Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T16:23:58.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2025

Mathieu Rivière
Affiliation:
Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Matière et Systèmes Complexes, F-75013 Paris, France Aix Marseille Univ , CNRS, IUSTI, Marseille, France
Alexis Peaucelle
Affiliation:
Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Matière et Systèmes Complexes, F-75013 Paris, France Université Paris-Saclay , INRAE, AgroParisTech, Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin, 78000, Versailles, France
Julien Derr*
Affiliation:
Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Matière et Systèmes Complexes, F-75013 Paris, France ENS de Lyon, Univ Lyon, CNRS, INRAE, Inria, Laboratoire de Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, Lyon, France
Stéphane Douady
Affiliation:
Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Matière et Systèmes Complexes, F-75013 Paris, France
*
Corresponding author: Julien Derr; Email: julien.derr@ens-lyon.fr

Abstract

Nutation is one of the most striking and ubiquitous examples of the rhythmic nature of plant development. Although the consensus is that this wide oscillatory motion is driven by growth, its internal mechanisms remain to be fully elucidated. In this work, we study the specific case of nutation in compound leaves of the Averrhoa carambola plant. We quantify the macroscopic growth kinematics with time lapse imaging, image analysis and modelling. Our results highlight a distinct spatial region along the rachis—situated between the growth and mature zones—where the differential growth driving nutation is localised. This region coincides with the basal edge of the growth zone, where the average growth rate drops. We further show that this specific spatiotemporal growth pattern implies localised contraction events within the plant tissue.

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. Nutation movement of an Averrhoa carambola compound leaf. (a) Side view, 30 minutes between pictures from top to bottom. The hook shape gradually comes out of the plane towards the observer. The scale bar indicates 3 cm which is the typical length scale between mature leaflets (b) Top view, 15 min between pictures (nutation period usually varies between 1.5 and 4 hours). The distal end of the leaf oscillates in a pendulum-like fashion, orthogonal to the rachis’ axis. After a full period, the leaf has elongated. (c) Geometrical parameters describing the rachis and nutation: arclengths s and $s_a$ (from the base or the apex, respectively), local angle $\phi $, local curvature $\kappa _\bot $ and radius R. The direction of motion defines the outer and inner faces of the rachis. (d) Spatiotemporal diagram of the curvature $\kappa _\bot (s,t)$ along the rachis obtained from a top-view time lapse movie. Oscillations of $\kappa _\bot (s,t)$ are visible close to the apex. Dashed white lines mark the position of leaflets.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Elongation and estimated differential elongation during nutation. (a) Spatiotemporal diagram of the elongation rate $\dot {E}$ of each interfoliolar segment estimated from the leaflets’ trajectories (white dotted lines). The black crosses show the position of the leaf apex estimated from side-view pictures. The red dashed line is a linear fit of the apex position. (b) Spatiotemporal diagram of the envelope of differential elongation $\dot {\delta }$ estimated from the curvature diagram (nutation amplitude).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Average spatial profiles of elongation rate and differential elongation rate. The two profiles were fitted, respectively, to a sigmoid (red line) and to its derivative (green line). The complete profiles cannot be measured from a top-view because of the hook shape of the leaf.

Figure 3

Figure 4. (a) Spatiotemporal diagram showing an experimental measurement of the apparent local elongation rate $\dot {\varepsilon }$ in the bending zone from a side-view time lapse movie. Because of the oscillatory motion of the rachis, the elongation rate measured is affected by projection effects. (b) Wavelet decomposition of the experimental spatiotemporal diagram of apparent elongation rate. The decomposition shows that two dominant modes in the signal: $\tau _{2f} \approx 1.2 \text {h}$ and $\tau _f \approx 2.1 \text {h},$ respectively, close to the apical and basal ends of the observed section of the rachis. (c) and (d): Best fit of the kinematics model to the experimental data; $\Delta \phi = 8^{\circ }, \text {L}_{gz} = 20.6 \text { mm}, \ \Delta L = 12.2\text {mm}, \ \dot {\delta _0} = 4.5\times 10^{-3} \text {h}^{-1}$ ($\dot {\varepsilon _0} = 1.4\times 10^{-2} \ \text {h}^{-1}, \text {R} = 0.26 \ \text {mm} $ were measured and fixed before fitting). This set of parameters allows local contractions.

Supplementary material: File

Rivière et al. supplementary material

Rivière et al. supplementary material
Download Rivière et al. supplementary material(File)
File 15.8 MB

Author comment: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editor,

We are pleased to submit our manuscript “Plant Nutation Relies on Steady Propagation of Spatial Asymmetric Growth Pattern” for consideration as a research article in Quantitative Plant Biology. This work was conducted jointly by Mathieu Rivière, Alexis Peaucelle, Julien Derr and Stéphane Douady.

Nutation is an intriguing oscillatory motion displayed by most growing plant organs. Although nutation has been discussed and debated in the literature, there is no consensus about the ins and outs of this phenomenon. In particular, its internal biophysical

mechanisms remain to be understood.

