Example

A simple example of a D0L-system is provided by the development of a multicellular filamentous organism Anabenae (Prusinkiewicz & Lindenmayer, Reference Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer1990) based on a model originally developed by Koster and Lindenmayer (Koster & Lindenmayer, Reference Koster and Lindenmayer1987). This organism is organised as a file of cells that have different types ${a,b,A,B}$ corresponding to their differentiation and polarisation states. According to their types, cells have different developmental behaviours described by specific rules that can be modelled by an L-system (Prusinkiewicz & Lindenmayer, Reference Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer1990).

Let $\mathcal {L}=(V ,P, A_0)$ , where $V= \{A,B,a,b\}$ , $P = \{A \rightarrow Ba, B \rightarrow bA, a \rightarrow A, b \rightarrow B \}$ and $A_0 = A$ . Starting from the axiom $A_0 = A$ , the sequence of derivations of this L-system goes as follows:

$$ \begin{align*} A \Rightarrow Ba \Rightarrow bAA \Rightarrow BBaBa \Rightarrow bAbAAbAA \Rightarrow \cdots \end{align*} $$

Each string (L-string) of this derivation sequence represents a state of the growing organism at consecutive time steps.

2.2.1. Branching systems

First, D0L-systems have been extended to model branching systems rewriting and not only strings. This extension relies on the fact that branching systems can be simply encoded as bracketed strings. This makes it possible to define readily D0L-systems that rewrite branching systems. For this, the definition of the vocabulary V is augmented by a pair of opening ‘[’ and closing ‘]’ square brackets. In addition, a restriction is imposed on the homomorphism on $V^*$ : square brackets can only be mapped to themselves by H, and they can only appear on the right-hand side of a production rule if they form a well-formed bracketed string (all opening brackets must be properly balanced in the string and opening/closing brackets must be strictly nested).

In a plant for instance the apex A of a stem can produce a new portion of stem (internode I), a lateral apex A and a new apical apex. This can be represented by the production rule:

$$ \begin{align*} A \rightarrow I [A] A. \end{align*} $$

Starting from the axiom A, the first derivations yield:

$$ \begin{align*} A \Rightarrow I[A]A \Rightarrow I[I[A]A]I[A]A \Rightarrow \cdots \end{align*} $$

Note that it is usually assumed that every module for which a production rule is not specified (here I for example) is rewritten unchanged in the new string (identity transformation).

2.2.2. Parametric rules

A second powerful extension is the possibility to add parameters to the modules. This makes it possible to write rules that propagate parameter values as the modules are rewritten and to make computation on them. For instance, the elongation of a rectangular cell represented by a module C can be modelled by introducing a real parameter y in a production rule such that:

$$ \begin{align*} C(y) \rightarrow C(y + \delta y), \end{align*} $$

where $\delta y$ is an increment of length. If the axiom consists of the string $C(0)$ , then applying the above production rule to the axiom will yield the following i first derivations:

$$ \begin{align*} C(0) \Rightarrow C(\delta y) \Rightarrow C(2 \delta y) \Rightarrow \cdots \Rightarrow C(i \delta y). \end{align*} $$

2.2.3. Context-sensitive rules

Another useful extension is the notion of context-sensitive rules. Here, a production rule is applied to the left-hand side module only if the context of this module matches some criterion in the current L-string. Traditionally, the left and right context of a module in a string are specified by using ‘ $<$ ’ and ‘ $>$ ’ markers.

For instance, the rule:

$$ \begin{align*} B < A \rightarrow B, \end{align*} $$

means that a symbol A must be rewritten into B only if its left-context (i.e., the module immediately to its left) in the original L-string is a B. Otherwise, the symbol is left unchanged. The action of this rule can be observed on the axiom $BAA[AA]AA$ that leads to the sequence of derivations:

$$ \begin{align*} BAA[AA]AAA & \Rightarrow BBA[AA]AAA \Rightarrow BBB[AA]AAA \\ & \Rightarrow BBB[BA]BAA \Rightarrow BBB[BB]BBA \Rightarrow BBB[BB]BBB. \end{align*} $$

This makes it possible for instance to model the propagation of a signal in a branching structure. Such a signal can propagate from the root of the branching structure to the leaves using left-context rules, or from the leaves to the root using right-context rules. One can note that the rule $B < A \Rightarrow B$ applies to L-string patterns, such as $..BA..$ or $..B[A]..$ and thus takes into account the branching organisation of the L-string.

2.2.4. Declarative rules with procedural statements

Instead of specifying once for all the right-hand side of production rules, it might be interesting to determine it procedurally at runtime. For example, the procedural production rule:

$$ \begin{align*} A(x) \rightarrow B\;\mathrm{if }\; x> 0.3 \; \mathrm{else}\; C \end{align*} $$

This rule yields different derivations for different axioms:

$$ \begin{align*} A(0.5) & \Rightarrow B, \\ A(0.1) & \Rightarrow C. \end{align*} $$

Such rules thus have a classical left hand-side, and a right-hand side that is a procedure ending with rewriting statements (here $\rightarrow B$ and $\rightarrow C$ ). Procedural rules make it possible for instance to simulate non-deterministic L-systems. In this case, the right-hand side rewriting statement is computed based on some random choice.

All the above extensions can be combined to model complex dynamical behaviours. Note that the resulting mathematical structures are no longer D0L-systems, but extensions of them that will be called hereafter using the generic term of L-systems.

Based on the pioneering language called cpfg developed by P. Prusinkiewicz (Prusinkiewicz & Lindenmayer, Reference Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer1990), a number of language variants have been built over the years on the top of different programming languages, e.g., L+C (C++) (Prusinkiewicz et al., Reference Prusinkiewicz, Karwowski, Lane, Vos, Marcelis, Visser, Struik and Evers2007), XL (Java) (Kniemeyer & Kurth, Reference Kniemeyer and Kurth2007) and L-Py (Python) (Boudon et al., Reference Boudon, Pradal, Cokelaer, Prusinkiewicz and Godin2012). In this article, the examples and extensions are developed in L-Py.

2.3.1. Turtle geometry

Turtle geometry is a way to define complex geometric objects in 3-D as a sequence of elementary geometric instructions. Basically, a (virtual) turtle is able to move and draw in the 3-D space as it moves. For this, the turtle is given a sequence of elementary geometric instructions that it can read and interpret sequentially. Interestingly, as the definition of forms using turtle geometry relies on purely geometric primitives, the construction process is in general independent the selected coordinate system.

We assume that the turtle moves with respect to a global reference frame, denoted as $\mathcal {R}_0$ and that it is itself represented as a moving local reference frame, hereafter called the turtle frame $\mathcal {R} = \{\mathbf {H},\mathbf {L},\mathbf {U}\}$ (respectively, denoting unit vectors related to the turtle’s body: Head, Left, Up). Each elementary instruction is interpreted by the turtle as an order to move or to draw (Abelson & diSessa, Reference Abelson and diSessa1986; Prusinkiewicz & Lindenmayer, Reference Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer1990). The elementary instructions are coded as strings of geometric modules having specific names. For example, the module F(l) instructs the turtle to move forward by a distance l in the direction $\mathbf {H}$ of its head, and draw a line while moving, the module +(a) means that the turtle should turn left (around its Up axis $\mathbf {U}$ ) by an angle a degrees, the module ;(c) means that colour c should be used for drawing from now on, etc. An L-system language usually contains a number of predefined geometric modules that make it possible to draw a large variety of simple and more complex geometrical shapes (see detailed list of turtle instructions in L-Py for example).

To operate on an input string, the turtle is associated with a state S that records its current information: position $(x,y,z)$ , orientation $\{\mathbf {H},\mathbf {L},\mathbf {U}\}$ expressed in the global reference frame $\mathcal {R}_0$ , its current colour c, etc.,

$$ \begin{align*}S = (x,y,z,H,L,U,c,\cdots). \end{align*} $$

When reading a new instruction from an input sequence of turtle commands, the turtle executes the elementary action corresponding to the read string module, updates its state accordingly and proceeds to the next instruction in the sequence. Sequences of geometric modules, interpretable by a turtle, are called T-strings.

2.3.2. Branching systems

As explained above, branching systems can be modelled by using square brackets. During turtle interpretations, when reaching an opening square bracket in an L-string, the turtle saves its current state on the top of a stack, called the interpretation stack, and then proceeds with the string interpretation inside the bracket. When reaching a closing square bracket, the turtle pops the current top state of the interpretation stack and restores its current state with it before continuing to interpret the L-string. This push/pop turtle mechanism linked with the use of square brackets makes it possible to easily create branching patterns in L-systems. To insert a branch on another for example, a well-balanced bracketed list of modules representing the new branch must be inserted at the position corresponding to the bifurcation between a main branch and the new lateral branch.

2.3.3. Interpretation rules: coupling L-strings with turtle geometry

L-systems strings can be associated with a geometry using turtle geometry. This can be done by either directly integrating symbols that can be interpreted by the turtle in the finite set of symbols V or by using interpretation rules to translate L-strings (corresponding to the dynamic system’s state) into T-strings (corresponding to its geometrical interpretation).

Remarkably, these geometric interpretation rules can also be represented as a homomorphism G mapping L-strings to T-strings (Kurth, Reference Kurth1994). This homomorphism is usually defined on set of L-system symbols V. Let us call $z_n$ the word image by G of symbol $b_n \in V$ , $G(b_n)=z_n$ . The pair $I_n = (b_n,z_n)$ is called an interpretation rule. We denote $I = \{I_n\}_{n=1 \cdots M}$ the set of all the interpretation rules associated with G.

The interpretation rules are thus used to make a translation between the L-string modules that in general denote the components of the modelled system with their attributes and have no direct geometric interpretation, and the T-string geometric modules that can be directly interpreted by the turtle as geometrical instructions.

Listing 1.

Archimedean spiral (see Figure 1a).

Listing 2.

Random walk in 2-D (see Figure 1b).

Listing 3.

Fractal curve (von Koch flake) (see Figure 1c).

Listing 4.

Plant branching structure development (see Figure 1d).

Figure 1.

Examples of geometric forms that can be produced by L-systems (here using the computer language LPy). (a) A polygonal Archimedean spiral, (b) a random walk, (c) the von Koch flake (fractal curve) and (d) an idealised simple sequence of development of a plant branching system.

Interpretation rules can be recursive and are applied in a depth-first manner to the input L-string (recursions are fully developed before processing to the next module of the string). Most of the extensions that have been defined for L-system derivation rule above are also defined for interpretation rules (parametric and procedural), except for context sensitivity.

2.3.4. Sensing the environment

In L-systems, forms get developed in a 2-D or 3-D Euclidean embedding space. As they grow, it may sometimes be useful to locally probe the environment in a production rule to make a decision that will impact the growth. For example, one may want to determine if a new tentative segment extension of the growing form collides with some object in the environment or with previously constructed part of the same form to decide if the growth will actually take place.

For this, it is essential to access the position and orientation of the turtle in production rules. A specific mechanism has thus been designed in this aim (Prusinkiewicz et al., Reference Prusinkiewicz, James, Měch, Schweitzer, Glassner and Keeler1994). It relies on the use of specific query modules, such as ?P, ?H or ?U, that allow the modeller to access the turtle position and orientation at different locations of an L-string from within production rules. To access such information at a given derivation step, these query modules have to be produced in the L-string at the previous iteration step. They act as place-holders to record geometric information computed during turtle’s interpretation at the previous step. Once filled, the parameters of these modules can be used in production rules of the next iteration to make development decisions.

3.2.1. SetSpace primitive

To construct a language based on the formalism of Riemannian L-systems we need to associate language constructs with the main concepts introduced above. For instance, to define the space within which the L-system will operate and the turtle will move, the possibility to define parametric spaces must be available in the language. The language primitive SetSpace will allow us to select a specific parametric shape in a library of parametric surfaces provided by the language and on which the movements of the turtle will take place. This library contains standard geometric forms, such as spheres, torus or ellipsoids as well as more generic shapes, such as surfaces of revolution, sweeps and NURBS patches that make it possible to define more complex shapes.

Once the parametric space is set, the turtle state takes the form indicated by Eq. (18). Then, the turtle states are manipulated exactly as in the case of classical Euclidean turtles, including the stacking and unstacking of turtle states when reading L-strings, that push in and pop out states.

3.3.1. Covariant derivative

To analyze the spatial variation of the vectors of a vector field as one moves within a curved space, it is convenient to define a corresponding notion of derivative. For this, the derivative of a vector at a point P in a given direction must not only integrate the change in coordinates of the vector but also the change of the local covariant basis. This leads to define a so-called covariant derivative on vector fields.

