Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35292682›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

A study on diameter-dependent support selection of the tendrils of Cayratia japonica.

Kazuya Saito

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Motor cognition in plants: from thought to real experiments.Theoretical and experimental plant physiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Decision Making in Plants: A Rooted Perspective.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kazuya SaitoFaculty of Design, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 815-8540, Japan. k-saito@design.kyushu-u.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organisms make decisions when they perceive cues of varying intensities. In case of climbing plants, the diameter of supports in contact (tree or stem) is an important cue for their growth as plants that coil around a support with large diameter are unable to maintain tensional forces required for continued attachment to the support. The negative association between the diameter and the climbing success has been reported since Darwin published his study on climbing plants. However, it is not known if a climbing plant makes a decision to avoid a support with larger diameter. Here, we tested this possibility by observing the coiling response of tendrils of Cayratia japonica to supports with different diameters. The coiling success of the tendrils was affected by the diameter of the support and the tendril lengths. We propose a decision tree to describe the different phases of the coiling response and demonstrated that the tendrils change their coiling shape depending on the support diameter and the tendril length. To understand the behavioural rules regulating the phase pattern, we constructed a simple model with two assumptions on the tendril movement, (1) when the tendrils receive a contact stimulus, they begin to coil from around the contact point and (2) there is a minimum coiling angle at which the tendrils coil up, once the tendril starts coiling. Image analysis and 3D motion tracking technique revealed that the movement of the tendrils were consistent with the two assumptions of the model. The results suggested that the tendrils flexibly changed the coiling shapes depending on the support diameter and simple behavioural rules could regulate this diameter-dependent response.

Indexed as

Vitaceae

Identifiers

PMID35292682
PMCPMC8924264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.