengths and limitations of contemporary 3D generative approaches, guiding future improvements in realistic plant digitisation.

Indexed as

3D plant reconstructionDiffusion modelsImage-conditioned generationPlant digitisationPlantDreamer datasetSingle-image reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID41530767
PMCPMC12888700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.