To find an expression of covariant derivatives, let us consider the variation of a vector in the tangent plane at a point P along the coordinates lines in the 3-D space:

(19) $$\begin{align} \begin{aligned} \frac{\partial \mathbf{X}}{\partial u^\alpha} &= \frac{\partial (X^\beta \mathbf{e}_\beta)} {\partial u^\alpha} \\ &= \frac{\partial X^\beta}{\partial u^\alpha} \mathbf{e}_\beta + X^\beta \frac{\partial \mathbf{e}_\beta}{\partial u^\alpha}. \end{aligned} \end{align}$$

This expression brings out the derivatives of the basis vectors, that can be computed in the ambient space:

(20) $$\begin{align} \frac{\partial \mathbf{e}_\beta}{\partial u^\alpha}= \Gamma^\gamma_{\alpha \beta} \mathbf{e}_\gamma + \Lambda_{\alpha \beta} \mathbf{n}, \end{align}$$

where:

(21) $$\begin{align} \Gamma^\gamma_{\alpha \beta} = \frac{\partial \mathbf{e}_\alpha}{\partial u^\beta}. \mathbf{e}^\gamma , \end{align}$$

are the so-called Christoffel symbols (of second kind), $\mathbf {e}^\beta = g^{\alpha \beta }\mathbf {e}_\alpha $ are the contravariant basis vectors. The Christoffel symbols define the rate of change of the covariant basis vectors in each direction of the local contravariant basis. Similarly,

(22) $$\begin{align} \Lambda_{\alpha \beta} = \frac{\partial \mathbf{e}_\beta}{\partial u^\alpha}. \mathbf{n}, \end{align}$$

are the coefficients characterising the variation of the covariant basis vectors along the surface normal. Therefore, altogether we have:

(23) $$ \begin{align} \frac{\partial \mathbf{X}}{\partial u^\alpha} = \left(\frac{\partial X^\gamma}{\partial u^\alpha} + X^\beta \Gamma^\gamma_{\alpha \beta}\right) e_\gamma + X^\beta \Lambda_{\alpha \beta} \mathbf{n}. \end{align} $$

Let us keep only the part of this expression lying in the tangent plane and define:

(24) $$ \begin{align} \begin{aligned} \nabla_\alpha \mathbf{X} &= \frac{\partial \mathbf{X}}{\partial u^\alpha} - X^\beta \Lambda_{\alpha \beta} \mathbf{n} \\ &=\left(\frac{\partial X^\gamma}{\partial u^\alpha} + X^\beta \Gamma^\gamma_{\alpha \beta}\right) e_\gamma. \end{aligned} \end{align} $$

This quantity is called the covariant derivative of $\mathbf {X}$ on the surface. It corresponds to the orthogonal projection of the usual partial derivative of the vector $\mathbf {X}$ in the Euclidean space onto the local tangent plane, e.g. (Rouvière, Reference Rouvière2016, p. 40). It can be shown that $\nabla _\alpha \mathbf {X}$ has the properties of a derivative operator (linearity and product rule) and that it defines an intrinsic differential operator on the surface, i.e., an operator that depends only on quantities that can be measured on the surface. Its components are denoted $\nabla _\alpha X^\beta $ :

(25) $$ \begin{align} \nabla_{\alpha} \mathbf{X} = (\nabla_{\alpha} X^\beta) \mathbf{e}_\beta. \end{align} $$

More generally, the covariant derivative of a vector $\mathbf {X}$ in the direction of an arbitrary vector $\mathbf {Y} = Y^\alpha \mathbf {e}_\alpha $ is defined as

(26) $$ \begin{align} \nabla_{\mathbf{Y}} \mathbf{X} = Y^\alpha \nabla_{\alpha} \mathbf{X}. \end{align} $$

This leads us to the definition of the notion of parallel transport. Let $\gamma $ be a curve embedded within the surface defined from an interval $\mathbb {I} \subset \mathbb {R}$ to the surface:

(27) $$ \begin{align} \begin{aligned} \mathbb{I} & \rightarrow \mathcal{S} \\ t & \rightarrow \gamma(t), \end{aligned} \end{align} $$

and let $\mathbf {X}$ be a vector field on $\mathcal {S}$ . $\mathbf {X}$ is parallel transported along the curve $\gamma $ if at each point $\gamma (t)$ of the curve:

(28) $$ \begin{align} \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\dot{\gamma}}(t)} \mathbf{X} = 0, \end{align} $$

where $\boldsymbol {\dot {\gamma }}(t)= \frac {d \gamma (t)}{dt} $ is the tangent to the curve at point $\gamma (t)$ . This means that the vector field keeps constant seen from within the tangent planes when one moves in the direction of the curve. More generally, two vectors fields $\mathbf {X}$ and $\mathbf {Y}$ parallel transported along a curve $\gamma (t)$ keep a constant scalar product (i.e., a constant angle in the tangent planes along $\gamma $ as t varies), e.g. (Carroll, Reference Carroll2014).

3.3.2. Geodesics

Consider a smooth curve $\gamma $ embedded in a curved space $\mathcal {S}$ (Figure 5a). We assume the curve $\gamma $ is parameterised by the arc-length parameter s using a smooth mapping $\gamma (s) = x^i(u^\alpha (s))$ from a real interval $\mathbb {I}$ on the curved space $\mathcal {S}$ , such that, as s varies, the point $\gamma (s)$ travels at a constant and unit velocity:

(29) $$ \begin{align} \mathbf{t} = \frac{d P(s)}{ds} \quad \text{with} \quad \vert \mathbf{t} \vert = 1. \end{align} $$

Figure 5.

Curvature and geodesic. (a) Normal and geodesic curvature of a curve lying on a surface. (b) Let $\mathcal {G}$ be the unique geodesic curve starting at a point P in the direction $\mathbf {X}$ . Q is the image on the surface of X by the exponential map at P: $Q = \exp _P(\mathbf {X})$ . Reciprocally, $\mathbf {X} = Log_P Q $ .

The tangent vector being of constant norm, its rate of change along the curve,

(30) $$ \begin{align} \mathbf{k} = \frac{d\mathbf{t}}{ds}, \end{align} $$

reflects changes at every point P in direction only and defines the curvature vector $\mathbf {k}$ perpendicular to $\mathbf {t}$ (note that $\mathbf {k}$ is not necessarily in a vertical plane passing through $\mathbf {t}$ and $\mathbf {n}$ at P as was the case with the curvature vector $\mathbf {k}_\theta $ in Eq. (10). The norm of this vector,

(31) $$ \begin{align} \kappa = \vert\mathbf{k}\vert, \end{align} $$

defines the curve’s curvature and indicates the intensity of the curve’s bending in the 3-D space at each point. Interestingly, on a curved surface $\mathcal {S}$ , the curvature vector $\mathbf {k}$ can be further decomposed locally (Figure 5a). Let $\mathbf {n}$ and $T_P \mathcal {S}$ denote, respectively, the normal and the tangent plane to $\mathcal {S}$ at a point P (assuming a local orientation of the surface). Then, the curvature vector $\mathbf {k}$ can be decomposed locally into a normal and a tangent components, $\mathbf {k_n}$ and $\mathbf {k_g}$ ,

(32) $$ \begin{align} \mathbf{k}=\mathbf{k_n}+\mathbf{k_g}. \end{align} $$

$\mathbf {k_n}$ is the normal curvature (rate of change of the tangent vector normal to the surface) and $\mathbf {k_g}$ is the geodesic curvature. Geodesic curvature intensity indicates how the curve tends to bend locally in plane, i.e., to deviate from a straight move in the tangent plane. Curves for which the geodesic curvature is null at every point are called geodesics. As for geodesics the change of tangent direction (acceleration) is purely normal to the surface, a turtle living on the surface will not notice any lateral movement when moving, and will have the impression to locally move straight. Geodesics are the equivalent in curved spaces to straight lines in flat Euclidean spaces.

An important consequence of the definition is that, in the direction of the tangent vector, the covariant derivative of the tangent vector of a geodesic should have no components on the in-plane local basis vectors (otherwise, there would be a detectable geodesic curvature):

(33) $$ \begin{align} \nabla_{\mathbf{t}(s)} \mathbf{t}(s) = \mathbf{k_g} =0. \end{align} $$

This equation can be used to define geodesic curves on $\mathcal {S}$ . Using the definition of the tangent to the curve $\mathbf {t}$ , Eq. (29), expressed in the covariant basis, i.e., $\mathbf {t} = \frac {d u^\alpha (s)}{ds} \mathbf {e}_\alpha $ and developing Eq. (33), one obtains a set of two second order, non-linear, coupled differential equations, one for each value of $\alpha $ (e.g., (Carroll, Reference Carroll2014, p. 106)):

(34) $$ \begin{align} \frac{d^2u^\alpha}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}\frac{du^\beta}{ds}\frac{du^\gamma}{ds} = 0. \end{align} $$

These equations can be used to compute geodesic trajectories on the surface from different perspectives, depending on the choice of boundary conditions (see below).

3.3.2.1. Exponential maps.

Smooth surfaces have a remarkable property: At any point of the surface and in a given direction, there exists a unique geodesic that passes through this point and whose tangent at this point points in the given direction, e.g. (Struik, Reference Struik1988, p. 133). This property makes it possible to define a map between vectors from the tangent plane $T_P \mathcal {S}$ at P and the points of the surface, called the exponential map, e.g., (do Carmo, Reference do Carmo1980, p. 287). For this, let $P \in \mathcal {S}$ and $\mathbf {X} \in T_P{\mathcal {S}}$ and denote $\mathcal {G}_P(t, \mathbf {X})$ the unique geodesic originating at P with an initial velocity $\mathbf {X}$ (i.e., $\dot {\mathcal {G}}_{P}(0,\mathbf {X}) = \mathbf {X}$ ). Note that on a geodesic parameterised by a parameter t, the norm of the velocity must stay constant all along the curve (e.g., Rouvière, Reference Rouvière2016, p. 47). The exponential map is defined by do Carmo (Reference do Carmo1980, p. 288):

(35) $$ \begin{align} \exp_P{\mathbf{X}} = \mathcal{G}_P(1,\mathbf{X}), \end{align} $$

i.e., the exponential function returns the point reached after travelling on the geodesic for a time unit, at constant speed $\Vert \mathbf {X} \Vert $ . Therefore,

(36) $$ \begin{align} Q = \exp_P{\mathbf{X}}, \end{align} $$

is the unique point on the geodesic $\mathcal {G}_P(t,\mathbf {X})$ at a unit time reach from P when moving at constant velocity $ \Vert \mathbf {X} \Vert $ in the direction X, Figure 5b. At least in sufficiently small neighbourhoods of P, this map is a diffeomorphism (do Carmo, Reference do Carmo1980, p. 288). It is thus possible to define a reciprocal map, called the logarithmic map at P, such that:

(37) $$ \begin{align} \mathbf{X} = \log_P{Q}, \end{align} $$

that returns, for any point Q of the surface (in the region where $\exp _P$ is bijective), the direction $\mathbf {X}$ in the plane $T_P \mathcal {S}$ which initiates a geodesic from P that passes through Q and the geodesic distance between P and Q has the norm of $\mathbf {X}$ (e.g., Sommer et al., Reference Sommer, Fletcher and Pennec2020, pp. 17–30).

Exponential and logarithmic maps are essential tools in Riemannian L-systems as they provide the natural concepts to simulate turtle movements locally, i.e., in the local referential transported with the turtle during the movement.

3.3.3. Moving forward in a direction: an initial value problem

Consider a turtle positioned at a point P on a curved surface, and heading in direction $\mathbf {H}$ . To advance the turtle by a distance l on the surface, one needs to compute the geodesic starting at $P=(u,v)$ in the direction $\mathbf {H} = (p,q)$ over a length l on the surface, Figure 6a. This computation determines the new position of the turtle, corresponding to $P' = \exp _P (l \mathbf {H})$ and a new value of the head vector $\mathbf {H}$ corresponding to the tangent of the geodesic at the destination point $P'$ .

Figure 6.

Different ways to specify straight displacement in a curved space. (a) Forward algorithm: an IVP. (b) LineTo algorithm: a BVP.

