Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-lqwgf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T14:51:59.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2025

Anne Schliebach
Affiliation:
Université Grenoble Alpes , CNRS, LIPhy, 38000 Grenoble, France
Mohammad Nadim Kamar
Affiliation:
Université Grenoble Alpes , CNRS, LIPhy, 38000 Grenoble, France
Baptiste Bordet
Affiliation:
Université Grenoble Alpes , CNRS, LIPhy, 38000 Grenoble, France
Catherine Quilliet
Affiliation:
Université Grenoble Alpes , CNRS, LIPhy, 38000 Grenoble, France
Benjamin Dollet
Affiliation:
Université Grenoble Alpes , CNRS, LIPhy, 38000 Grenoble, France
Eric Badel
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne , INRAE, PIAF, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand France
Emmanuel Siéfert
Affiliation:
Université Grenoble Alpes , CNRS, LIPhy, 38000 Grenoble, France
Philippe Marmottant*
Affiliation:
Université Grenoble Alpes , CNRS, LIPhy, 38000 Grenoble, France
*
Corresponding author: Philippe Marmottant; Email: philippe.marmottant@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr

Abstract

The shape of plants can be sensitive to dehydration. Here, we focus on herbaceous plants whose petiole cross-section is U-shaped and contains a lot of water. Among a large range of plants showing the same behaviour, we examine Spathiphyllum that exhibits a pronounced, sudden but reversible drooping under dehydration. We show that it is the consequence of a high-amplitude hinge mechanism located at the base of its long petioles, similar to a carpenter’s tape folding under sufficient load. Mechanical testing demonstrated that small-amplitude bending rigidity decreases by only a factor of three during dehydration, due to tissue shrinkage rather than material softening. The petiole is composed of water-rich parenchyma tissue: drooping occurs abruptly at 35%–40% of mass loss, remaining reversible unless dehydration is prolonged. Inspired by these observations, we introduce a biomimetic hinge which offers a programmable bending stiffness and nonlinear behaviour under load, with applications in computing mechanical metamaterials.

Information

Type
Original Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Figure 1. Behaviour of the petiole under water stress. (a)–(e) Photographs of five plants with a U-shaped petioles when turgid (left column), and when drying (right column). Plants shown in (a)–(d) feature a strong localised bend (highlighted by an arrow) when dehydrated, whereas plant in (e) does not exhibit any significant shape change. The five plants are: (a) Leucanthemum (family of Asteraceae, common name Daisy), (b) Arabidopsis caucasica (Brassicaceae), (c) Hosta (Asparagaceae), (d) Spathiphyllum (Araceae) and (e) Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus (Asphodelaceae). Insets show the U-shaped cross-section. (f) Side view of the Spathiphyllum plant under dehydration: Natural intelligence (NI) monitoring of the position of the characteristic points of the petiole and leaf (red crosses) and definition of an angle for the petiole on the watered (left image) or dehydrated plant (right image). (g) Evolution of the angle of the petiole with respect to the horizontal, time $t=0$ at 5 pm, start of the period without watering, rewatering on day 17. Shadowed bars represent nights.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Geometrical and mechanical characterisation over dehydration. (a) Anatomy of the petiole. Left: description of the different parts of the petiole. Right: transverse cross-sections, shown at the same scale (bar represents 1 mm). (b) Photograph of cut entire petiole (bottom) and pieces of the petiole (top). Blue arrows depict a 3-point bending test with a support span of $L_t=25$ mm. (c) Relative mass loss versus time. The relative mass loss is defined as $(m_0-m)/m_0$, with $m_0$ the initial mass and m the actual mass. Entire petiole without leaf $L=33.5$ cm. The continuous line represents a fit with a decaying cross-sectional area and evaporation flux $k=1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ kg/s/m$^2$. The dotted line represents a model assuming evaporation through a constant cross-sectional area. The green zone shows the range 0 to 0.3–0.4 where dehydration is reversible, while above irreversible tissue death starts to occur. (d) All the pieces feature a strong diameter loss, while the length remains constant. (e) The bending modulus measured with a bending test follows three phases: a decay, then a plateau for a critical mass loss, and eventually an increase near complete drying. Lines are guides to the eye. Measurements on entire petiole, pieces and whole plant with roots.

