Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Static and Dynamic Estimation of Flexural Rigidity of Soybean

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Using a clamped-stem cantilever setup, this paper shows that static force-deflection measurements estimate soybean stem flexural rigidity reliably even with branches and leaves attached, while dynamic vibration estimates are biased once fol

desk verdict Useful soybean EI methods paper with a clear foliage effect, but the static EI is an L_net-dependent effective average and the abstract's 'good agreement' is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20229 v1 pith:EWWSU637 submitted 2026-07-22 physics.bio-ph

Akihito Kiyama , Haruka Tomobe , Jisoo Yuk , Sharon Wang , Sunghwan Jung This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords flexuralrigiditysoybeancantileverbeamEuler-BernoullitheorystaticdeflectiontestfreevibrationYoung'smoduluslodging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a simple cantilever setup—a force sensor, a camera, and a clamp—can estimate the flexural rigidity EI of branched soybean stems. It finds that static force-deflection tests produce EI values that stay about the same whether branches and leaves are attached or removed. In contrast, dynamic free-vibration tests agree with static values only when the stem is defoliated and vibrates as a uniform beam; foliage lowers the natural frequency by adding mass and introduces more complex motions. The authors conclude that the static push test is the more practical route for on-site, non-destructive measurement of plant mechanical properties.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Euler-Bernoulli cantilever beam model, expressed through two formulas: static tip deflection Δz = Lnet^3/(3EI) ΔF and first-mode natural frequency ω0 = 3.52 √(EI / (M L^3)). These convert force-deflection or vibration frequency into an estimate of flexural rigidity EI, under the assumption that the stem is uniform, homogeneous, and perfectly clamped. A finite element modal analysis using the same geometry but with randomized leaf mass is used to explain the dynamic discrepancy when foliage is present.

What would settle it

Measure EI on a stem with a pronounced taper or hollow core using the cantilever push test, then compare with a direct three-point bending test on a small cut section of the same stem; if the cantilever estimate diverges systematically from the material-based value as taper or hollowness increases, the uniformity assumption is the limiting step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the Euler-Bernoulli cantilever model, the paper shows that for soybean stems without foliage, static force-deflection estimates (EI = ΔF Lnet^3 / (3Δz)) and dynamic frequency estimates (EI = (ω0/3.52)^2 M L^3) agree in order of magnitude for all four samples. With branches and leaves attached, static EI ratios remain near unity, while dynamic EI drops by factors up to about 3. Finite element simulations with randomized leaf mass reproduce the trend, showing that added foliage mass rather than any change in stem stiffness dominates the frequency shift. Hence the paper claims that static cantilever deflection is insensitive to foliage and suitable for field use.

Load-bearing premise

The stem is treated as a uniform Euler-Bernoulli cantilever with constant cross-section, density, and rigidity, perfectly clamped at the base; soybean stems visibly taper and are partially hollow, so if this uniformity assumption fails, the estimated EI is an effective value that mixes geometry with material stiffness and depends on how the stem is loaded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Static force-deflection on a clamped stem gives EI values that hold with branches and leaves attached, so the method can be used in the field without defoliating plants.
  • Dynamic free-vibration tests yield EI values consistent with static ones only for defoliated stems that vibrate uniformly; the presence of foliage lowers the natural frequency and biases EI estimates by up to a factor of three.
  • The method yields EI directly; converting to Young's modulus E requires separate measurement of inner and outer stem radii at each load location, because soybean stems are tapered and, in places, hollow.
  • The procedure is simple and affordable enough for repeated, non-destructive, in-pot measurements, supporting development of a standard protocol for crop mechanical-property estimation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same cantilever push test could be calibrated for other branched crops such as buckwheat, since the method does not depend on soybean-specific morphology.
  • A practical decision rule could be derived: if the stem's cross-section area varies noticeably along its length, the static EI should be interpreted as an effective structural value rather than a true material property.
  • Because the static test is non-destructive, it could be used to track changes in stem rigidity over a growing season or under water stress, complementing existing phenotyping approaches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates cantilever-based static (force-deflection) and dynamic (free-vibration) methods for estimating flexural rigidity EI of soybean stems. Validation is first performed on a homogeneous polycarbonate beam, then on soybean stems with and without branches/leaves, supplemented by FEM modal analysis with randomized mass distributions. The central claims are that the static cantilever method is practical, on-site applicable, and insensitive to the presence of foliage, whereas the dynamic vibration test is biased by foliage unless the stem responds uniformly. The paper also discusses conversion of EI to Young's modulus E and identifies taper, hollow structure, and hydration as caveats.