For this, we can integrate (34) over a determined length l to obtain the points of the unique geodesic solving this initial value problem (IVP). A classical strategy to solve an IVP system of second-order differential equations similar to Eq. (34), consists of considering $\frac {du}{ds} = p$ and $\frac {dv}{ds} = q$ as two new independent variables and rewrite Eq. (34) as a system of four coupled first-order differential equations (see, e.g., Gray, Reference Gray1997):

(38) $$ \begin{align} \begin{cases} \displaystyle \frac{du}{ds} = p\\ \\ \displaystyle \frac{dv}{ds} = q\\ \\ \displaystyle \frac{dp}{ds}+\Gamma^1_{11}p^2+ 2\Gamma^1_{12}pq + \Gamma^1_{22}q^2= 0 \\ \\ \displaystyle \frac{dq}{ds}+\Gamma^2_{11}p^2+ 2\Gamma^2_{12}pq + \Gamma^2_{22}q^2= 0, \end{cases} \end{align} $$

with the initial conditions:

(39) $$ \begin{align} P = \begin{bmatrix} u_P \\ v_P \end{bmatrix}, \mathbf{t}_0 = \begin{bmatrix} p_P \\q_P \end{bmatrix}. \end{align} $$

The variables of Eq. (34) have been explicitly rewritten with renaming $u^1 \rightarrow u$ and $u^2 \rightarrow v$ to avoid over indexation in the final Eq. (38). This new system of first-order differential equations can be integrated with classical ODE solvers. Note that for a given parametric surface, the Christoffel symbols appearing in the equation are the only quantities that need be computed. They are functions of p and q, which fully couples the equation system. They can be evaluated by using Eq. (21).

In a curved space, a forward step is specified by the primitive $\texttt {F}(l)$ (move forward at the surface over a distance l) as in a Euclidean space, except that the primitive will now make a call to a geodesic solver that takes as an input the surface parametric equation, the current position of the turtle $P = (u,v)$ , the heading direction prescribed by the current value of the turtle direction $\mathbf {H}$ , both provided by their coordinates in the parametric domain, as well as the number of elementary steps N requested to produce the line, Figure 6a. The solver returns a list of N points $P_n = (u_n,v_n)$ , with their corresponding tangents $\mathbf {t}_n = (p_n,q_n)$ on the geodesic that the turtle can use to move forward, and draw a geodesic line on the surface as points of coordinates $\{P_n = x^1(u_n,v_n), x^2(u_n,v_n),,x^3(u_n,v_n)\}_{n=0,\dots ,N}$ , where $P_N = P' = \exp _P (l \mathbf {H})$ .

Altogether, in the language, all this integration process is hidden from the user and results in very intuitive moves. The user can think of programming a form as if moving in a Euclidean space. After the declaration of the parametric surface to be used, moving forward by a distance l length units takes exactly the same form as moving forward with the turtle in a flat space:

3.3.4. Moving forward to a given position on the curved space: a boundary value problem

To prescribe turtle movements, an alternative method consists of specifying a target point $P'$ that the turtle should reach, from the current position P, in the straightest possible way at its next step, Figure 6b. Here, only a target point is prescribed instead of a direction and a length as in the previous IVP case, and one seeks for the geodesics that corresponds to the straightest path between P and $P'$ . This can be viewed as a reciprocal problem, corresponding to evaluate the logarithmic map for a given point $P'$ , i.e., find the direction $\mathbf {t}$ in $T_P \mathcal {S}$ and the corresponding geodesic that leads to $P'$ from P, i.e., such that $\mathbf {t} = \log _P P'$ .

Interestingly, the geodesic equation (38) can also be used to solve this problem. However, the problem is now constrained by the endpoints, Figure 6b: given an initial point P and a target point $P'$ , find a geodesic that connects these two points. For a smooth surface, there exists at least one geodesic between two points. Finding such a geodesic belongs to the class of boundary value problems (BVPs). There are two main ways to solve these BVP problems, using i) shooting methods or ii) improving progressively an initial solution passing through the two endpoints (see, e.g., Maekawa, Reference Maekawa1996).

3.3.4.1. Shooting method.

The first method can be formalised as an optimisation problem by choosing a shooting direction $\mathbf {t}$ as well as a length l, and integrating Eq. (38) over the length l to find a geodesic and a length that would lead exactly to the target point. Let $\gamma _{P,\mathbf {t}}$ be the unique geodesic starting from P in direction $\mathbf {t}$ . For at least one specific direction $\mathbf {t^*}$ ( $\Vert {\mathbf {t^*}}\Vert =1$ ), this geodesic passes through the target point $P'$ . Then, for a certain optimal shooting length $l^*,$ we get:

(40) $$ \begin{align} \exp_P(l^* \mathbf{t^*}) = P'. \end{align} $$

Then, by shooting in different directions and using different lengths, one can evaluate the quality of each choice $(\mathbf {t}, l)$ by computing a distance D between the point reached and the target P. The shooting problem can thus be cast into an optimisation problem:

(41)

The distance $D(.,.)$ should in principle be the distance on the surface. But as computing this distance would already require the problem to be solved, in practice, we use Euclidean distances in either the parameter space or the embedding space that provide simple computations.

To solve this problem, classical numerical optimisation techniques can be used. Here, we implemented this method using a nonlinear least-squares algorithm with bounds on the variables (Press et al., Reference Press, Vetterling, Teukolsky and Flannery2001). The bounds on the variables make it possible to fix the endpoints to the required values, P and $P',$ respectively.

The RiemannLineToShoot primitive can be called by passing the target point $(u,v)$ coordinates as an argument:

3.3.4.2. Geodesic residuals (GR) method.

Maekawa (Reference Maekawa1996) proposed an alternative optimisation method to solve this problem on parametric surfaces. Let $\Gamma (P,P')$ be the set of parametric curves with extremities fixed at P and $P'$ and $\gamma $ be a curve in $\Gamma (P,P')$ . The idea is to define a quantitative criterion $C(\gamma )$ to assess how much $\gamma $ departs from a geodesic, ( $C(\gamma ) = 0$ means the curve is a geodesic) and then to minimise this criterion:

(42)

where $\gamma ^*$ is the sought geodesic between endpoint P and $P'$ . To define the criterion, let us remark that Eq. (38) can be written in the form:

(43) $$ \begin{align} \frac{d\mathbf{Q}}{ds} = G( \mathbf{Q},s), \end{align} $$

where $\mathbf {Q}$ is the vector $[u,v,p,q]^T$ corresponding to the concatenation of the position and velocity of a point on the geodesic. In addition, the geodesic curve must respect the boundary conditions:

(44) $$ \begin{align} \mathbf{Q}_{initial} = [u = u_P,v = v_P, - , - ]^T \quad \textrm{and} \quad \mathbf{Q}_{final} = [u = u_{P'}, v =v_{P'}, - , - ]^T, \end{align} $$

where $(u_P,v_P)$ and $(u_{P'},v_{P'})$ are the coordinates of the two endpoints and a dash $-$ means that these values are unconstrained at the boundary. This equation is a first-order differential equation that suggests that recurrence relations exist binding the variables along the curve as s varies. This can be made explicit by discretising the curve into $m-1$ segments bounded by points of curvilinear abscissa $[s_k,s_{k+1}], k = 0,\dots ,m-1$ . Denoting $\mathbf {Q}_k = \mathbf {Q}(s_k)$ and $\mathbf {G}_k = \mathbf {G}(\mathbf {Q}_k, s_k)$ , and using the trapezoidal rule to approximate the derivative, one obtains the following recurrence relations:

(45) $$ \begin{align} \frac{\mathbf{Q}_k - \mathbf{Q}_{k-1}}{s_k - s_{k -1} } = \frac{1}{2} (G_k + G_{k-1}), \qquad \forall k= 1,\dots,m-1, \end{align} $$

with the boundary conditions defined in Eq. (44) becoming $\mathbf {Q}_{0} = \mathbf {Q}_{initial}$ and $\mathbf {Q}_{m} = \mathbf {Q}_{final}$ . Note that the distance $s_k - s_{k -1}$ between curvilinear abscissa needs to be approximated by a Euclidean distance in $\mathbb {R}^3$ . However, provided that the segments are sufficiently small compared to the local curvature, this approximation is in general accurate. From this equations, let us define the residuals:

(46) $$ \begin{align} R_k = \frac{\mathbf{Q}_k - \mathbf{Q}_{k-1}}{s_k - s_{k -1} } - \frac{1}{2} (G_k + G_{k-1}), \qquad \forall k= 1,\dots,m-1, \end{align} $$

and

(47) $$ \begin{align} R_0 = [u_0-u_P, v_0-v_P]^T \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad R_m = [u_m-u_{P'}, v_m-v_{P'}]^T. \end{align} $$

For points falling exactly on a geodesic, these residuals should be 0. The problem can thus be turned into an optimisation problem where we seek for the $\mathbf {Q}_k$ and $s_k$ that cancel the residuals:

(48) $$ \begin{align} \begin{aligned} &R_k = [0,0,0,0]^T \qquad k= 1,\dots,m-1, \\ &R_0 = R_m = [0,0]^T. \end{aligned} \end{align} $$

This defines a non-linear system of $4m = 4(m-1) + 2 + 2$ equations for $4m = 4(m-1) + 2 + 2$ variables. Here again, such a system can be solved using classical methods to find the roots of a function. Following Maekawa (Reference Maekawa1996) who gives an explicit expression for the Jacobian of the residuals, we used a Newton method that remains very efficient if a good initial guess of the solution can be found. In our case, a natural initial guess corresponds to the linear interpolation in the parameter space of the endpoint variables $(u_P,v_P)$ and $(u_{P'},v_{P'})$ .

In Riemannian L-systems, the GR method can be called using a RiemannLineTo primitive and passing the target point $(u,v)$ coordinates as an argument. This computes the geodesic between the current turtle position and the target point argument, and moves the turtle’s position at the target point, with a heading direction $\mathbf {H}$ tangent to the geodesic extremity.

3.3.5. Geodesic distances on the surface

Distances can be defined between points of a curved space by using the length of the shortest path between two points. In addition to being the straightest lines between points, geodesic also have the property of being local minima of the length of trajectories between any two points. We can thus define a notion of distance between points of the surface by integrating the length of the different segments composing a geodesic. Let us call $D_{\mathcal {S}}$ this geodesic-based distance on the surface $\mathcal {S}$ and call $\{(u_k,v_k)\}_{k=0,m}$ the points in the parameter space defining a geodesic between A and B, then:

(49) $$ \begin{align} D_{\mathcal{S}}(A,B) = \sum_{k=1}^m \| \mathbf{x}(u_k,v_k)-\mathbf{x}(u_{k-1},v_{k-1}) \|, \end{align} $$

where $\|. \|$ is the usual $L_2$ norm in $\mathbb {R}^3$ . Here, we assume that the distance in $\mathbb {R}^3$ approximates sufficiently well the geodesic length of short segments on the surface. Note that in general the geodesic between two points of the surface is not necessarily unique. In principle, if several geodesic exist one should base the above distance on the one that minimises their lengths.

The distance between two points can be computed by using the function geodesic_distance-to_point, where the turtle state is available (mainly in interpretation rules).

3.4.1. Parallel transport

The possibility to turn while moving in a curved space is essential to reveal the curved nature of the space in which the movement takes place (e.g., Abelson & diSessa, Reference Abelson and diSessa1986; Arnold, Reference Arnold1989, p. 301). To see this, let us use the notion of parallel transport introduced above and see how it can be illustrated using the turtle movements. When a vector is parallel transported along a geodesic, its orientation with respect to the geodesic tangent and its norm does not change as one moves along the geodesic.

Consider the classical example of a walker moving on a sphere and transporting a vector from its local tangent plane. The walker starts at the equator in the direction of the North pole and holds her vector pointing ahead (e.g., Abelson & diSessa, Reference Abelson and diSessa1986, Figure 8a,b red arrow pointing upward at green point). While walking straight, the walker keeps the vector always positioned identically with respect to her. She is parallel-transporting the vector with her. The vector is thus aligned with the tangent of the curve and keeps aligned all the way through. At the pole, the vector is thus horizontal and points to the back. The walker then turns to the left without turning the vector. She then continues her path while still parallel transporting the vector, Figure 8a. As the orientation of the vector with respect to the geodesic tangent does not change along the way, the vector arrives at the equator pointing to the back. The walker then turns again by 90 degrees counter clockwise, still without moving the transported vector orientation, and continues her trip along the equator back to her starting point. When arriving, the transported vector now points west in the initial tangent plane. Still without changing the orientation of her transported vector, the walker makes a final turn by 90 degrees to get back to its exact starting orientation and completely close the loop. One can observe that, although during the trip, orientation of the transported vector never got modified, its final orientation (to the west) does not match its original orientation (to the north).

Figure 8.