Figure 2

Table 1 Decay of bending modulus until a plateau, values fitted

Figure 3

Figure 3. Nonlinear hinge at the petiole base. (a) View from above of a plant extracted from soil, in the initial state and then after drying for one day. (b) Another plant (featuring petiole B), seen from the side at times 6.4, 23.2, 25.3 and 47 h, with relative mass loss of 0.16, 0.32, 0.34 and 0.42, showing the opening of the U shape starting from the base, and then the folding. This experiment was reversible after watering. (c) Angle with respect to horizontal versus time, for three petioles.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Mechanics and analogy with the carpenter’s tape. (a) Cross-section of the U-shaped base when hydrated (top) or dehydrated (bottom), showing the decrease in thickness of the U. Drawing: mechanical approximation with a constant thickness U-shaped plate. (b) Carpenter’s tape with a transverse curvature k (radius of curvature $1/k$, top image). Under torque load, the tape presents a bent region with a longitudinal curvature K (bottom image) while the transverse curvature vanishes there. (c) Non-dimensional torque $12wM/{Eh^4}$ versus non-dimensional curvature $K/\rho $ for the isotropic toy model (lines, $\alpha =1$) for several transverse curvature $d/h \simeq k_{0}/4\rho $, with $\rho =h/w^2$ and for the Wuest model (dotted lines, with $\nu =0$). (d) Simulation of the shape of a homogeneous beam with constant bending modulus (left) and U-shaped beam with the same bending modulus but with non-linear response described by the toy model (right, $d/h= 3.8$ just below critical point, $L\rho =0.12$). The linear weight $\mu $ was increased regularly, up to the point that $\mu gL^3/EI$ reaches 14. Colours indicate local curvature.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Active hinge inspired by the petiole base. (a) Left: the elastomeric structure contains off-centred airways along its length, that produces unidirectional curvature when pressurised. Right: curvature as a function of pressure for a structure with $L=100$ mm, $w=32$ mm, $h=2.7\pm 0.1$ mm, $b=0.55\pm 0.1$ mm, $h_a=1.15\pm 0.05 $ mm,$w_a=0.85\pm 0.05 $ mm, $w_w=1.15\pm 0.05$ mm, $E= 550\pm 20$ kPa and $\nu =0.5$. Circles correspond to experiments and the solid line to the model without any fitting parameter (Eqs. (2) and (3)). (b) Programmable stiffness: when the pressure is increased, the transverse curvature induces a strong bending stiffening, such that the structure may sustain its own weight. Bending modulus, measured with a 3-point bending test, as a function of the inner pressure. Circles correspond to experiments and the solid line to the toy model (Eq. (B.1)), inferring the curvature computed in (a). (c) The nonlinear response may be also programmed. Upon compression, the structure buckles and exhibits a peak force that strongly varies with the transverse curvature and hence the inner pressure. Beyond this point, the force decreases to reach a plateau, that barely varies with the applied pressure. (d) Programmable hysteretic response: cantilever experiment in which the end force is gradually increased and then decreased. As pressure is increased within the structure, it transitions from a smooth to a discontinuous behaviour with two jumps for the final orientation $\theta $, exhibiting a hysteretic loop that increases in size with the applied pressure. (right) Overlay of pictures with a regularly increasing (resp., decreasing) force, corresponding to the green curve, highlighting the sudden jump in orientation. For (c) and (d), structure with $w=50$ mm, $h=2.6\pm 0.1$ mm, $b=0.6\pm 0.1$ mm, $h_a=1\pm 0.05$ mm, $w_a=0.8\pm 0.05$ mm, $w_w=1.2\pm 0.05$ mm, $E= 550\pm 20$ kPa and $\nu =0.5$. $L=120$ mm for (c); for (d), $L=105$ mm (yellow curve); $L=80$ mm (green curve); $L=60$ mm (blue curve).

Supplementary material: File

Schliebach et al. supplementary material

Schliebach et al. supplementary material
Download Schliebach et al. supplementary material(File)
File 10.9 MB

Author comment: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editor,

Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration”.

Here is a summary of our findings: we study in depth the impressive drooping and recovery of the plants with a U-shaped cross-section, taking the example of Spathiphyllum, a popular interior plant, under dehydration and watering. We characterize the drooping of the petiole as a function of water loss, which abruptly increases around a specific value.

