ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Three-Dimensional Crop Phenotyping for Crop Protection: Reconstruction Routes, Decision Pathways, and Digital-Twin Maturity.
Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) crop phenotyping is increasingly used to capture crop structure, but its value for crop protection is conditional rather than automatic. 3D approaches are operationally justified only when reconstructed geometry adds decision-relevant information beyond simpler 2D, spectral, scalar, or conventional baselines. This review examines 3D crop phenotyping through a reconstruction-trait-task-maturity framework for crop protection and synthesizes evidence across disease assessment, pest and stress interpretation, pesticide dose adjustment, spray deposition, weed-target perception, protection-oriented breeding, and digital-twin development. The literature is organized through four connected lenses: reconstruction routes that generate crop geometry, 3D traits that may alter protection reasoning, decision pathways that link traits to intervention variables, and maturity levels that distinguish static 3D models, validated phenotypic traits, process-coupled systems, protection outputs, and outcome-updated decision twins. The strongest decision-facing evidence currently comes from canopy-based dose adjustment, deposition prediction, drift reduction, and related spraying applications in which 3D traits are linked to intervention variables and field-facing comparators. Disease, stress, and architecture-aware modelling provide important but more heterogeneous evidence, while many point-cloud datasets, segmentation pipelines, neural reconstruction methods, and agricultural digital-twin frameworks remain upstream of practical crop-protection decisions because they do not yet connect 3D measurements to validated protection labels, comparator baselines, decision thresholds, intervention outputs, or outcome updating. A central conclusion is that high-fidelity 3D representation should not be conflated with decision-twin maturity. Protection-oriented digital twins require explicit coupling among synchronized crop geometry, functional or epidemiological models, decision rules, and recorded field outcomes. This review therefore identifies the evidence and reporting priorities needed to move 3D crop phenotyping toward validated, deployment-oriented, and feedback-aware crop-protection support.
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.