In this article, we experimentally characterized the nutation of a typical compound leaf, Averrhoa carambola. We provide a complete kinematics description of the nutation motion at the scale of the organ. Our research differs from prior works on nutation by

taking the three-dimensional nature of this motion into account. Thanks to a minimal kinematics model, we go beyond the strong projection artifacts that would otherwise distort growth measurements. This allows us to draw the three following outcomes:

1. We evidence that nutation characterizes as the steady propagation of a robust spatial growth pattern. This pattern shows co-localization of a peak of differential growth with the onset of the growth zone. We discuss in the article the

consequences and possible reasons of this pattern.

2. We show that contraction events occur during nutation, supporting a number of scattered reports of contractions during plant growth in the literature.

3. We propose a set of experiments, constituting a proof of concept that nutation can be used as a tool to probe microscopic properties of the plant cell wall under different growth regimes.

Nutation is fundamentally linked to growth and its dynamics; the implications of our work thus go beyond the sole scope of plant movement or shape regulation and shed a new light on the dynamical aspects of growth itself.

We believe our approach and findings would be of interest to both specialists of plant growth and to a much broader audience of biophysicists and biologists interested in morphogenesis and shape regulation in living systems.

Thank you very much for considering our manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

Julien Derr, on behalf of all the

co-authors

Review: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This paper by Rivière and colleagues investigates the spatio-temporal kinematics of nutation in Carambola leaves. In particular, they show that the nutation and elongation occur through a growth pattern that propagates like a traveling wave. The authors suggest that contraction may occur in the shoot, a phenomenon that has been rarely reported in plants. Generally, a better understanding of the bulk mechanics and kinematics of shoots during tropism and nutation—beyond simple curvature measurements—is timely. Although the present study is mainly kinematic, the authors provide insight into potential mechanisms sustaining nutation, in particular periodic changes in elastic properties (however, the authors admit that their results are rather preliminary).

The paper is overall well written and pleasant to read and should appeal to the general readership of QPB (despite numerous typos and problems with the referencing of figures). I have listed my comments below.

Major comments

Introduction

p2–L3: “autonomic or paratonic” – Please define briefly.

p2–L25: “The viscoplastic framework formalized by Lockhart” – Technically, Lockhart uses a constitutive law that is equivalent to that of a Bingham plastic (without any viscosity involved). More generally, authors have argued that growth and plasticity are distinct processes, which are mechanistically and thermodynamically non-equivalent. Thus, the two terms should probably not be interchanged (see for instance Goriely 2017, §4.4.5). In plants, the expansion of cell walls is a complex process that involves rupture of cross-links, remodeling, and turnover—a process very different from traditional plasticity (e.g., in metals).

p2–L41: “contractions in the sunflower hypocotyl” – Is this a contraction of the bulk or an overall shortening of the stem?

Material and Methods

p5–L10: “Differential elongation occurs where the mean elongation rate drops, within a bending zone of length 2ΔL” – What motivates this modeling assumption?

Equation (4): It is not clear to me where this expression originates. Could you provide more details? In particular, there seems to be a missing term. I understand that the authors aim to neglect advection, but in a growing curve, there is also a dilution of curvature. Consider a curve with ẟ₀ = 0 but a constant ϵ̇ ≠ 0 (for instance, a growing circle). In this case, the curve expands isotropically, and its curvature decreases as κ̇ = - ϵ̇κ. Is this term also neglected?

It would be helpful if the authors began with a geometrically exact relation, from which simplifications are explicitly introduced.

Additionally, the model appears to assume the absence of internal stresses between the two sides, as the deformation is explicitly prescribed and linear. As a result, the model (as presented) is purely kinematic and does not incorporate mechanical aspects.

The problem of differential growth within a bimetallic strip was solved exactly a century ago by Timoshenko (1925) and later generalized to filament growth in 3D (Moulton et al., 2020a), particularly in the context of plant tropisms (Moulton et al., 2020b). These approaches include a derivation of Eq. (4) from mechanical equilibrium principles via dimensional reduction. Perhaps these references could be incorporated into the discussion to explore potential mechanistic aspects.

Results

p7–L25: “We then retrieved its envelope thanks to a Hilbert transform” – Please provide details in the appendix.

Discussion

p14–L30: “An unstability favors the softer tissues” – I am not sure if we can talk about an instability here. As far as I remember from Cheddadi and colleagues' paper (correct me if I am wrong), fluxes induce an amplification mechanism that increases growth heterogeneity compared to a scenario without fluxes. However, I don’t think the authors have shown that this mechanism generates instabilities in a mathematical sense.

Supplementary Materials

Figure S6: Please remind the reader of the number of sampling points. Also, given the small amount of data, I am not sure that the observed standard deviation is the best way to show variability. I’d rather opt for confidence intervals instead.