To rationalize this nonlinear phenomenon, we carefully measure the water loss as a function of time, as well as the change in cross section and in bending stiffness of the petiole at different locations. We show that the effective Young’s modulus remains roughly constant throughout the process and that these ingredients alone cannot explain this high amplitude hinge.

Taking inspiration from the nonlinear bending properties of the carpenter’s tape, we evidence the strong localization of curvature at the U-shaped base of the petiole, enabled by a geometrical softening induced by the opening of the U under gravitational loading (see images above). In contrast with the carpenter’s tape, the specific geometry and slenderness of the petiole enables the deformation to be continuous, close to an optimal operating point that:

(i) enables this high amplitude deflection for a minimal change in bending stiffness

(ii) while allowing the plant to recover when watered without any hysteresis.

We finally take inspiration from this mechanism to design a soft pneumatic ribbon with programmable cross-section curvature and reproduce these nonlinear behaviours, transitioning from a discontinuous to a smooth response depending on the applied pressure. We suggest a few potential applications for these ribbons in the context of programmable mechanical metamaterials.

The physics underlying this plant phenomenon is geometric and thus universal. Because of its relevance to many different disciplines, from geometry, nonlinear physics, biology to engineering, our article should trigger the curiosity and interest of a broad audience.

All together, we think our article is suitable for publication in Quantitative Plant Biology.

By way of interested and informed reviewers, may we suggest:

Dominic Vella: dominic.vella@maths.ox.ac.uk Jacques Dumais: jacques.dumais@uai.cl

Joel Marthelot: joel.marthelot@univ-amu.fr Yasmine Meroz: jazz@tauex.tau.ac.il

Bruno Moulia: bruno.moulia@inrae.fr Pedro Reis: pedro.reis@epfl.ch

Thank you for your careful consideration. We look forward to hearing from you in due course. Sincerely yours,

Anne Schliebach, Mohammad Nadim Kamar, Catherine Quilliet, Benjamin Dollet, Eric Badel, Emmanuel Siéfert and Philppe Marmottant

Review: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This paper presents a combined experimental and theoretical study of the bending behavior of plant leaves when subject to water stress. The authors show convincing evidence that the drooping is caused by a ‘softening’ of the pulvinus, which behaves like a hinge. However, they also argue that this ‘softening’ is not caused by a change in the material properties as water content decreases, but instead that it is a geometric effect caused by the change in the cross-sectional area of the pulvinus. (Essentially, the moment of inertia, I, of the cross-section decreases significantly, so the bending stiffness B = E I decreases even if the modulus E remains the same.) The authors also discuss the nature of the drooping transition (whether it is hysteretic, or continuous) and suggest that remaining continuous would be advantageous for plants, to avoid damage.

The paper is generally well written, has a convincing story and would be of interest to readers of this journal. I just have a few minor comments that I think the authors should consider when revising the paper.

Scientific:

My main scientific comment concerns the description of the dichotomy between change of shape and softening - I think this is not very clearly expressed in the introduction. I think that authors such as Nilsson (and perhaps also the more recent paper by Chadler et al, which I noticed has now been officially published in R Soc. Interface) argued that it is the tension in the cell wall, which changes the effective bending stiffness – see also the work by Gao et al (doi: 10.1126/science.adi2997). Perhaps this could be rephrased to be clearer?

To make the main scientific point of the paper more clear, it would also be interesting to calculate the respective moments of inertia from the cross sections in figure 4A. Can the change in moment of inertia I, explain the large decrease in the bending stiffness without any change in E?

My other comments are more minor.

- I found the vertical colored lines in figure 2C very confusing. I think I eventually understood what the authors meant, but it would be clearer to me if the whole bottom half of the graph were shaded and labeled ‘reversible’ while the upper part were shaded a different color and labeled ‘irreversible’.

- Similarly, it wasn’t quite clear what angle they were referring to in figure 3C. Could this be shown somewhere?

- In figure 5D, I didn’t understand why the y-axis was F and x-axis was delta theta. Surely F is the control variable, so should be on the x-axis?

- I don’t think the negligible impact of pressure on the bending stiffness of elongated structures is that well known. However, the authors are right that it keeps coming up in the literature, usually when authors find that a pressure-dependent bending moment only occurs with wrinkling (see the references the authors mentioned, but also: doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.058101 and 10.1016/0020-7683(94)90173-2). I think a clearer (but still brief) discussion of this point would be helpful.