Significance. The manuscript addresses a real and current gap: the lack of a simple, standardized, on-site method for estimating the mechanical properties of branched crops such as soybean. Its strengths include the use of two independent measurement principles (static and dynamic), a benchmark against a homogeneous material with known elastic modulus, an explicit data-availability statement, and a candid treatment of several limitations (taper, hollow cross-sections, non-uniform vibration). If the static method's reliability is conclusively established, the contribution would be practically useful for phenotyping and lodging-risk assessment. However, as detailed below, the central claim is weakened by unresolved static–dynamic discrepancies, a lack of L_net-resolved static data, and a partly circular interpretation of the foliage-effect comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2), Section II.B.1, Tables II-III, Fig. 11] The core recommendation is the static cantilever test, but Eq. (2) is exact only for a uniform prismatic cantilever. For tapered and hollow soybean stems (Table II, Fig. 11), the quantity returned is EI_eff(L_net) = L_net^3 / (3 ∫_0^{L_net} (L_net-x)^2/(EI(x)) dx), which depends on loading distance if EI(x) varies. The paper reports only a single averaged (EI)_static per sample in Table III and does not report static EI vs L_net, although static tests were performed at multiple L_net (Table I). The polycarbonate validation (Fig. 5) cannot rule out this effect because that beam is uniform. Without a demonstration that (EI)_static is L_net-independent for soybean stems, the claim that the static method yields a unique 'reliable' EI is unsupported. The authors should report (EI)_static at each L_net and examine any systematic trend.
  2. [Table III, bare-stem static vs dynamic] For bare stems — the case in which both methods are claimed to agree — static and dynamic EI differ by factors of roughly 2.0, 1.26, 1.14, and 2.5 for samples 1–4. With only four samples and no ground-truth EI, this level of disagreement means at least one method is not returning the true EI. The paper describes the agreement as 'reasonable' but does not quantify the discrepancy or its source. A quantitative statement of the disagreement and a discussion of which method is more trustworthy (e.g., by comparing against a known material of similar geometry or an independent three-point bending test) is needed before recommending the static method as a standard.
  3. [Fig. 9, Tables IV-V, Eq. (4)] The claim that static EI is insensitive to foliage and dynamic EI is biased is partly an artifact of applying the uniform-cantilever formula to a branched structure. The dynamic EI of the whole plant in Table IV is computed from Eq. (4) using the total mass M_whole and the main-stem length, an assumption the paper itself argues is invalid for branched plants. Thus the comparison in Fig. 9 contrasts a static EI of the main stem with a dynamic EI that is not a valid effective property. The authors should state this limitation explicitly and temper the conclusion that the static method is 'reliable' while the dynamic method is 'biased'; at present both are effective quantities under different assumptions.
  4. [Section II.C, Fig. 10, Table II] The FEM validation in Fig. 10 uses E=280 MPa fitted from the static test of sample #4 and random mass perturbations of ±1 g, which are comparable to or larger than the internode masses themselves (Table II). The dimensionless frequency-ratio vs mass-ratio relation is probably insensitive to E, but the mass perturbation range appears unphysical and can introduce artifacts (including the ad-hoc absolute-value correction for negative masses). The authors should justify the perturbation range and show that the scatter in Fig. 10 is not driven by this arbitrary parameter.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 5] The phrase 'reasonable agreement within the same order of magnitude' is vague. The static EI (0.00525±0.00039 Nm²) and dynamic range (0.0044–0.0058 Nm²) are given in the text; a direct statement of the ratio (static/dynamic) would be more informative.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption identifies the sample as '#4' while the text refers to sample '#1'. Correct this inconsistency.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The definition of ω_d contains a typo: it should be ω_d = 2π m / (t_{m+1} − t_1) or equivalent. Clarify the relationship between m and the time indices.