Holonomy and parallel transport using Riemannian L-systems. (a) and (b) Parallel transport of a vector along a polygon made of geodesics. The vector is initially tangent to the first geodesic, then is perpendicular to the tangent on the second geodesic, then points backward on the third geodesic segment. (c) and (d) Parallel transport of a vector not tangent to the first geodesic. The vector keeps a constant angle with the tangent vector, but this angle changes each time the turtle turns. (e) and (f) Parallel transport along a curve that is not a geodesic: the angle between the transporting curve and the transported vector varies continuously.

This property of implicitly rotating parallel transported vectors along closed trajectories is characteristic of curved spaces. It is called holonomy. The difference of angle between the vectors before and after the parallel transport along a loop is called the angle defect. In flat spaces, the angle defect is $0$ for any loop and any parallel-transported vector. In curved spaces, the angle defect is tightly linked with the curvature of the space (e.g., Abelson & diSessa, Reference Abelson and diSessa1986).

Holonomy and angle defect can be visualised with Riemannian L-system. For this, the turtle keeps track of the accumulated rotation angle, $\alpha $ , since an origin point on a turtle path. The origin point is defined using the module ParallelTransportReset that reinitialises the cumulated turtle rotation at any moment ( $\alpha = 0$ ), and thus defines a new origin for parallel transport at the current turtle’s position, say $(u_0 = 0, v_0 = 0)$ . For a unit vector $\mathbf {v}$ positioned in the tangent plane at the origin point and making an angle $\beta $ with the turtle’s head at the origin, we can thus compute and draw its corresponding transported vector at any subsequent position of the turtle. This is done by using the module ParallelTransportedArrow(vect_angle,vect_ size), with $vect\_angle = \beta $ , and $vect\_size$ being a scaling factor for visualisation. At the new position, the parallel transported vector $\mathbf {v}$ makes an angle $\beta '$ with the current turtle’s head in the current tangent plane corresponding to the original angle corrected by the cumulated angle (i.e., $\alpha $ ) by which the turtle turned on the path to the current point:

(51) $$ \begin{align} \beta' = \beta - \alpha \end{align} $$

The module ParallelTransportedArrow(vect_angle,vect_size) thus draws the transported vector $\mathbf {v}$ as a vector making an angle $\beta '$ with the turtle’s head at the current turtle’s position.

To illustrate how to program this with Riemannian L-systems, let us start with a program tracing a triangle at the surface of a sphere as in Figure 8c:

This program can be modified to show the different stages of a transported vector along the triangular path. For this, after setting the origin point of parallel transport at 0 using ParallelTransportReset, we insert the module ParallelTransportedArrow() at each vertex positions (List. 5, Figure 8c and d):

Listing 5.

Parallel transport (see Figure 8c and d).

Figure 8e and f, illustrating the transport of a vector along a non-geodesic curve can be obtained in a similar manner by making short segments of size $dl \ll R$ , each followed by small rotations $d\alpha \ll \pi $ and drawing the transported vector at each incremental step.

3.4.2. Interpretation of turtle movements in terms of differential operators

According to the definition of parallel transport, we see that the head vector of the turtle $\mathbf {H}$ is always parallel transported by an F statement as it remains parallel to the tangent vector of the geodesic trajectory produced by F. Hence, parallel transport of a vector $\mathbf {X}$ in the current tangent plane $T_P \mathcal {S}$ of the turtle, through an F statement, is the vector $\mathbf {X'}$ such that, if $\alpha $ denotes the angle between $\mathbf {X}$ and $\mathbf {H}$ in $T_P \mathcal {S}$ , $P'$ and $\mathbf {H'}$ are, respectively, the new position and head of the turtle after the execution of the F statement, then $\mathbf {X'}$ is the vector in $T_{P'} \mathcal {S}$ that makes an angle $\alpha $ with $\mathbf {H'}$ and such that $\Vert \mathbf {X'} \Vert = \Vert \mathbf {X} \Vert $ .

Combined together, the Riemanian definition of a forward (F) and rotate (+) statement, implement the exponential map at the current turtle’s position P. Let us take the turtle’s orientation $\mathbf {H}$ as a reference orientation in current turtle’s tangent plane. Then any vector $\mathbf {X}$ in this plane can be defined by a rotation $\alpha $ with respect to $\mathbf {H}$ , and a scaling factor $\Vert \mathbf {X} \Vert = l$ . Then, the instruction,

moves the turtle to the point $P' = \exp _P (\mathbf {X})$ with a new direction $\mathbf {H}'$ at $P'$ that is the parallel transport of vector $\mathbf {X}$ at P along the geodesic from P to $P'$ .

Reciprocally, given the current turtle’s position P and a different point $P'$ on the surface, the definition of the statement RiemannLineTo implements the logarithmic map at the turtle’s position. The instruction:

computes a geodesic as a ordered list of points on the geodesics $\{(u_n,v_n,p_n,q_n)\}_{n=0,\dots ,N}$ , where $P_N = P' = \exp _P (l \mathbf {H})$ . The vector $\mathbf {X_0} = (p_0,q_0)$ belongs to the tangent plane at P and represents the initial direction of the velocity in the parameter space, and thus $\mathbf {X_0} = \log _P(P')$ .

3.4.3. Closed polygons on a surface

As illustrated by holonomy, various usual geometric properties valid in Euclidean spaces are no longer valid in curved spaces. In particular, the sum of the inner angles of a triangle is not 180 degrees nor even a constant number in general. This makes it difficult to draw closed polygonal curves just based of local operations such as moving forward by a length l or turning by a certain angle $\alpha $ , Figure 9a. In general, is not possible to map flat space onto a curved space map while preserving both the angles and lengths. This means that we have to accept to drop some properties of polygons when mapping them in a curved space. However, it can be practically important in some cases to draw close figures on the surface and even to fill them with a particular colour or texture.

Figure 9.

Drawing closed polygons on curved surfaces. (a) Failure to close a square by forcing consecutive sides to be at 90 degrees from one another on a curved surface. (b) Square drawn in the parameter space, and then pushed forward on the surface (c) Alternative geometric construction of the square preserving the right angle at the intersection of the diagonals and their length. (d) The construction in c can be used on more chaotic surfaces.

This issue related to holonomy can be circumvented in different ways in Riemaniann L-systems. A first option is to draw a polygonal line using the F module (thus making geodesic segments), Figure 9a, and to close the polygon by creating a final geodesic segment using a RiemannLineTo module from the current position of the turtle to its initial position. However, this solution may induce undesired biases on the length and orientation of the final segment if the total curvature enclosed by the polygonal line is significant.

A second option consists of tracing the polygonal figure in the parametric space rather than on the surface directly, and then project all the points of this polygonal line on the surface (Figure 9b). This can be considered as an indirect interpretation of the turtle instructions, which are momentarily executed in the parameter space rather than on the surface. This can be carried out by using the modules StartIndirectInterpretation and StopIndirectInterpretation.

The backside of this indirect interpretation is that the segments are in general not geodesics. It is possible to define a spherical square as a polygon made of geodesic edges with equal lengths and equal inner angles between consecutive edges (although different from 90 degrees). In Riemannian L-systems, one would position the turtle at the centre of the square, then send geodesic rays of equal length d from this point with an angle of 90 degrees between each other (Figure 9c thin blue lines). This defines four points at the same distance of the square centre, which can then be joined by a geodesic using a RiemannianLineto primitive. This procedure can be used on more chaotic surfaces (Figure 9d), but with an additional loss of geometric symmetries of the square.

3.4.4. Drawing smooth curves on a curved surface

In the Euclidean space, important families of parametric curves can be constructed by the use of straight lines. This is the case for instance of basis spline curves, or B-Splines, whose points are a weighted linear combinations of so-called control points (Piegl & Tiller, Reference Piegl and Tiller1997). This linear combination is based on piece-wise polynomial basis functions whose degree controls the smoothness of the curve. An approximation of such curve can be achieved through algorithms that recursively subdivide the control polygon (polygon formed by the control points), such as the de Casteljau (Piegl & Tiller, Reference Piegl and Tiller1997) or the Lane–Riesenfeld (Lane & Riesenfeld, Reference Lane and Riesenfeld1980) algorithms. Here, we show how such algorithms can easily be extended with Riemannian L-systems to control smooth curves in curved spaces (Figure 10a–h).

Figure 10.

B-splines on a curved surface. (a) Initial quadrilateral control polygon on a sphere. (b) Duplication operation with new control points (in purple) inserted in the midpoint of each segment. (c) and (d) All original control points (in red) are moved towards the midpoint of their adjacent segments (in purple). For a B-Spline of degree 3, 2 move operations are applied. (e) Resulting control polygon after a complete subdivision step. (f)– (h) Successive control polygons (in green) after 1, 2, and 3 subdivision steps, respectively. (i)–(k) The B-Spline curve is defined by control points positioned using the Riemannian L-system (List. 6) that generates a simple branching structure. Resulting curve on (i) a flat surface, (j) an ellipsoid and (k) a bumpy ellipsoid. (l) The control polygon of a salamander shape. (m) and (n) The interpretation of the control polygon as B-Splines of degree 2 and 8, respectively. The degree of the curve controls the number of control points that influence each point of the curve.

Starting from the initial control polygon made up of geodesics segments, the number of controls points is first doubled by inserting new control points in the middle of each segment (duplication operation) (Figure 10b). The centroid of the geodesic is estimated as the point of the geodesic at equal geodesic distance between the two control points. Then, each initial control point is moved towards the midpoint of the adjacent segment (move operation) (Figure 10c and d). Each subdivision step is thus composed of duplication and move operations. Subdivision steps are reiterated until the desired level of approximation of the B-Spline curve is reached (Figure 10f–h).

Let us illustrate how this principle can be used to generate an oak leaf-like shape using Riemannian L-systems (List. 6). First, a set of control points is specified as the terminal nodes of a simple tree structure using the BSplinePoint module, encapsulated within StartBSpline and EndBSpline modules. These control points must be provided in an order that respects the curve parameterisation. For this, the left branches are first generated (line 17), followed by the primary branch (line 18) and subsequently the right ones (line 19). The subdivision algorithm encoded in the BSpline primitive of the system (lines 6 and 8) then generates the outline of an oak-like leaf. Depending on the embedding space, the shape is drawn on a flat surface (Figure 10i), an ellipsoid (Figure 10j) or a bumpy ellipsoid, respectively, in Figure 10k. The representation of the leaf contour dynamically adjusts to the local irregularity of the underlying space. In particular, on the bumpy ellipsoid, the main axis of the skeleton is deflected towards the right, due to the specific curvature of the space.

Listing 6.

B-Spline curve built by positioning B-Spline control points at the end of a simple tree structure (see Figure 10j). The lengths of the lateral branches depend on a graphically defined function called lateralratios.

Listing 7.

Geodesic on an ellipsoid of revolution.

Various types of shapes can be drawn on curved spaces using the same principle as illustrated by Figure 10l–n. Here, the control polygon represents a salamander sketched in Escher style. The original control polygon (Figure 10l) is recursively subdivided to achieve approximation of B-Spline curves of degree 2 and 8, respectively (Figure 10m and n). The higher the degree, the smoother the curve and more rough the details.

While the resulting curve appears visually smooth and approximates its control points in a manner consistent with the B-spline definition, it is not strictly a B-spline. This is because the smoothness of an embedded curve is fundamentally constrained by the differentiability class of the surface it resides on. Consequently, the curve’s degree of differentiability may not meet the requirements of a true B-spline. The geometric properties of such embedded curves remain an open question for future investigation.

4.2.1. Fractals

Being particular cases of manifolds, smooth parametric surfaces are locally flat and look like a Euclidean plane. However, at larger scales, the surface curvature is not negligible and can be revealed by trajectory holonomy. Fractals living on curved surfaces exhibit various levels of detail all along their entire structure. We may expect that the fine details of the structure, typically much smaller than the local surface principal radii of curvature, are not affected by the surface curvature. However, at coarser scales (of the order of magnitude of the radii of curvature), the fractal form must be affected in proportion of the local curvature. This is illustrated by the series of prefractal forms in Figure 12. The reference prefractal forms converge towards the well-known von Koch flake in a flat space, Figure 12a. When traced on a sphere, we see that the curve does not close anymore due to holonomy at large scale that tends to fold the curve faster than in the flat reference case, Figure 12b. However, one can notice that the curve pattern is almost not affected at fine scales where one easily locally recognises the pattern of the von Koch curve. Interestingly, if the radius of the sphere is reduced (the curvature is increased), the overall topology of the flake is dramatically affected, and contains only four main arms, Figure 12c, instead of six in the reference case. Similarly, Figure 12d shows a von Koch curve growing on a torus. When the curve size is small compared to the two main radii of curvature of the torus (left), the curve form is not affected significantly. However, as the curve grows, the overall curve geometry is markedly deformed (right).