Typographical Errors and Other Minor Issues

Title: “Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatial asymmetric growth pattern” – Should this be “spatially asymmetric growth pattern”?

p1–L10: “To whom correspondance should be addressed” – “correspondence”

p2–L36: “an hydromechanical” – “a hydromechanical”

p5–L12: “sinus” – “sine”

p5–L16: “of the kinematic” – “of the kinematic equations”

Figure 1: Is there any particular reason why the plant (and the y-axis) are upside down on the kymograph?

Figure 2: “Elogantion” – “elongation”

p9–L6: “after 100 mm” – “beyond 100 mm” / “past 100 mm”

p9–L8: The “h” of “hour” should not be italicized.

p9–L5: “are plotted on Fig. 2D” – Do the authors mean Fig. 3?

p9–L10: “non-monotonous” – “non-monotonic”

p9–L13: “The results are displayed Fig. 2D.” – Same issue as previously.

p11–L10: “see Fig. 3C-H” – There seem to be issues with the referencing of figures. Fig. 3C-H doesn’t exist. Likewise, Fig. 4 is not referenced, to my knowledge. Some figures are misreferenced in the supplementary materials (shown as ??). Please check carefully.

p13–L34: “the growing side could get water from the opposite side, leading to contractions” – Should this be “leading to contraction of the latter”?

p14–L1: “An open window” – Should this be “A window”?

p14–L27: “mentionned” – “mentioned”

p14–L30: “unstability” – “instability”

p15–L11: “kinematics model” – “kinematic model”

References

[Gor17] Alain Goriely. The mathematics and mechanics of biological growth, volume 45 of Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1st edition, 2017.

[MLG20] Derek E. Moulton, Thomas Lessinnes, and Alain Goriely. Morphoelastic rods III: Differential growth and curvature generation in elastic filaments. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 142:104022, 2020.

[MOG20] Derek E. Moulton, Hadrien Oliveri, and Alain Goriely. Multiscale integration of environmental stimuli in plant tropism produces complex behaviors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(51):32226–32237, 2020.

[Tim25] Stephen Timoshenko. Analysis of bi-metal thermostats. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 11(3):233–255, 1925.

Review: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The manuscript presents an original experimental and theoretical study on the nutation of Averhoa carambola plants. The observation that nutation originates from differential growth located only in the transition zone between the growth zone and the mature zone is novel and intriguing. This observation calls for new microscopic interpretations of the biology.

The manuscript needs a revision to address some unclear points. The figures called are usually not the one provided, the numbering should be checked carefully.

Here is a detailed list of comments

1. Abstract: it is no not fully clear to me to state : « Our data first reveal that the differential growth driving nutation is localized and peaks where the average growth drops. » I suggest mentioning that there is spatial zone in between the growth zone and mature zone, along the rachis. Since this is the main result, I think it is important to make sure it is understood.

2. Equations 1-3: Explaining that sA the origin of curvilinear abscissa being 0 at apex would help

3. Explain how equation 4 is derived? Is the one used to measure the differential elongation rate?

4. Explain what is meant by local contraction (using \dot\epsilon_R for instance)

5. Typo page 8: K_\perp instead of \kappa_\perp

6. Figure 2A cited at the end of paragraph « Characterizing nutation » seems to have disappeared

7. Fig 2B in text is shown fo figure 2A, Fig 2C in text points to figure 2B

8. Figure 2D seems to call figure 3

9. Figure 3A calls Figure 4A

10. Figure 3C-H and 3I and 3J are not present

11. Discussion: please better explain better that fluctuating of the DIFFERENTIAL elongation are expected at the basal end of the AVERAGE elongation zone

12. Page 13:, line 10 I do not understand the stop and go, could you evidence this alternance of growth, or is it an interpretation?

13. Figure S2: it is not clear what samples n0, n1 and n2 mean

14. A discussion is missing on the period of 2.1h and 1.2h on the different parts. Why is nutation period 2.1h measured at the distal end of the segment ?

Recommendation: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Professor Derr,

Your manuscript has been fully evaluated by two independent peer reviewers.

Both reviewers highlighted the novelty of your study and appreciated that you investigated the internal/ kinematics of plant tropic movements. They also stressed that some clarification is needed regarding your hypotheses and concepts you are mentioning. They also asked for more details in the way you derived some key equations.

Also, please check figure numbering.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript in which you carefully address all points raised by the reviewers.

Decision: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I am happy to see that the reviewers treated my concerns seriously and I’m happy to recommend this work for publication. I do have a small comment left:

- Concerning Lockhart’s model. I still think that the term visco-plastic is improper, in the sense that there is really no viscosity in Lockhart’s model. I’d just call it “plastic-like”. But this is not so important.

Review: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

I declare no competing interests

Comments

The comments were nicely addressed by the authors. I suggest publishing it as is.

Recommendation: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R1/PR9

Comments

Based on positive feedback by the two original reviewers, I am glad to accept this very good manuscript for publication in QPB. Reviewer #1 still has a minor comment, that you might take into account if you deem it useful.

Decision: Plant nutation relies on steady propagation of spatially asymmetric growth pattern — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.