  4. [Table VI] The ranges of Young's modulus are very broad (e.g., 8.83–61.9 MPa for sample #1). The text says the E values are 'similar in magnitude regardless of the presence of branches and leaves,' but the ranges overlap only barely. Clarify whether this breadth is physical (R^4 sensitivity) or a measurement artifact.
  5. [Reference [28]] Reference [28] is cited as 'U. S. Darshil, P. R. Thomas, and H. R. Michael' — these are likely D. U. Shah, R. J. Reynolds, and M. H. Ramage. Correct the author names.
  6. [Notation in Table I and Eq. (3)] The symbol M is used for stem mass in Table I and in Eq. (3), while the parenthetical values give whole-plant mass. Make explicit that Eq. (3) uses the clamped stem mass (as stated in the text) and consider denoting whole-plant mass with a different symbol.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: static and dynamic EI are measured independently, and the fitted FEM modulus is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. (EI)_static (Eq. 2) is obtained directly from measured force, deflection, and loading length; (EI)_dynamic (Eq. 4) comes from measured frequency, stem mass, and length. These are operationally independent measurements, and the polycarbonate calibration (Fig. 5) is an external check against a homogeneous beam. The only fitted parameter in the FEM is E = 280 MPa, which the paper states is 'determined from the static bending tests' (Sec. II.C). However, that value is used to compute the dimensionless frequency ratio f0,whole/f0,stem versus sqrt(Mstem/Mwhole) in Fig. 10; since both frequencies scale as sqrt(E) with the same E, the ratio is independent of E, so the fit cannot force the numerical trend. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [15] for maize FE comparisons, [6] for the clamping configuration, [7]-[12] for leaf dynamics) are contextual or methodological support, not the basis of the EI estimates; the central static/dynamic comparison rests on the authors' own measurements. The acknowledged limitations—taper and hollow structure (Sec. IV, Fig. 11)—are validity caveats about what EI means for non-uniform stems, not circularity. The static EI ratio near unity with and without foliage (Fig. 9) is a measurement result of the slope-fitting procedure, not an input to Eq. (2). No step reduces a prediction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on classical beam theory and a uniformity assumption for the stem. The only explicitly tuned input is the FEM stem modulus (280 MPa), taken from the same plant's static tests; the paper's dimensionless frequency-mass comparison is robust to this value. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • FEM Young's modulus for sample #4 = 280 MPa
    Set to the value 'determined from the static bending tests' (Section II.C) for the soybean stem; used as input to FE modal analysis.
  • Linear-fit deflection cutoff = Δz/Lnet ≤ 5%
    Data restricted to deflections below 5% of Lnet (Fig 2, Section II.B.1) to stay in the linear regime; this hand-chosen threshold affects the slope of the ΔF-Δz fit and hence (EI)_static.
  • Random mass perturbation range = -1 to +1 g (absolute value taken)
    Uniform random mass noise applied to each section in the 1,000-case parametric study (Section II.C); chosen by hand, not justified from plant-to-plant variance data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Euler-Bernoulli beam theory applies to the stem at small deflections
    Used to derive Eqs (1)-(4) for static deflection and first-mode frequency of a cantilever.
  • domain assumption Stem is a uniform cantilever: constant EI, constant mass density, uniform cross-section, fixed at the clamp
    Stated in Section II.B.1; contradicted by Fig 11 (tapering, hollow stem).
  • domain assumption The clamped root-side end is a rigid fixed boundary with no rotation
    Cantilever boundary condition in Fig 1(b); any compliance of the clamp would reduce the effective L and bias EI.
  • domain assumption Leaves and branches act as added mass that does not contribute stiffness and is rigidly attached in the dynamic model
    Used in the FEM parametric study (Section II.C) and the mass-ratio scaling in Table V/Fig 10; the paper later discusses the foliage as decoupled dynamics, which partially contradicts a rigid-attachment picture.
  • domain assumption Poisson's ratio of stem = 0.30
    Adopted in the FE model (Section II.C) without measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Static and Dynamic Estimation of Flexural Rigidity of Soybean." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWWSU637