Figure 12.

Using the turtle to draw fractals on curved spaces. (a) Prefractal sequence of the von Koch Curve in a flat space. (b) Prefractal sequence obtained by the same procedure as in a on a sphere of radius 1, and (c) on sphere of radius 1/2. (d) von Koch curves with increasing step length on a torus.

These figures have been obtained with the program listed below (List. 8). One can observe that the modification of the code with respect to the reference flat case (List. 3) is minimal: only the specification of the turtle space has been added in the axiom. The rest of the code is unchanged. For the torus, one just needs to change line 2 by nproduce SetSpace(Torus(1,0.3)).

Listing 8.

Fractal curve (von Koch flake) on curved surfaces (see Figure 12b-d).

4.2.2. Branching patterns

Like in classical L-systems, branching patterns can be created easily with Riemannian L-systems using well-formed strings of modules. The turtle’s interpretation mechanism is entirely conserved but runs on Riemannian states (Eq. (18)) instead of the classical turtle’s states used in Euclidean geometry (Eq. (17)). The turtle thus draws branching patterns whose segments are geodesics, and branching angles are defined either explicitly by the programmer in the local tangent plane at the bifurcation point using a + statement before an F, Figure 13a–c or implicitly inferred through a RiemannianLineTo primitive. The generic program to produce these trees is as follows (List. 9):

Listing 9.

Tree patterns on surfaces (see Figure 13a–c).

Listing 10.

Tree patterns based on BVP problem (see Figure 13d).

Figure 13.

Growing tree structures on curved surfaces. (a)–(c) Trees created with a shooting algorithm to solve an IVP (F primitive). (a) Tree on spheres (constant Gaussian positive curvature) with decreasing radii (1, 0.7, 0.5). (b) Tree on a pseudo-sphere surface (constant Gaussian negative curvature) at different altitudes showing the effect of a local change of the extrinsic geometry on tree structures. (c) Tree growth on a torus. Left: reference tree grown in a flat space. Middle: the tree trunk is aligned along the external great circle (region of positive Gaussian curvature). Remark in the central region at the tip that the small branches form a very densely organised fan. Compare with Right: the tree trunk is aligned along the inner great circle (region of negative Gaussian curvature). In the central region at the tip that the small branches form a less dense fan. (d) Tree representing the veins of a leaf, created by joining pre-specified (red) points on the rim (left) to a main branching system using a RiemannianLineTo primitive (BVP). Next to right: resulting branching system in the same view as left, followed on the right by a view slightly tilted, and to the right-end, the back of the leaf.

Figure 14.

Geodesics on a pin-shaped surface. A geodesic of constant length l in yellow is initiated at a constant angle (28 degrees downward) with respect to the latitude at the level of the pollen grain position (green point). From left to right: the mid-height neck of the pin surface is progressively reduced from left to right (the value of D decreases). As a result, the geodesic coils increasingly around the neck, up to a point where it cannot pass the neck anymore and coils in the top region.

As before, to change the space (Sphere, Pseudo-sphere, …) and the initial position of the turtle in the space, only lines 6 and 8 have to be updated. The rest of the code remains unchanged.

Branching patterns, that are made of geodesic segments, are affected differently by the surface depending on both its extrinsic and intrinsic geometric properties, Figure 13a–c. Branches tend to get more dense on the sphere (constant positive Gaussian curvature), Figure 13a, less dense on the pseudo-sphere (constant negative Gaussian curvature), Figure 13b, and show a mixed effect on the torus that has an external and inner regions of, respectively, positive and negative Gaussian curvature, Figure 13c. On spheres, branching patterns are more bent towards each other as the sphere radius decreases (and the curvature augments). On the pseudo-sphere, the same tree, represented at three different altitudes, shows very contrasted shapes. As the pseudo-sphere is of constant curvature, these variations are not due to a change in the local intrinsic geometry (that keeps constant everywhere), but due to the change in the extrinsic geometric component only (indeed, while their product is constant, the principal radii of curvature are not constant throughout the pseudo-sphere surface).

Branching patterns can also be produced by joining the current position of the turtle to target points during the construction of a central stem, Figure 13d. For this, the turtle must be placed at an initial position on the surface, pointing in an initial direction (corresponding roughly to the direction of the future main stem). Assume that a set of N target points is defined by their $(u_n,v_n)$ coordinates on the surface. We aim at creating a main stem composed of N segments that follow a geodesic of the surface and such that, at the end of each segment n, a lateral segment is drawn to the target point $(u_n,v_n)$ , (List. 10):

Segments on the main stem are iteratively computed as a series of IVP using an F statement (line 14). The length of the each segment is determined by the user. At each step n, a lateral segment is computed as a BVP to the n-th target point using the RiemannianLineTo primitive (line 15). This determines automatically all the points of the lateral segment, and in particular, a specific insertion angle on the main stem (log map, see above), Figure 13d.

4.3.1. Filamentous growth

Pollen grains are transported from flowers to flowers by wind or animals. They can germinate if they land on specific elongated cells, called papillae located at the tip of the stigma, the female organ of the flower. When they germinate, a pollen tube starts to grow out downward the papilla, and keeping at the papilla surface (Riglet et al., Reference Riglet, Rozier, Kodera, Bovio, Sechet, Fobis-Loisy and Gaude2020). Papillae have roughly a pin-like structure, but may vary in shape within or between species and present either convex or non-convex forms. Biologists try to understand the possible physical or chemical cues that guide the growth of the pollen-tube downwards. One of the hypothesis is that the precise geometry of the papillae may play an important role in the guidance of the tube and that the tube could follow geodesics of the papillae surface (Riglet et al., Reference Riglet, Quilliet, Godin, John and Fobis-Loisy2025).

Riemannian L-systems can be used to analyse this growth process and for example to explore how the shape of the papillae impacts the possible geodesic trajectories that a tube might follow. Let us consider, for example, a pin-like structure and decrease progressively its neck (i.e., its diameter at mid-height) to pass from a convex to a marked non-convex shape, Figure 14. Starting from a point P at the tip of the structure representing the position of the pollen grain and a given orientation of the initial germination of the tube from the grain, we observe that the trajectory of geodesics is highly affected by the change in the surface shape: as the neck narrows down, the geodesic increasingly spirals when approaching the neck and continuously goes downward. Surprisingly, below a certain neck diameter, the geodesic is reflected and coils back without crossing the neck any longer, Figure 14 last two right examples. This is again a consequence of the Clairaut theorem (Eq. (52)). Altogether, this suggests that geometry is potentially a key, possibly genetically regulated, actor in the driving of the pollen tube. This hypothesis was explored in a recent work using these tools (see Riglet et al., Reference Riglet, Quilliet, Godin, John and Fobis-Loisy2025).

Listing 11.

Cabbage leaf as an IVP (see Figure 15c and d). Note that in the following application examples some code details have delibarately been simplified to highlight code structure. Complete listing codes can be found in the notebooks describing the figures at https://github.com/fredboudon/RiemannianLsystems.

Figure 15.

Cabbage leaf model. (a) Photos of a white cabbage leaf (up: top view, below: side view). (b) Approximated NURBS model of the cabbage leaf. (c) and (d) Different views of the vascular network constructed with Riemannian L-systems, with veins corresponding to geodesics computed as IVPs.

4.3.2. Branching system growth

Leaves’ vascular networks are essential to gas, water and sugar exchanges in plants. They are an integral part of the development of the leaf and result from developmental mechanisms that are not yet well understood. In the last decade however, a few studies have made progress on the understanding of the genetic regulation of leaf development and its connection with the construction of the vascular network (Katifori, Reference Katifori2018; Runions et al., Reference Runions, Tsiantis and Prusinkiewicz2017). In these works, leaves are considered as flat medium represented by a triangulated mesh in which the vascular network is embedded. From a geometrical point of view, “the modeling of leaves that are curved as well as lobed or serrated remains an open problem. […]. Challenges are posed by […] the need to replace straight segments with their more complicated counterparts defined on curved surfaces: the geodesic curves” (Runions et al., Reference Runions, Tsiantis and Prusinkiewicz2017). Riemannian L-system provide a first generic tool to address this problem with high-level programming constructs. We illustrate this on the vein network of the curved leaf of white cabbage, Figure 15a.

For this, a geometric model of the curved leaf blade is first constructed using NURBS parametric surfaces (also called NURBS patches; Piegl & Tiller, Reference Piegl and Tiller1997) embedded in the software platform L-Py (Boudon et al., Reference Boudon, Pradal, Cokelaer, Prusinkiewicz and Godin2012), Figure 15b. Then, the turtle is positioned at the bottom of the leaf, with its head vector $\mathbf {H}$ pointing roughly in the direction of the ridge of the surface (lines 4–7 in List. 11).

A main apex produces segments of equal size following a geodesics (i.e., using an F primitive) and then producing two opposite lateral branches with insertion angle close to 30 degrees (lines 13–18). Each lateral branch is composed of segments, the second of which forks into two branches (lines 23–29).

The different parameters of this model have been adjusted by hand to visually reproduce main geometric traits of the image in Figure 15a. However, it can be noticed that the number of parameters remains limited and they only necessitate fine grain tuning (at the level of branch insertion angles in particular). The core branching system makes use of geodesic lines and is straightforward to program. Only deflections with respect to this geodesic pattern need to be adjusted. In particular, the main stem was not adjusted at all (line 13) and the corresponding geodesic follows the ridge of the curved leaf blade, despite the fact that it is slightly twisted near the tip of the leaf as can be observed in the top of Figure 15d.

4.3.3. Plant branching system

Some plants, such as lianas, cannot support their own weight as they grow. They then often grow on a supporting structure, which could be another plant, a rock or a building for instance. The supporting structure, in turn, may possess intricate geometric characteristics. If we assume that, in the absence of any extra external force, the axes of the plants grow straight, then we can model the growth of the axes by following the geodesics of the supporting structure. Conventional approaches rely on collision detection techniques using a voxel representation of the 3-D space (Greene, Reference Greene1989) or bounding volume hierarchies (Wong & Chen, Reference Wong and Chen2016) to determine the path on the structure that should be followed. In the case of complex geometry of the supporting structure, substantial refinements of the voxel representation are required to capture the detailed changes in curvature leading to computationally intensive generation. Riemannian L-systems present an efficient means to simplify such modelling process by embedding the generated plant shape directly onto the supporting structure, thus mitigating the complexities associated with the curved geometry of the supporting structure.

In the example depicted in Figure 16, the climbing of an ivy plant is directly simulated on the external surface of a tree trunk. This process involves representing the trunk as a generalised cylinder characterised by an S-shaped central axis, and with a linearly decreasing radius along the axis. The cylinder cross-section incorporates concavities indicative of the differential radial growth of the trunk and its fusion with aerial components of the roots. The initiation of the ivy growth occurs at the base of the trunk, with an upward orientation. A sketch of the code used to simulate the ivy growth is given in List. 12. Ramifications are regularly generated at a constant insertion angle along the axes, resulting in the coverage of the trunk surface by the ivy structure (line 9).

Listing 12.

Sketch of the L-systems generating an Ivy structure over a generalised cylinder representing the trunk of a tree (see Figure 16).

Figure 16.

Climbing ivy. A tree trunk is modelled as a generalised cylinder on which the growth of an ivy is simulated. On the left, the wireframe representation of the trunk and the branching system of the ivy. On the right, semi-transparent polygonal representation of the trunk with the full leafy ivy structure.

Listing 13.

Random walk keeping on regions of positive Gaussian curvature (see Figure 17a–c).

Interestingly, while ivy stems remain confined to the surface of a supporting structure due to the adhesion of their adventitious rootlets, ivy leaves are not subject to this constraint. Their petioles allow them to extend outward into free space, optimizing light capture while the stem remains anchored to the substrate. To model such dual behaviour, the embedding of the generated shape onto the surface can be stopped using the EndSpace command (see line 20). When incorporated into the L-string, the geometric interpretation of the subsequent modules of the string will recover the conventional behaviour of L-systems within the Euclidean 3-D space embedding. For the ivy example, the normal vector to the surface at the leaf insertion point is estimated, and the turtle is reoriented accordingly. Subsequently, a roll rotation is then executed to establish a horizontal orientation for the leaves. The petioles and the leaf blades are then generated. While geodesic are intrinsic objects (only depending on the surface’s metric), this example illustrates the possibility in Riemannian L-systems to use as well primitives related to the embedding of the surface in the 3-D Euclidean space, and thus to take into account the full geometric information of the trunk surface. It also illustrates how multiple embeddings can be combined simply within the same Riemannian L-system. This could be generalised further by considering the generation of a plant onto multiple support structures. For this, the different embedding spaces can be set by inserting several SetSpace or EndSpace commands into the L-string.

