ArticleAnnals of botany2026
Inspecting the differences in mechanical resistance between flowers and leaves by multiple mechanical testing and calibration methods.
Article in Annals of botany, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsFlower petal integrity affects the success of plant reproduction and ecological adaptability. The mechanical resistance of plant organs indicates their capacity to withstand physical damage and preserve structural integrity. However, little is known about the mechanical resistance of flowers and their differences from leaves.
methodsTo address the aforementioned research gaps, we quantified flower petals from 43 species and leaves from 86 species, employing two forces that characterize mechanical resistance: force to punch and force to tear. For force to punch, three different diameter punch needles were used to measure and three methods were employed for calibration. Additionally, we measured functional traits of petals and leaves. KEY
resultsWe found that petals have significantly lower mechanical strength than leaves in both punch and tear forces. The force to punch and force to tear of petals and leaves were positively correlated with tissue thickness, cuticle thickness and dry mass per unit area. The vein density of petals was positively correlated with force to punch and force to tear, while force to tear was negatively correlated with floral tissue density after phylogenetic independent contrast correlation analysis. For reticular venation leaf, the vein density had no significant relationship with force to tear, but was positively correlated with tissue density.
conclusionsOur results indicated that there were differences in the structural basis of mechanical resistance between flowers and leaves. Regarding the most classical mechanical testing method, force to punch, different needle diameters and calibration methods can affect the results for both the petal and leaf. Our research results provide an important reference for better understanding the ecological adaptability of flowers.
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.