ArticlePlant methods2026
Evaluation of one-image 3D reconstruction for plant model generation.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.