5.1.1. Scalar fields

Scalar fields can express either local geometric properties of a surface or spatial distributions of physical or biological quantities defined on the surface. Let us consider, for example, how the random movement of a set of turtles can be canalised by their ability to read out locally the geometric characteristics of the embedding surface and to use it to make move decisions, Figure 17a and b. We assume that the turtles locally sense the surface curvature and avoid to go in flat (0 Gaussian curvature) or saddle-like regions (negative Gaussian curvature). These random walks are thus restricted to regions of (strictly) positive curvature (indicated in red in Figure 17c). To model this situation in Riemannian L-systems, one would basically modify the random walk algorithm described in List. 2 as follows (List. 13):

The query module ?T is inserted just before each moving apex in the L-string at each derivation (line 14). At the next derivation, the turtle’s state (line 3), automatically updated at the last interpretation step, can be used to get the current position and orientation of the turtle (line 4) as well as the current embedding surface (line 5). Then, the model tries to make moves in different random position until one of this moves happens to be in a region of positive curvature (lines 7–13). Different primitives make it possible to simulate the turtle’s rotation by an angle a (line 9), to generate the sequence of coordinates corresponding to a potential step in this new direction (line 10), to compute the Gaussian curvature K at the destination point (lines 11 and 12) and to test whether its value is positive (line 13). A sequence of coordinates associated with a positive K is thus selected and used to draw the turtle’s trajectory using the P primitive (line 14). As a result, one can observe that the random walks get canalised in the regions of positive Gaussian curvature, without being able to cross areas of flat or negative curvature, Figure 17b and c.

A scalar information can also result from a read out of the physical environment. A geometric form, for example, can be physically constrained in its development by its already existing parts. As an example, consider the construction of self-avoiding branching patterns, Figure 17d–f. A specialised data structure and associated primitives have been developed to record segments produced as the form grows and to test the presence/absence of already existing segments on the surface at specific locations, List. 14. An empty data structure is first created (line 10). Then, the apices of branching structure grow (line 16). Like before, a query module is used to recover the current state of the turtle before each apex. Instead of creating a segment, an apex first computes the path on the surface that would correspond to this new segment (line 17). It then tests whether an intersection is detected with previously created segments (line 18). If yes the apex does not grow (line 19). If no, the new segment is added to the list of already existing segments (line 21), and the segment is drawn (line 22), together with a new lateral bud (line 24) and a renewed main apex (line 25).

This procedure is generic and does not depend on the underlying space. Figure 17f, for example, illustrates the same self-avoiding branching algorithm applied to an egg-box surface with a more complex geometry with both positive and negative Gaussian curvatures.

5.1.2. Vector fields

Scalar fields provide information that can indirectly be used to affect turtle’s trajectory. A more explicit directional information may be provided by a vector field. At any point of the surface, the turtle can compute the angle $\alpha $ between its current heading direction $\mathbf {H}$ and the local vector value of the field $\mathbf {V}$ , and orient its trajectory locally in a direction related to the vector field. For example, a deflection of the otherwise geodesic trajectory in the direction of a vector field is in general called a tropism. Formally, let us denote $\alpha $ the current angle between the turtle heading direction $\mathbf {H}$ and the local value of the vector field $\mathbf {V}$ at the turtle’s position, $\alpha = \widehat {\mathbf {H},\mathbf {V}}$ , and $\Delta s$ the small step length that the turtle must make at the next derivation step. We assume that the tropism will deflect the turtle’s initial direction from a geodesic by imposing an in plane geodesic curvature proportional to the angle $\alpha $ and that $\Delta s$ is sufficiently small so that the geodesic curvature is considered constant over the step length $\Delta s$ . Then, we have:

(53) $$ \begin{align} \frac{\Delta \alpha}{\Delta s} = \sigma \alpha, \end{align} $$

where $\sigma $ is a sensitivity to the ‘tropism force’. This provides a direct expression of the deflection angle $\Delta \alpha $ by which the turtle’s movement must be affected at the next iteration step to progress over a distance $\Delta s$ due to tropism.

To illustrate this, consider a geodesic starting at the equator of an ellipsoid of revolution and heading east and slightly north, Figure 18a. In the absence of a field (or of a feedback between a field and the turtle’s displacement), the turtle follows a geodesic trajectory, Figure 18a. In the presence of a field (Figure 18b), the turtle may react to the field and use this information to locally modify its natural trajectory. Here, we consider a vector field resulting from the gradient of a scalar field corresponding for example to the diffusion of a substance from the north pole from high (red) to low (yellow) concentrations of the substance). By reading this gradient, the turtle can deflect its trajectory in the corresponding direction. As a result, the trajectory is attracted at the north pole and trapped in a circular attractor (Figure 18b). Interestingly, this attractor results from an equilibrium between the effect of the surface geometry that, in the absence of tropism ‘force’, would keep the turtle on a geodesic and thus make it possible to escape the north region after having visited it (Figure 18a), and the tropism force that constantly deflects the trajectory towards the north pole.

Listing 14.

Non self-intersecting tree (see Figure 17d–f).

Listing 15.

Tropism on ellipsoid of revolution (see Figure 18a and b).

Figure 18.

Deflection of geodesic trajectories using surface vector fields. (a) and (b) Tropism on an ellipsoid of revolution. (a) No field: the trajectory (green) is a geodesic starting at the equator and heading east, bending 30 degrees north at the origin. (b) Presence of a scalar field (red = high, yellow = low values). The trajectory, with identical initial conditions, converges to a circle in the north region. (c) and (d) Simulated tip-growing filament trajectories on pin-shaped structure with a scalar field at the surface (colour gradient from red (high) to dark blue (low values)). (c) Left-most: Geodesic trajectory (growth not interfering with the scalar field). To the right: effect of tropism resulting of an interaction with the scalar field. Geodesics are deflected in the direction of the gradient of the scalar field, with an increasing intensity $\sigma $ from 0 to 5. (d) The wireframe structures in the bottom row show whole trajectories.

Programming such a feedback function follows the design pattern illustrated in List. 15. A query module ?T before the growing apex makes it possible to retrieve at each step the current state of the turtle at the apex (lines 15 and 26). At the position $(u,v)$ of the apex, the value of the tropism vector field is evaluated (here as the gradient of a scalar field, lines 17–19). The angle $\alpha $ between the tropism vector and the heading direction of the turtle is then computed (lines 21 and 22) as well as the deflection angle due to tropism over a step length $slen$ according to the tropism attraction described in Eq. (53) (line 23). The sign of this angle depends on the relative orientations of the heading and tropism vectors (line 24). Finally, the turtle turns according to the deflection angle and draws a portion of geodesic over length $slen$ (line 26), thus deflecting its trajectory towards the tropism vector.

This design pattern can be applied to model similar situations in biological applications. For example, Figure 18c and d illustrates the possible effect of a surface tropism on a tip-growing filament at the surface of a pin-like structure. This could for instance represent the growth of a pollen tube that would be attracted by a chemical gradient. In the absence of tropism, the filament follows the geodesics of the pin-like surface, Figure 18c and d-left. In the presence of a tropism due to the surface gradient (indicated by a variation of colours from red to blue), the filament is deflected from geodesic curves and heads more rapidly towards the bottom of the surface. This phenomenon is amplified by an increase of the coupling between the filament growth and the directional cue (increase of $\sigma $ from left to right in Figure 18c and d).

5.2.1. Convected versus floating forms

Once a form has been constructed on a surface, two extreme subsequent types of evolution of this form can be considered.

Let us first assume that the points on the surface can be tracked in time. They can be considered as material points whose movement define the surface evolution in the 3-D space. At the initial time, the form passes through a set of material points to which the form is considered to be ‘attached’. While the surface changes in time, the relative positions of the material points change, which induces a corresponding deformation of the form geometry on the surface. As the form depends on the definition of material points and their movements, we say that such form definition is extrinsic. An extrinsic form is being convected by the material flow on the deforming surface.

This situation is illustrated in Figure 19a and b using a fractal form. A Sierpinski carpet (e.g., Peitgen et al., Reference Peitgen, Jurgens and Saupe1992, p. 81), whose construction process is depicted in Figure 19a, is embedded in an initially planar surface that will progressively take the form of an egg-box. This can be modelled by allowing the parameters of a parametric surface, here a NURBS patch $x^i(u,v,\lambda (t))$ , where $\lambda (t)$ represents the surface parameters at time t, to change smoothly in time, and to consider that the uv-coordinates correspond to coordinates of material points. We can observe that the deformation of the Sierpinski carpet does not change its topological structure, and only its geometry is smoothly affected, reflecting the smooth deformation of the embedding surface, Figure 19b. In Riemannian L-systems, this form convection can be achieved using indirect interpretation of L-strings (see Section 3.4). In this mode, the form is not directly drawn as a sequence of geodesics on the surface. Rather, it is drawn in the uv-parameter space and then projected on the surface, reminiscent of texture mapping in computer graphics (e.g., Foley et al., Reference Foley, van Dam, Feiner and Hughes1996). In this way, the form drawn in the uv-coordinates is that of Figure 19a. The line segments projected on the surface are in general not geodesics, but the projection preserves material points neighbourhood. As a result, the form on the surface appears simply to be convected by the smooth surface material deformation that preserves its integrity and topology. To keep track of the uv-coordinates of a previous drawing, we introduced a primitive StaticF that behaves like a classical forward instruction F(x), i.e., it computes a geodesic of length x from the current position and heading of the turtle. However, the first time it is called, it memorises the uv-positions of the computed geodesic. Then, at next derivation steps, on further calls, it will not recompute a geodesic on the modified surface. Instead it will use the previously cached geodesic information. List. 16 illustrates how to switch between floating and convected shapes using StaticF into Riemannian L-systems.

Figure 20.

Feedback of surface growth on patterns living at the surface: example of subdivisions (a) and (b) von Koch prefractal curve initially developed at level 3 (dark blue segments) gets deformed by the growth of a flat surface, without subdivision feedback (a) and with feedback (segment are coloured purple (detail level 4) and green (detail level 5) (b). Note additional, non homogeneous fractal details on (b) due to the subdivision of segments that reached a length threshold during growth. (c) subdivision feedback on a Sierpinski carpet. Details are added only in places where the initial motif has been significantly stretched by surface growth. (d) Deformation of a Peano prefractal curve. The Peano curve is developed up to level 3 on a flat surface starting to grow out (left). As soon as segments are stretched above a given threshold, they divide into nine smaller segments (Peano subdivision rule, that is derived from the Sierpinski carpet rule illustrated on Figure 19a by tracing the fifth (middle) segment instead of skipping it). Due to growth, waves of subdivisions can be observed at the surface. The rightmost image shows the result after two rounds of divisions on the topmost part of the growing surface, see Supplementary Movie 2.

On the other hand, forms lying on a surface may be completely independent of the movement of material points at the surface, or may even be defined in the absence of material points. For this, the construction procedure must be purely geometric and must not depend on the actual surface parameterisation, if any. In this case, the form is said to have an intrinsic geometry on the surface (it does not depend on the embedding of the surface in a space of higher dimension, nor on the coordinate system used on the surface). Due to holonomy, during the surface evolution, the geometry of an intrinsic form is affected by changes in surface curvature. As a consequence, the form appears to be floating on the surface (Figure 19c and d), with varying degrees of geometric and topological distortions through time. By providing general geometric primitives to draw in curved spaces, Riemannian L-systems naturally produce intrinsic geometric forms. As fractals contain geometric details at different scales, they provide a natural way to probe the impact of changes in surface curvature in time within a range of scales. In Figure 19c and d, one can observe that only the scales that are commensurate with the local radius of curvature of the surface are significantly impacted. At smaller scales, the surface can be assimilated to a plane and the corresponding small details are hardly affected. Supplementary Movie 1 shows how the progressive change of the embedding surface curvature dynamically affects the different regions of the floating fractal form.

Figure 21.

