Biomechanical design and long-term stability of trees: morphological and wood traits involved in the balance between weight increase and the gravitropic reaction.

Studies on tree biomechanical design usually focus on stem stiffness, resistance to breakage or uprooting, and elastic stability. Here we consider another biomechanical constraint related to the interaction between growth and gravity. Because stems are slender structures and are never perfectly symmetric, the increase in tree mass always causes bending movements. Given the current mechanical design of trees, integration of these movements over time would ultimately lead to a weeping habit unless some gravitropic correction occurs. This correction is achieved by asymmetric internal forces induced during the maturation of new wood. The long-term stability of a growing stem therefore depends on how the gravitropic correction that is generated by diameter growth balances the disturbance due to increasing self weight. General mechanical formulations based on beam theory are proposed to model these phenomena. The rates of disturbance and correction associated with a growth increment are deduced and expressed as a function of elementary traits of stem morphology, cross-section anatomy and wood properties. Evaluation of these traits using previously published data shows that the balance between the correction and the disturbance strongly depends on the efficiency of the gravitropic correction, which depends on the asymmetry of wood maturation strain, eccentric growth, and gradients in wood stiffness. By combining disturbance and correction rates, the gravitropic performance indicates the dynamics of stem bending during growth. It depends on stem biomechanical traits and dimensions. By analyzing dimensional effects, we show that the necessity for gravitropic correction might constrain stem allometric growth in the long-term. This constraint is compared to the requirement for elastic stability, showing that gravitropic performance limits the increase in height of tilted stem and branches. The performance of this function may thus limit the slenderness and lean of stems, and therefore the ability of the tree to capture light in a heterogeneous environment.

[1]  P. Klinkhamer.  Plant allometry: The scaling of form and process , 1995 .

[2]  M. J. Jaffe,et al.  Morphogenetic Responses of Plants to Mechanical Stimuli or Stress , 1980 .

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

[4]  Evelyne Costes,et al.  Identification of biomechanical factors involved in stem shape variability between apricot tree varieties. , 2004, Annals of botany.

[5]  B. Moulia,et al.  The Gravitropic Response of Poplar Trunks: Key Roles of Prestressed Wood Regulation and the Relative Kinetics of Cambial Growth versus Wood Maturation[C][OA] , 2007, Plant Physiology.

[6]  T. E. Timell.  Compression Wood in Gymnosperms , 1986 .

[7]  Brian J Enquist,et al.  Ecological and evolutionary determinants of a key plant functional trait: wood density and its community-wide variation across latitude and elevation. , 2007, American journal of botany.

[8]  L. Poorter,et al.  Mechanical branch constraints contribute to life‐history variation across tree species in a Bolivian forest , 2006 .

[9]  Anne Thibaut,et al.  Effect of circumferential heterogeneity of wood maturation strain, modulus of elasticity and radial growth on the regulation of stem orientation in trees , 2005, Trees.

[10]  F. Salisbury.  Gravitropism: changing ideas , 2010 .

[11]  Evelyne Costes,et al.  Bending of apricot tree branches under the weight of axillary growth: test of a mechanical model with experimental data , 2001, Trees.

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

[13]  T. Okuyama,et al.  Techniques for Measuring Growth Stress on the Xylem Surface Using Strain and Dial Gauges , 2002 .

[14]  P. West,et al.  Stresses in, and the shape of, tree stems in forest monoculture , 1989 .

[15]  Thierry Fourcaud,et al.  Numerical modelling of shape regulation and growth stresses in trees , 2003, Trees.

[16]  K. Niklas.  The allometry of safety‐factors for plant height , 1994 .

[17]  Meriem Fournier,et al.  Mécanique de l'arbre sur pied : modélisation d'une structure en croissance soumise à des chargements permanents et évolutifs. 2. Analyse tridimensionnelle des contraintes de maturation, cas du feuillu standard , 1991 .

[18]  Thomas Speck,et al.  Ecology and Biomechanics : A Mechanical Approach to the Ecology of Animals and Plants , 2006 .

[19]  Henri Baillères,et al.  Tree biomechanics : growth, cumulative prestresses, and reorientations , 1994 .

[20]  F. Bongers,et al.  Ontogenetic changes in size, allometry, and mechanical design of tropical rain forest trees. , 1998, American journal of botany.

[21]  Thierry Fourcaud,et al.  Modelling the biomechanical behaviour of growing trees at the forest stand scale. Part I: Development of an Incremental Transfer Matrix Method and application to simplified tree structures , 2004 .

[22]  Stuart J. Davies,et al.  The role of wood density and stem support costs in the growth and mortality of tropical trees , 2006 .

[23]  Thomas Speck,et al.  Diversity of mechanical architecture in climbing plants: an ecological perspective , 2006 .

[24]  Penha Maria Cardoso Dias.  Clausius and Maxwell: The statistics of molecular collisions (1857–1862) , 1994 .

[25]  Bernard Thibaut,et al.  Mechanics of standing trees: modelling a growing structure submitted to continuous and fluctuating loads. 2. Tridimensional analysis of maturation stresses. Case of standard hardwood [cambial growth] , 1991 .

[26]  Bruno Moulia,et al.  Posture control and skeletal mechanical acclimation in terrestrial plants: implications for mechanical modeling of plant architecture. , 2006, American-Eurasian journal of botany.

[27]  Michael Chayut,et al.  J. J. Thomson: The discovery of the electron and the chemists , 1991 .

[28]  Meriem Fournier,et al.  Mesures des déformations résiduelles de croissance à la surface des arbres, en relation avec leur morphologie. Observations sur différentes espèces , 1994 .

[29]  D. Woodcock,et al.  Wood specific gravity and its radial variations: the many ways to make a tree , 2002, Trees.

[30]  Reiichiro Ishii,et al.  Tree coexistence on a slope: an adaptive significance of trunk inclination , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  G. Scurfield.  Reaction Wood: Its Structure and Function , 1973, Science.

[32]  J. R. Sprague,et al.  Juvenile Wood in Forest Trees , 1998, Springer Series in Wood Science.

[33]  Frans Bongers,et al.  Architecture of 54 moist-forest tree species: traits, trade-offs, and functional groups. , 2006, Ecology.

[34]  Gaëlle Jaouen,et al.  How to determine sapling buckling risk with only a few measurements. , 2007, American journal of botany.

[35]  Dr. Robert R. Archer,et al.  Growth Stresses and Strains in Trees , 1987, Springer Series in Wood Science.

[36]  Alexia Stokes,et al.  Tree biomechanics and growth strategies in the context of forest functional ecology , 2006 .

[37]  T. Tange,et al.  Stem phototropism of trees: a possible significant factor in determining stem inclination on forest slopes. , 2006, Annals of botany.

[38]  Meriem Fournier,et al.  Mécanique de l'arbre sur pied : modélisation d'une structure en croissance soumise à des chargements permanents et évolutifs. 1. Analyse des contraintes de support , 1991 .