@misc{pith2026260720229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Static and Dynamic Estimation of Flexural Rigidity of Soybean},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWWSU637}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20229}
}
read the original abstract

This paper evaluates a cantilever system as a simple method for measuring the mechanical rigidity (bending rigidity EI or Young's modulus E) of plants. Using soybeans as a test sample -- whose E values have rarely been reported -- we conducted static and dynamic experimental measurements alongside numerical modal analysis. Results showed good agreement in EI values between the static and dynamic tests when branches and leaves were removed, provided the stem responded uniformly. However, the added mass of attached foliage causes complex dynamic interactions, which we analyze through both experimental and numerical approaches. Ultimately, our findings suggest that cantilever force-deflection measurements provide a practical, on-site approach, contributing to the development of an affordable and reliable standard for estimating plant mechanical properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20229 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) A representative soybean plant showing the typi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Force-deflection ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Waveforms obtained through analyzing the high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Flexural rigidity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Numerical setup for the finite element (FE) simu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Frequency response of plant sample #4 without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Frequency response of plant sample #4 with branches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Displacement traces for two points on soybean sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Parametric numerical study investigating the re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The ratio of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Cross-sectional images of plant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    macroscopic

    Static test The static test was conducted based on a standard cantilever bending configuration [6]. The one side of the sample (i.e., the root-side stem) is clamped horizontally to fix the overall structure. During the static test, we applied the force ∆F to the clamped stem using a small indenter mounted on a force sensor, while monitoring the deflection...

  2. [2]

    In this test, we set the point of the finger excitation at the same location as Lnet in the static test for consistency

    Dynamic test After the static test, we then gently sway the stem with a finger to initiate free vibration. In this test, we set the point of the finger excitation at the same location as Lnet in the static test for consistency. For the uniform (homo- geneous) cantilever beam, Euler-Bernoulli beam theory predicts that the first mode of the fundamental freq...

  3. [3]

    In most cases, the dynamic tests resulted in periodic vibration of the plant stem as shown in Figure 3

    Bending rigidity EI of the soybean plant We first consider the simplest case, i.e., the soybean plant without side branches and leaves. In most cases, the dynamic tests resulted in periodic vibration of the plant stem as shown in Figure 3. Figure 6 shows the fundamental frequency f0 obtained by the dynamic tests 6 without branches and leaves (soybean samp...

  4. [4]

    The fundamental frequency was f0 ≈ 4.76 ± 0.134 Hz

    Effects of leaves/branches Figure 8 shows that the fundamental frequency f0 ob- tained by dynamic tests for plants with branches and leaves (soybean sample #1). The fundamental frequency was f0 ≈ 4.76 ± 0.134 Hz. The frequency value does not change much for various Lnet, similar to the trend re- ported for the plant without branches and leaves. How- ever,...