Kidney fern model. (a) Hymenophyllum nephrophyllum (Kidney fern). (b) Steps of the growth algorithm. The algorithm proceeds by growing recursively the fern blade (grey) and its vasculature (green). At some time, a binary structure of veins has already been constructed (green) with branching points indicated in yellow. 1. Initial step of the recursion: the last blade growth band (between the last two black lines), containing the active points (yellow) regularly positioned on the rim line (black), reaches a size $\Delta L$ . 2. This triggers the formation of a new generation of active points (red arrowheads) on a new rim line at the next time step, with twice as many points as in the previous one (yellow points). Geodesic paths (blue lines) are constructed from the last row of branching points (yellow) towards the new target points (the direction of the red arrowheads indicate the direction of the geodesic construction). This produces binary branchings. 3. The blade continues to grow. Geodesic lines (blue) are recomputed to adapt to the rim growth and changing geometry. 4. Final step of the iteration: a new blade band has been constructed with new branching segments ending at regularly spaced points and the recursion can proceed similarly for a new blade band. (c) Consecutive stages of the simulated developmental model.

5.2.2. Feedback of the embedding surface growth on the form

In the previous example, the deformation of the surface alters the constructed shape, while the construction process itself remains unchanged. However, the deformation of the surface could in principle also feedback on the construction process itself. Such a feedback may be caused for example by changes in physical fields living on the surface due to the surface growth (e.g., dilution of molecule concentrations, relaxation of mechanical stresses, etc.). They can also be induced by the very change of surface geometry. In biology for instance, patterns at the surface of an organ are commonly refined in response to growth. In plants, cells grow at the surface of an organ and divide as soon as their size reaches a certain threshold (Jones et al., Reference Jones, Band and Murray2019). Likewise, in leaves, new veinlets appear as the leaf blade expands (Sawchuk et al., Reference Sawchuk, Edgar and Scarpella2013). A first approach of this type was proposed in the context of simple planar (affine) deformation of a material 2-D flat space (Prusinkiewicz et al., Reference Prusinkiewicz, Lane, Runions, Beckmann, Csuhaj-Varjú and Meer2014). Here, we consider 3-D substrate deformations, where the curvature of object may also change in time. Let us explore how such feedback mechanisms can be modelled using Riemannian L-systems.

We first consider the case of forms made of segments convected deformed by growth, Figure 20. The convection deforms the segments and we assume that as soon as a segment reaches a maximum length, it gets replaced by a series of smaller segments using some refinement rule (i.e., von Koch, Sierpinski carpet and Peano rules, respectively, for Figure 20a–d). Segment decomposition is made indirectly in the parameter space before curve segments are projected onto the surface. This ensures to keep curves continuous. However, the segments drawn in the parameter space are not geodesics. Note that by contrast, a form freely floating on a surface (i.e., not convected) would not be affected so drastically in its size, as segments are not ‘attached’ to the surface and can freely accommodate surface deformations, while keeping their angles and lengths unchanged. These forms would therefore only be able to sense local changes of curvature of the embedding surface, but not its growth per se.

5.2.3. Dynamic surfaces with boundary growth

The previous fractal forms capture in essence what can be called ubiquitous growth: during organism development, growth may occur everywhere in the organism by local subdivisions and or expansion of existing atomic regions. This is observed in various animal or plant tissues at cellular level. However, other types of growth may be identified at organ or individual level. At macroscopic scales for instance, plants develop their branching structures by apical or edge growth. Rather than subdividing already existing structures (axes, leaf blades, etc.), plants add new components at the extremities or boundaries of these structures if space allows. Such a boundary growth has efficiently been modelled with L-systems in 3-D Euclidean spaces (e.g., Godin et al., Reference Godin, Costes and Sinoquet2005; Prusinkiewicz & Lindenmayer, Reference Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer1990; Prusinkiewicz et al., Reference Prusinkiewicz, Cieslak, Ferraro and Hanan2018). Riemmanian L-system generalises this approach to the modelling of boundary growth on various types of curved embedding spaces.

This may be illustrated by the modelling of leaf growth. The young leaf of the kidney fern (Hymenophyllum nephrophyllum), Figure 21a, has a curved and thin blade that embeds a conspicuous dichotomic venation pattern. As the fern grows, this fractal-like pattern gets branching over and over, suggesting that the growth mainly occurs at the apical edge of the fern and that the venation pattern is progressively built bottom-up as the edge growth progresses.

Here, we model this process using a couple of assumptions. First, we assume that the blade is a growing surface that extends only at the periphery (rim). For this, a NURBS patch is used to model the surface with its growth begin emulated by extending through progressive increase of its parameterisation range. At an initial time t, a number of $N(t)$ of target points are regularly distributed over the blade rim perimeter, from which originates $N(t)$ veins. In a small amount of time $\Delta t$ , the rim grows and convects the $N(t)$ source points with it. As it extends, the $N(t)$ source points get further away from each other. At a given distance from the original source points, each source point is divided into two new source points on the rim, leading to a double number of source points $N(t+\Delta t)$ . This process can be repeated over time.

Our simulation based on Riemaniann L-systems emulates the successive stages of vein ramification over the growing surface. At each time step t, $N(t)$ sources points are uniformly positioned along the rim $R(t)$ at equidistant intervals (as depicted in Figure 21b). Sequential pairs of these source points are associated with corresponding points on the preceding rim $R(t-\Delta t)$ . The geodesic paths are determined using the RiemannLineTo command. As the preceding part of the structure has become fixed with respect to the existing surface at previous time step, the StaticF command can be used to anchor it and apply the surface deformation. Consequently, the shape formation integrates both convected and floating mechanisms. The different steps produced by the simulation, delineating the various stages of vein ramification, are given in Figure 21c, see also Supplementary Movie 3.

6.1.1. Definition

The key feature that a manifold locally looks like $\mathbb {R}^n$ leads naturally to (loosely) define a manifold $\mathcal {M}$ as a set of points that locally possesses coordinates $(u^1,u^2,\cdots ,u^n) = u^\alpha $ , $\alpha = 1,n$ that vary smoothly over the manifold, with values in a connected region of $\mathbb {R}^n$ Footnote ¹ , e.g., (D’Inverno, Reference D’Inverno1992). A local vector basis, called covariant basis, can be attached to each point P of coordinates $u^\alpha $ of $\mathcal {M}$ . Vectors of the covariant basis are usually denoted $\partial _\alpha $ Footnote ² ). In two dimensions, a picture of the coordinate lines and the associated covariant basis is given by Figure 2a where the basis vectors $e_1, e_2$ should be substituted by $\partial _1, \partial _2$ . A Riemannian manifold is a manifold equipped with a (positive definite) metric (e.g., Carroll, Reference Carroll2014). As in this abstract case, the metric cannot be inherited from a higher-dimensional space, one needs to define a proper and smoothly varying metric, i.e., scalar product, at every point P of the manifold:

(54) $$ \begin{align} g_{\alpha \beta} = <\partial_\alpha, \partial_\beta>\!. \end{align} $$

Note that the dependency of the metric on the point P is not indicated here. The metric allows to define how lengths should be measured locally around each point. Consider for example a small segment in the manifold corresponding to a variation $du^\alpha $ of coordinates. Then, the length $ds$ of this small segment is defined by the metric:

(55) $$ \begin{align} ds^2 = g_{\alpha \beta} du^\alpha du^\beta. \end{align} $$

It is important to note that without a metric, the notion of distance is not defined and one cannot rely on the coordinates for that. Two points with close coordinates may actually, depending on the metric, be very far away from each other in terms of distance according to Eq. (55).

6.1.2. Connections and derivatives

Interestingly, however, if a metric measures and compares vectors in the same tangent plane, it does not give per se any means to compare vectors living in different tangent planes. For this, one needs to introduce the additional notion of connection (e.g., Carroll, Reference Carroll2014, p. 95). A connection defines the rate at which the difference of coordinates of two vectors, considered parallel in neighbouring tangent spaces, vary as one tangent space gets closer to the other one and the coordinate difference tends to 0. It can be defined by a series of coefficients, $\Gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\gamma $ , called connection coefficients, specifying how to compute the coordinates of vectors parallel to a given vector in its neighbourhood (D’Inverno, Reference D’Inverno1992, p. 72). Let $\mathbf {X} = X^\alpha \partial _\alpha $ be a vector field evaluated at P of coordinates u ( $= u^\gamma $ ). We define the parallel vector $\mathbf {\bar {X}} = \bar {X}^\alpha \partial _\alpha $ at a neighbouring point of coordinates $u + \delta u$ as

(56) $$ \begin{align} \mathbf{\bar{X}}(u + \delta u) = \mathbf{X}(u)-\Gamma ^\alpha_{\beta \gamma} X^\beta \delta u^\gamma \partial_\alpha. \end{align} $$

This expression defines how the components of a given vector must change to stay parallel to the original vector when one moves on the manifold. Here again, these connection coefficients should be understood as depending smoothly on the point P in the manifold. Using connections, neighbouring vectors can thus be compared by first parallel transporting one vector in the tangent plane of the other (Eq. (56)), and then comparing them. This parallel transport thus makes it possible to define a notion of derivative on the manifold, called covariant derivative. Covariant derivatives quantify the rates of variations of quantities living on the manifold, such as vectors and tensors, in specific directions, independently of the chosen coordinate system. This generalises the notion of directional derivative. If $\mathbf {X} = X^\alpha \partial _\alpha $ denotes a vector field, its covariant derivative $\nabla _\alpha \mathbf {X}$ in the direction of the basis vector $\partial _\alpha $ at P of coordinate u is defined by D’Inverno (Reference D’Inverno1992):

(57) $$ \begin{align} \nabla_\alpha \mathbf{X} = \lim_{\delta u^\alpha \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\delta u^\alpha} \left( \mathbf{X}(u + \delta u) - \mathbf{\bar{X}}(u + \delta u) \right), \end{align} $$

which leads for abstract Riemannian spaces to an expression similar to Eq. (24) for surfaces embedded in $\mathbb {R}^3$ :

(58) $$ \begin{align} \nabla_\alpha \mathbf{X}= (\partial_\alpha X^\beta + X^\gamma \Gamma_{\alpha \gamma}^\beta ) \partial_\beta. \end{align} $$

This expression can be generalised by linearity to the derivative of vector $\mathbf {X}$ in any direction $\mathbf {Y} = Y^\beta \partial _\beta $ in the same tangent plane:

(59) $$ \begin{align} \nabla_{\mathbf{\mathbf{Y}}} \mathbf{X}= Y^\beta \nabla_\beta \mathbf{X}. \end{align} $$

6.1.3. Choice of a specific connection compatible with the metric

The situation is thus as follows: on the one hand we have a metric, defined by coefficients $g_{\alpha \beta }$ , that specifies how to compare vectors in common tangent spaces. On the other hand, we have connection coefficients that correspond to selecting a notion of parallelism on the manifold, i.e., what it means for vectors living in different tangent planes to be parallel. These two notions can be defined independently. However, they interact and it is possible to define connection coefficients so that length and angles of vectors parallel transported along the same curve remains constant. This condition, called metric compatibility, formally links the two notions $\mathbf {\nabla }$ and g by imposing:

(60) $$ \begin{align} \nabla g = 0. \end{align} $$

In addition, if it assumes that the connection coefficients are symmetric in their lower indexes, $\Gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\gamma = \Gamma _{\beta \alpha }^\gamma $ (the connection is said to be torsion free), then it can be shown that there exists a unique connection, called the Levi-Civita connection, that is both metric compatible and torsion free. The connection coefficients, are then called Christoffel symbols, and are completely determined by the metric:

(61) $$ \begin{align} \Gamma_{\alpha \beta}^\gamma = \frac{1}{2}g^{\gamma \lambda}(\partial_\beta g_{\lambda \alpha} + \partial_\alpha g_{\lambda \beta} - \partial_\lambda g_{\alpha \beta}) \end{align} $$

This formula is remarkable in that it shows that the Christoffel symbols can be derived by using only the metric and its first derivatives. Applied to surfaces as a particular case of Riemannian spaces, it shows that the Christoffel symbols can be computed by using only intrinsic properties of the surface (while we actually used the (non-intrinsic) Euclidean scalar product previously in Eq. (21).

6.1.4. Summary

Altogether, once a metric is defined on a manifold, it becomes a Riemannian manifold. However, a suitable notion of differentiability still needs to be added so that spatial variation rates of geometric or physical quantities living on the manifold can be computed independently of the coordinate system. This is called covariant derivative and requires the definition of the additional notion of ‘connection’ between tangent spaces. Interestingly, among all the possible options, the definition of the manifold metric already induces a unique one, the Levi-Civita connection, that has the very natural property to preserve angles and length of vectors parallel transported along the same curve. For this reason, the Levi-Civita connection is often used to define covariant differentiability on manifoldsFootnote ³ .

