Tree Branching: Leonardo da Vinci's Rule versus Biomechanical Models

This study examined Leonardo da Vinci's rule (i.e., the sum of the cross-sectional area of all tree branches above a branching point at any height is equal to the cross-sectional area of the trunk or the branch immediately below the branching point) using simulations based on two biomechanical models: the uniform stress and elastic similarity models. Model calculations of the daughter/mother ratio (i.e., the ratio of the total cross-sectional area of the daughter branches to the cross-sectional area of the mother branch at the branching point) showed that both biomechanical models agreed with da Vinci's rule when the branching angles of daughter branches and the weights of lateral daughter branches were small; however, the models deviated from da Vinci's rule as the weights and/or the branching angles of lateral daughter branches increased. The calculated values of the two models were largely similar but differed in some ways. Field measurements of Fagus crenata and Abies homolepis also fit this trend, wherein models deviated from da Vinci's rule with increasing relative weights of lateral daughter branches. However, this deviation was small for a branching pattern in nature, where empirical measurements were taken under realistic measurement conditions; thus, da Vinci's rule did not critically contradict the biomechanical models in the case of real branching patterns, though the model calculations described the contradiction between da Vinci's rule and the biomechanical models. The field data for Fagus crenata fit the uniform stress model best, indicating that stress uniformity is the key constraint of branch morphology in Fagus crenata rather than elastic similarity or da Vinci's rule. On the other hand, mechanical constraints are not necessarily significant in the morphology of Abies homolepis branches, depending on the number of daughter branches. Rather, these branches were often in agreement with da Vinci's rule.

[1]  James N. Long,et al.  Validity of Constant-Stress and Elastic-Instability Principles of Stem Formation in Pinus contorta and Trifolium pratense , 1986 .

[2]  K. Noguchi,et al.  Dependency of branch diameter growth in young Acer trees on light availability and shoot elongation. , 2005, Tree physiology.

[3]  O. Loucks,et al.  The theory of tree bole and branch form , 1978, Radiation and environmental biophysics.

[4]  Eero Nikinmaa,et al.  Analyses of the growth of Scots pine: matching structure with function. , 1992 .

[5]  S. Roberts,et al.  An evaluation of the uniform stress hypothesis based on stem geometry in selected North American conifers , 2002, Trees.

[6]  John E. A. Bertram,et al.  Size-dependent differential scaling in branches: the mechanical design of trees revisited , 1989, Trees.

[7]  James H. Brown,et al.  The origin of allometric scaling laws in biology from genomes to ecosystems: towards a quantitative unifying theory of biological structure and organization , 2005, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[8]  S. Gilman,et al.  The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci , 1978, Medical History.

[9]  L. Vinci The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. , 1952 .

[10]  K. Noguchi,et al.  Maintenance mechanisms of the pipe model relationship and Leonardo da Vinci’s rule in the branching architecture of Acer rufinerve trees , 2008, Journal of Plant Research.

[11]  Mechanical stresses of primary branches: a survey of 40 woody tree and shrub species , 2008, Trees.

[12]  Henry S. Horn Twigs, trees, and the dynamics of carbon in the landscape , 2000 .

[13]  R. Archer,et al.  REACTION WOOD: INDUCTION AND MECHANICAL ACTION! , 1977 .

[14]  Uldis Silins,et al.  Reducing stem bending increases the height growth of tall pines. , 2006, Journal of experimental botany.

[15]  T. McMahon,et al.  Size and Shape in Biology , 1973, Science.

[16]  S. Timoshenko,et al.  Strength of materials : part I : elementary theory and problems / by S. Timoshenko , 1976 .

[17]  G. Dahle,et al.  Allometric patterns in Acer platanoides (Aceraceae) branches , 2010, Trees.

[18]  R. Oppermann Strength of materials, part I, elementary theory and problems , 1941 .

[19]  K. Niklas,et al.  Wind-induced stresses in cherry trees: evidence against the hypothesis of constant stress levels , 2000, Trees.

[20]  K. Niklas Size-dependent Allometry of Tree Height, Diameter and Trunk-taper , 1995 .

[21]  K J Niklas,et al.  Computing factors of safety against wind-induced tree stem damage. , 2000, Journal of experimental botany.

[22]  J. Schäfer,et al.  Safety Factors in Trees , 1993 .

[23]  M. G. Ryan,et al.  Hydraulic Limits to Tree Height and Tree Growth , 1997 .

[24]  The criteria for biomass partitioning of the current shoot: water transport versus mechanical support. , 2004, American journal of botany.

[25]  J. H. Smith,et al.  Standards for evaluating taper estimating systems , 1993 .

[26]  David King,et al.  Tree dimensions: Maximizing the rate of height growth in dense stands , 2004, Oecologia.

[27]  T. McMahon,et al.  Tree structures: deducing the principle of mechanical design. , 1976, Journal of theoretical biology.

[28]  Geoffrey B. West,et al.  Scaling in Biology , 2000 .

[29]  Michael S. Watt,et al.  Moving beyond simple linear allometric relationships between tree height and diameter , 2011 .