- The analysis of Appendix B seems quite similar to Chapter 4 of the PhD thesis of Alexandre Ponomarenko (2012), which is entitled: “Écoulements critiques et plantes”, is publicly available via HAL, and was also undertaken in collaboration with Benoît Roman. It would be helpful if the authors could highlight any important differences for the reader, and perhaps cite this thesis too.

Linguistic:

- I did not understand the discussion about “Natural Intelligence” and using a “human brain to click on points” in section 2. This sounded like they were making an almost political point about not having used AI, but seems a bit unnecessary to me. A factual discussion of the experimental procedure would be clearer (and hence better).

- There are a few places where phrases that sound like English but I don’t think are, are used. For example ‘lineic’ should be ‘linear’, while I was not sure whether the use of ‘homothetically’ was intended to mean ‘hypothetically’ or ‘geometrically similar’. (I have not seen homothetically used before, but think it can mean geometrically similar – though the authors have not shown that this is the case here.)

Review: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

In the manuscript, the authors focused on the physical mechanisms on sudden but reversible drooping of the petiole under dehydration. They used Spathiphyllum whose petiole cross-section is U-shaped and contains a lot of water. They monitored plant’s shape and found that under sustained drought all petioles became more horizontal while the petiole remained quite straight. Experiments using transversal cross sections of the petiole at different locations indicated that the mass loss can reach more than 95% of the initial mass after dehydration. They also found that the mass loss range 0 to 0.3-0.4 where dehydration is reversible, while above irreversible tissue death starts to occur. During the mass loss, decay of width of the tissue was observed. Three-point bending measurements revealed that effective Young’s modulus did not seem to decrease on the physiologically reversible range 0 to 0.4 in water loss, the phase. From these observations, they hypothesized that thinning of the U-shaped part at the base of long petioles during drying are the key feature which explains the sudden drooping. They used models of the bending modulus of the U-shaped plate (Roman model and Wuest model). The model predicted non-linear response of the plate with torque. Using this idea, they built the bioinspired hinge.

The strong point of this manuscript is their use of multidisciplinary approaches (plant observation, modeling, and engineering biomimetic devices). Their approach may bring a new idea to plant scientists; why plants use U-shape petiole, or how they control their sudden movements in certain ambient environments, though it may be of interest to limited range of readers/study areas.

Here I would like to raise one major concern.

1. As the authors described “to explore in more detail the precise role of the geometrical parameters of the U-shaped cross-section, especially the varying thickness, on the nonlinear bending response of the petiole”, this point should be carefully assessed in the manuscript. As seen in Supplemental Figure 5, the U-shape looks “opened” during drying, not only reducing its thickness. Thus I suggest the authors need to check this effect before concluding as “the thinning of the U-shaped base is the main driver for the shape transition”.

Small another suggestion.

Section 2. “We used standard Natural Intelligence (NI) to monitor the position of the characteristic points of the petiole and leaf,”. Please provide more detailed information on this method.

Recommendation: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R0/PR4

Comments

Both reviewers find this manuscript to be interesting and well-written. Some major and minor concerns to be addressed in the revision. Major revision is recommended.

Decision: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R1/PR6

Comments

Please find a revision including: answer to referees, Latex files (.tex and 4 images in .pdf and 1 image in .png), Supplementary PDF.

The Latex files did not compile, without error message, your assistance would be needed for the compilation.

Review: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors have responded appropriately to my review. There are a couple of instances in the revised version where I found the language hard to parse:

At the bottom of page 1, what does the phrase “This was comforted on pneumatic cellular bioinspired materials Tadrist et al. (2022)” mean?

The authors have also introduced many more instances of the word ‘homothetic’ in the supplementary material, but without defining it. I think this would be useful in a journal such as this. (I still think ‘geometrically similar’ would be clearer.)

Review: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors computed the second moment of inertia of the U-base from the images of a cross section. Based on their computation, it was concluded that size (cross-section area) is the main driving for this reduction, and not the evolution of the shape. The analysis was shown in Supplemental Figure 5. This additional experiment conducted by the authors was sufficient to convince the reviewer.

Minor issue

P3 line 4. “where I is the second moment of area,” This sentence is ended by “,”. Please modify this.

Recommendation: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Reversible bending of U-shaped plant petioles under dehydration — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.