6.1.5. Consequences for Riemannian L-systems

The extension of Riemannian L-systems defined on curved surfaces presented in Sections 3–5 to abstract Riemannian spaces relies on this more general intrinsic expression of the Christoffel symbols. In particular, moving the turtle forward by a distance l can still be computed as the solution of an IVP defined by Eq. (34) where the Christoffel symbols are now computed using Eq. (61).

Turning in abstract Riemannian space also needs some adjustment. Indeed, Eq. (50) used to take place in the surface tangent plane and use the surface normal to define a rotation axis. In abstract Riemannian space, one no longer can rely on this strategy, as no ‘outer’ space exists to define such a normal. The definition of the rotation axes must thus keep completely intrinsic to the abstract space. In 2-D, one does not need such a rotation axis, as a unique point is necessary to define the centre of rotation. Rotations must thus be made in 2-D with the precaution as before of ortho-normalizing the basis beforehand. In 3-D, the turtle may turn naturally according to its local reference frame $(\mathbf {H}, \mathbf {L}, \mathbf {U})$ that, respectively, locally defined 3 axes of rotations in the curved space. Here again, the local covariant basis carried by the turtle has to be ortho-normalised before applying the corresponding rotations, according to Eq. (50) with updated axes of rotation.

Figure 22.

Beltrami–Poincaré half plane. (a) and (b) Euclidean half plane with uniform isotropic metric, represented by small discs with equal size at every point of the space (representing themselves $ds^2$ ). A geodesic is a straight line (b). (c) and (d) Beltrami–Poincaré half plane. The metric varies vertically ( $u^2$ coordinate), and the geodesic generated at the same point and with the same orientation as in (a) and (b) is a portion of a circle (d). (e) In the Beltrami–Poincaré half plane, all geodesics are circles centred on the $u^1$ -axis. Geodesic starting with a vertical orientation are vertical lines (degenerated circles).

Listing 17.

Geodesics in the Beltrami–Poincaré half plane (see Figure 22d).

To represent the forms constructed in these abstract spaces, we will finally display the $u^\alpha $ coordinates of the abstract Riemannian spaces in our 2-D or 3-D Euclidean world. However, while we apparently observe a 2-D or 3-D world, the Euclidean flat metric at each point of this space is replaced by a metric $g_{\alpha \beta }$ defined by the user that locally distorts space. While the turtle interprets the Lstrings, it produces uv-parameters corresponding to the form description in the curved abstract space coordinates.

The following sections give examples of how to program shapes in 2-D abstract Riemannian spaces using Riemannian L-systems.

6.2.1. Defining an abstract Riemannian space and drawing geodesics

To illustrate the modelling of abstract Riemmanian spaces with Riemannian L-systems, we will first use the Beltrami–Poincaré half plane. Historically, this space has played a fundamental role in the development of non-Euclidean geometry (e.g. Needham, Reference Needham2021). Many of its properties have been thoroughly studied, and we will make use of this knowledge to test our Riemannian L-system algorithms and constructs. In particular, this space has a constant negative Gaussian curvature $\kappa_G = -1$ (hyperbolic space).

At first sight, the Beltrami–Poincaré half plane looks like a Euclidean half plane with Cartesian coordinates $u^\alpha $ , Figure 22a and c. However, the metric is non-Euclidean and is defined at each point as

(62) $$ \begin{align} ds^2 = \frac{1}{(u^2)^2} \delta_{\alpha \beta} du^\alpha du^\beta, \end{align} $$

where $\delta $ is the Kronecker delta, $\delta _{\alpha \beta } = 1$ if $\alpha = \beta $ , and 0 otherwise. The metric spatial distribution is represented in Figure 22c at every point of coordinates $u^\alpha $ by a small disc representing the $ds^2$ for small local variations $(du^1,du^2)$ of the coordinates such that ( $du^1)^2 + (du^2)^2 = \epsilon ^2 $ , epsilon being a small real constant. One can observe that as Eq. (62) specifies, the circles gets bigger as points approach the $u^1$ -axis. This intuitively means that a line crossing this region will be much longer than a line with identical coordinate variations crossing a region further up in the space (i.e., with higher $u^2$ coordinates). Note that a dual representation of the metric, where $ds$ would be considered as a constant at every point, is possible and would provide increasing circle size for increasing values of $du^2$ , reflecting the size of the coordinate space to cross for a constant amount of $ds$ at different locations of the Beltrami–Poincaré plane.

A geodesic in the Euclidean space is a straight line, Figure 22b. In the Beltrami–Poincaré half plane, the geodesic starting at the same coordinates and in the same direction is a portion of a circle whose centre is located on the $u^1$ -axis, Figure 22d. It can be shown that any geodesic in this hyperbolic plane of constant negative curvature is either a circle centred on the $u^1$ -axis or a vertical line, as is illustrated in Figure 22e for different geodesics starting at the same point with different orientations and of the same length (the four uppermost geodesics go beyond the scope of the visible grid).

To compute these geodesics with Riemannian L-systems is no more difficult than drawing straight lines in a Euclidean space, see List. 17. First, the metric is defined by functions $g_{\alpha \beta }$ of the coordinates (here called $u,v$ instead of $u^1,u^2$ ), lines 2–4. The metric is then assembled as a dictionary of functions (the metric is symmetric and then $g_{21}$ need not be defined), line 5. A special type of space object, RiemannianSpace2D, has been defined to represent 2-D abstract Riemannian spaces. At its construction, this object must be given the dictionary of metric functions (line 7). Then after positioning and orienting the turtle (lines 8 and 9), a series of N segments of unit length is drawn, giving rise to a geodesic of length N lunit (lines 12, 14 and 15, here N = 5).

6.2.2. Immersion of an intrinsic geometry in an abstract space

A form specified using L-systems is usually defined in an intrinsic way as only lengths and relative angles between consecutive components are used in its description. The turtle interpretation then immerses this intrinsic description in a specific space, leading to a form with explicit geometry.

In classical L-systems, the turtle embeds the L-system’s intrinsic forms in the Euclidean 3-D space. The form implicit geometry is thus always associated, in a one-to-one way, with a default explicit geometry. In Riemannian L-systems, we can use abstract spaces to embed intrinsic geometries specified by L-systems into various types of curved spaces which will associate different explicit geometries to the original form. While preserving the intrinsic shape, this new embedding results in different explicit geometric shapes, reflecting the curvature the embedding spaces.

To illustrate this fact, in Figure 23, we use a form consisting of a fractal von Koch flake, and move it progressively to the right through an abstract curved space. The space metric linearly depends on the distance to the central point of coordinates $(u^1_0,u^2_0)$ (small reference dot close to each form on figure Figure 23): the metric is small close to the point and increases with the distance to the central point.

(63) $$ \begin{align} ds^2 &= r^2 \delta_{\alpha \beta} du^\alpha du^\beta. \end{align} $$

with

(64) $$ \begin{align} r^2 &= (u^\alpha-u^\alpha_0)(u^\beta-u^\beta_0) \delta_{\alpha \beta}. \end{align} $$

Figure 23.

Different geometric embeddings of the same intrinsic von Koch flake curve. Sequence of snapshots showing a von Koch flake moving progressively from left to right (the fixed point in each snapshot serves as a position reference) in an abstract 2-D space where the metric linearly depends on the distance at the origin (small yellow dot). During this move, the flake is deformed by the metric. Geodesics forming the segments close to the origin tend to be strongly curved, thus deforming the entire flake. At the end of the sequence, the metrics becomes more homogeneous over the entire flake, which is less and less distorted. The dotted line indicate the temporal progression of the snapshots during the move.

Due to curvature spatial inhomogeneity, the geometric embedding varies continuously as a function of the position of the flake in space (Figure 23), Supplementary Movie 4. This suggests that abstract curved spaces could be used to model the deformation of natural objects. We explore this idea in the next section by modelling different types of tropisms on plants.

6.2.3. Modelling growth within heterogeneous substrates, tropism

Various systems, such as roots, veins or pollen tubes, may grow within substrates that are not uniform (i.e., not homogeneous or not isotropic or both) in their physical or chemical contents. Plant shoots for instance, growing within plant canopies, usually progress in a non-uniform light environment and are also subject to the anisotropy of the gravity field. Such interactions are usually mediated by chemical or bio-physical forces, that affect the direction and/or size of the growing elements. Plants respond in general to these forces with a high degree of plasticity, which is responsible for example of tropism phenomena, such as gravitropism (response to gravity), phototropism (response to light), thigmotropism (response to touch or contact), etc.

Models of growth in non-uniform media usually rely on a mechanistic description of the system’s interaction with the substrate. These models take various forms depending on the spatial and temporal scales considered. Recently, for example, multiscale models of tropisms have been proposed (Moulia et al., Reference Moulia, Badel, Bastien, Duchemin and Eloy2022; Moulton et al., Reference Moulton, Oliveri and Goriely2020) and make it possible to integrate various types of tropisms in unified approaches. The models rely on the expression of differential growth at different scales controlled by the sensing of different environmental signals or fields (Jensen, Reference Jensen2021). In this approach, forces of different nature are affecting the plant components during growth, which in turn affect the growth intensity or directions of the branching system itself.

In contrast, we consider here the possibility to model branching system growth (roots, veins and aerial branching system) within a non-uniform substrate (soil, leaf blade and aerial space) in an effective rather than in a mechanistic manner. For this, instead of describing how the substrate non-uniformity impacts the growth through force interaction, we seek to describe a system developing straight axes in a substrate curved by the presence of non-uniformity. This non-uniformity modifies the substrate’s metric, which becomes non-flat, which in turn impacts the development of the growing components, that follows substrate geodesics instead of growing in straight lines.

Figure 24.

Modelling tropism using abstract Riemannian spaces. (a) Simple branching system in a Euclidean plane. (b) Same branching system interpreted in a Beltrami–Poincaré half plane. This simulates a form of ‘gravity attraction’ of the branches. (c) Abstract Riemannian space with point-like source of metric distorsion, simulating shadow-avoiding behaviour of trees.

Let us consider a simple branching structure growing in a flat Euclidean space (Figure 24a). This tree structure is made of straight branches that are represented in the figure as geodesics of the Euclidean plane, i.e., straight lines. At each point of the Euclidean space, the metric is Euclidean and in Cartesian coordinates, this can be expressed as

(65) $$ \begin{align} ds^2 = \delta_{\alpha \beta} du^\alpha du^\beta. \end{align} $$

Now, let us illustrate this with a simple branching system model, in which the metric is a function of points in spaces. We wish to understand how this affects the form being constructed in this space. In Figure 24b, the metric was changed to that of the Beltrami–Poincaré half plane introduced above (Eq. (62)). We observe that the ‘straight’ branches now become portions of circles as they correspond to straightest lines in the curved space, i.e., geodesics of the Beltrami–Poincaré half plane. This mimics (here in a caricatured way) the bending of the branches under the effect of gravity. We observe also that as a side effect the metric ‘compresses’ or ‘stretches’ the length of the branches depending on the intensity of the $ds^2$ : curves at the bottom cross high values of $ds^2$ , represented by the size of the local grey circles, and are much compressed. Curves at the top on the contrary cross small $ds^2$ values and get stretched. This is due to the fact that for a given length L to draw, more increments of coordinates $du^\alpha $ will be needed in the upper part of the half plane than in the lower part to achieve the same length L. Supplementary Movie 5.1 shows the action of a continuous change of the metric (augmenting the strength of the gravity attraction) on the tree structure and that ‘bends’ the tree branches downwards.

By changing the spatial distribution of the metric, one can simulate qualitatively different types of tropisms. Figure 24c and Supplementary Movies 5.2 and 5.3 for instance show how a metric can be defined as a field emanating from a particular source point (yellow sphere on the right) according to Eq. (64). The metric is inversely proportional to the distance from the source point. This curves the space in the way that geodesics bend away from the source point as illustrated by the branches of the trees. This simulates a shadow-avoiding tropism, where the source point could represent a source of shadow in space (due to another plant, to a wall, etc.). Branches then bend away from the shadow to seek for more light. Here again, the length of the branch segments is affected as well by the metric, with the branches in areas with small metric being longer than branches in areas with large metric.

These simulations show that modifying the metric spatially may curve the space such that growing forms ‘look like’ being attracted or repulsed by different type of sources. This bending deformation is coupled with a compression or stretching of the branch segments. Further work must be carried out to explore how these properties can be used to construct effective models of growth in non-uniform substrate, where potentially, similarly to spacetime deformation by the matter it contains in GR, the plant processes themselves could be a source of substrate’s curvature that contributes to locally orient fluxes and/or growth (Jaeger et al., Reference Jaeger, Irons and Monk2008).