ArticleAnnals of botany2011
Effect of mechanical perturbation on the biomechanics, primary growth and secondary tissue development of inflorescence stems of Arabidopsis thaliana.
Article in Annals of botany, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Genetic Differentiation Involved in the Morphological Adaptation ofEcology and evolution · 2025Article
- Seasonal Variations in the Toughness of Leaves: A Case Study Using Griselinia littoralis.Integrative and comparative biology · 2024Article
- Review
- Effect of strong wind on laminas and petioles ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Recurrent symmetrical bendings cause dwarfing inFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Acclimation to wind loads and/or contact stimuli? A biomechanical study of peltate leaves of Pilea peperomioides.Journal of experimental botany · 2022Article
- Unidirectional versus bidirectional brushing: Simulating wind influence onQuantitative plant biology · 2022Article
- Development of novel robotic platforms for mechanical stress induction, and their effects on plant morphology, elements, and metabolism.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Between Stress and Response: Function and Localization of Mechanosensitive CaInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- New field wind manipulation methodology reveals adaptive responses of steppe plants to increased and reduced wind speed.Plant methods · 2021Article
- Nutations in Plant Shoots: Endogenous and Exogenous Factors in the Presence of Mechanical Deformations.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- Estimating the flexural rigidity of Arabidopsis inflorescence stems: Free-vibration test vs. three-point bending test.Plant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan) · 2020Article
- Mechanical stimulation in Brachypodium distachyon: Implications for fitness, productivity, and cell wall properties.Plant, cell & environment · 2020Article
- The Structure of the Barley Husk Influences Its Resistance to Mechanical Stress.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Article
- Does acclimation in cavitation resistance due to mechanical perturbation support the pit area or conduit reinforcement hypotheses in Phaseolus vulgaris?Physiologia plantarum · 2019Article
- Measurement accuracy and uncertainty in plant biomechanics.Journal of experimental botany · 2019Review
- Flax (Frontiers in plant science · 2019Review
- Article
- Vascular cambium regeneration and vessel formation in wounded inflorescence stems of Arabidopsis.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Balanced cell proliferation and expansion is essential for flowering stem growth control.Plant signaling & behavior · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMechanical perturbation is known to inhibit elongation of the inflorescence stem of Arabidopsis thaliana. The phenomenon has been reported widely for both herbaceous and woody plants, and has implications for how plants adjust their size and form to survive in mechanically perturbed environments. While this response is an important aspect of the plant's architecture, little is known about how mechanical properties of the inflorescence stem are modified or how its primary and secondary tissues respond to mechanical perturbation.
methodsPlants of the Columbia-0 ecotype were exposed to controlled brushing treatments and then submitted to three-point bending tests to determine stem rigidity and stiffness. Contributions of different tissues to the inflorescence stem geometry were analysed. KEY
resultsPerturbed plants showed little difference in stem diameter, were 50 % shorter, 75 % less rigid and 70 % less stiff than controls. Changes in mechanical properties were linked to significant changes in tissue geometry - size and position of the pith, lignified interfascicular tissue and cortex - as well as a reduction in density of lignified cells. Stem mechanical properties were modified by changes in primary tissues and thus differ from changes observed in most woody plants tested with indeterminate growth - even though a vascular cambium is present in the inflorescence axis.
conclusionsThe study suggests that delayed development of key primary developmental features of the stem in this ecotype of Arabidopsis results in a 'short and flexible' rather than a 'short and rigid' strategy for maintaining upright axes in conditions of severe mechanical perturbation. The mechanism is comparable with more general phenomena in plants where changes in developmental rate can significantly affect the overall growth form of the plant in both ecological and evolutionary contexts.
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.