Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29370362›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2018

The pipe model theory half a century on: a review.

Romain Lehnebach, Robert Beyer, Véronique Letort, Patrick Heuret

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Effect of strong wind on laminas and petioles ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Identifying Developmental Patterns in Structured Plant Phenotyping Data.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Romain LehnebachCentre de coopération Internationale de la Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), UMR Amap, Kourou, France.
Robert BeyerLaboratory of Mathematics in Interaction with Computer Science (MICS), CentraleSupélec, France.
Véronique LetortLaboratory of Mathematics in Interaction with Computer Science (MICS), CentraleSupélec, France.
Patrick HeuretInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), UMR Ecofog, Kourou, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: More than a half century ago, Shinozaki et al. (Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T. 1964a. A quantitative analysis of plant form - the pipe model theory. I. Basic analyses. Japanese Journal of Ecology B: 97-105) proposed an elegant conceptual framework, the pipe model theory (PMT), to interpret the observed linear relationship between the amount of stem tissue and corresponding supported leaves. The PMT brought a satisfactory answer to two vividly debated problems that were unresolved at the moment of its publication: (1) What determines tree form and which rules drive biomass allocation to the foliar versus stem compartments in plants? (2) How can foliar area or mass in an individual plant, in a stand or at even larger scales be estimated? Since its initial formulation, the PMT has been reinterpreted and used in applications, and has undoubtedly become an important milestone in the mathematical interpretation of plant form and functioning. Scope: This article aims to review the PMT by going back to its initial formulation, stating its explicit and implicit properties and discussing them in the light of current biological knowledge and experimental evidence in order to identify the validity and range of applicability of the theory. We also discuss the use of the theory in tree biomechanics and hydraulics as well as in functional-structural plant modelling. Conclusions: Scrutinizing the PMT in the light of modern biological knowledge revealed that most of its properties are not valid as a general rule. The hydraulic framework derived from the PMT has attracted much more attention than its mechanical counterpart and implies that only the conductive portion of a stem cross-section should be proportional to the supported foliage amount rather than the whole of it. The facts that this conductive portion is experimentally difficult to measure and varies with environmental conditions and tree ontogeny might cause the commonly reported non-linear relationships between foliage and stem metrics. Nevertheless, the PMT can still be considered as a portfolio of properties providing a unified framework to integrate and analyse functional-structural relationships.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalBiomassBiomechanical PhenomenaPlant LeavesTrees

Identifiers

PMID29370362
PMCPMC5906905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.