TreeSpecViT demonstrates improved species classification in campus trees, suggesting better urban planning strategies.
On university campuses, trees and green spaces shape how students and staff move and use outdoor spaces. To support planning, tree species information is needed at the level of individual trees. Tree species classification from UAV RGB imagery remains difficult in complex campus scenes because roads, buildings, shadows and subtle inter species differences degrade recognition. To address background interference, the loss of subtle fine-grained cues before tokenization, and insufficient local structure modeling in lightweight transformer-based classification, we propose TreeSpecViT for tree species classification. It uses a MobileViT backbone and a Background Suppression Module (BSM) to reduce clutter from non-canopy regions. A Fine-Grained Feature Guidance (FGF) module is inserted before the unfold operation to enhance canopy details and guide tokenization toward key regions. 1×1 convolutional neck layers align channels, and a Global and Local Fusion (GLF) module jointly models overall crown semantics and local textures for species recognition. From the predicted masks and species labels, we build an individual tree digital archive. The archive stores per tree geometric attributes and can be linked with grids of campus activity intensity to analyze how activity patterns relate to vegetation structure. TreeSpecViT achieves an Accuracy of 87.88% (+6.06%) and an F1 score of 76.48% (+5.08%) on the SZUTreeDataset. On our self constructed NJFUDataset, it reaches 76.30% (+5.10%) in Accuracy and 70.10% (+7.20%) in F1. These results surpass mainstream models. Ablation experiments show that the modules jointly reduce background clutter and enhance canopy features. Overall, TreeSpecViT supports campus scale analyses that link human activity intensity to vegetation patterns and provides a practical basis for planning and adjusting campus green spaces.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: