Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41387194›Full record

ReviewThe New phytologist2026

Modelling stomatal mechanics: a critical review.

Nathanael Y H Tan, Jodie V Armand, Julie E Gray, Andrew J Fleming

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The New phytologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Nathanael Y H TanPlants, Photosynthesis and Soils, School of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4825-0872
Jodie V ArmandPlants, Photosynthesis and Soils, School of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1650-230X
Julie E GrayPlants, Photosynthesis and Soils, School of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9972-5156
Andrew J FlemingPlants, Photosynthesis and Soils, School of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9703-0745

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M011151Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/Y001257/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biomechanics of stomatal movements have fascinated scientists for almost 150 yr, yet we still lack a conclusive and coherent mechanistic understanding of the process. In this review, we present a framework that allows critical insight into the state of knowledge of stomatal biomechanics, with a focus on modelling approaches. We apply the framework in two ways. First, contextualising the history, we show how the nature and function of models of stomatal mechanics have evolved. Second, we use the framework to appraise three key features of extant models: cell wall mechanical properties, guard cell shape, and the role of surrounding epidermal cells. We evaluate the empirical origin and model representations of these features, summarising how each is currently thought to explain stomatal function, while also identifying limitations in our understanding. We propose that a better appreciation of gaps in knowledge in the empirical domain, particularly the actual shifts in cell shape during stomatal response, combined with careful reinterpretation of existing data, will lead to new insight and a more complete understanding of stomatal mechanics.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPlant StomataBiomechanical PhenomenaCell Wallbiomechanicscell geometryfinite element methodmechanical advantagemodellingplant cell wallstomata

Identifiers

PMID41387194
PMCPMC12917475

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.