  5. [5]

    P. M. Berry, M. Sterling, J. H. Spink, C. J. Baker, R. Sylvester-Bradley, S. J. Mooney, A. R. Tams, and A. R. Ennos, Understanding and reducing lodging in ce- reals, Advances in Agronomy 84, 217 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    F. J. Piñera-Chavez, P. M. Berry, M. J. Foulkes, G. Molero, and M. P. Reynolds, Optimizing phenotyping methods to evaluate lodging risk for wheat, Field Crops Research 258, 107933 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    C. J. Baker, P. M. Berry, J. H. Spink, R. Sylvester- Bradley, J. M. Griffin, R. K. Scott, and R. W. Clare, A method for the assessment of the risk of wheat lodging, Journal of Theoretical Biology 194, 587 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    Ookawa, K

    T. Ookawa, K. Inoue, M. Matsuoka, T. Ebitani, T. Takarada, T. Yamamoto, T. Ueda, T. Yokoyama, C. Sugiyama, S. Nakaba, R. Funada, H. Kato, M. Kanekatsu, K. Toyota, T. Motobayashi, M. Vazirzan- jani, S. Tojo, and T. Hirasawa, Increased lodging re- sistance in long-culm, low-lignin gh2 rice for improved feed and bioenergy production, Scientific Reports 4, 10...

    doi:10.1038/srep06567 2014

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    P. F. Brune, A. Baumgarten, S. J. McKay, F. Technow, and J. J. Podhiny, A biomechanical model for maize root lodging, Plant and Soil 422, 397 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Tomobe, K

    H. Tomobe, K. Fujisawa, and A. Murakami, Experiments and FE-analysis of 2-D root-soil contact problems based on node-to-segment approach, Soils and Foundations 59, 1860 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    S. Gart, J. E. Mates, C. M. Megaridis, and S. Jung, Droplet impacting a cantilever: A leaf-raindrop system, Physical Review Applied 3, 044019 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Bhosale, E

    Y. Bhosale, E. Esmaili, K. Bhar, and S. Jung, Bending, twisting and flapping leaf upon raindrop impact, Bioin- spiration & Biomimetics 15, 036007 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    J. Yuk, J. Lee, C. Graves, and S. Jung, Visual measure- ments of fluttering leaf to quantify internal water stress, in 2022 ASABE Annual International Meeting (Ameri- can Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers,

    2022

  6. [14]

    S. Jung, J. Yuk, and M. Fuchs, Measuring fluttering fre- quency of a leaf under water stress, ESS Open Archive (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Fuchs, A

    M. Fuchs, A. N. Hooshanginejad, J. Yuk, and S. Jung, Fluttering leaves to quantify leaf’s stiffness, in 2021 ASABE Annual International Virtual Meeting (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2021) p. 1

    2021

  8. [16]

    J. Yuk, A. Leem, K. Thomas, and S. Jung, Leaf-inspired rain-energy harvesting device, Physical Review Applied 25, 034049 (2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    P. M. Berry, J. Spink, M. Sterling, and A. A. Pickett, Methods for rapidly measuring the lodging resistance of wheat cultivars, Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 189, 390 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    A. Loay, S. Wenhuan, R. Daniel, and C. Douglas, The elastic modulus for maize stems, Plant Methods 14, 1 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Nakashima, H

    T. Nakashima, H. Tomobe, T. Morigaki, M. Yang, H. Ya- maguchi, Y. Kato, W. Guo, V. Sharma, H. Kimura, and H. Morikawa, Non‑destructive high‑throughput measure- ment of elastic‑viscous properties of maize using a novel ultra‑micro sensor array and numerical validation, Scien- t...

    2023

  12. [20]

    C. J. Baker, The development of a theoretical model for the windthrow of plants, Journal of Theoretical Biology 175, 355 (1995)

    1995

  13. [21]

    B. R. Gaiotti and B. S. Smith, P-delta analysis of Build- ing Structures, Journal of Structural Engineering 115, 755 (1989)

    1989

  14. [22]

    B. A. Gupta and H. Krawinkler, Dynamic P-delta effects for flexible inelastic steel structures, Journal of Structural Engineering 126, 145 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Bird and L

    R. Bird and L. Encarnação, Evaluation of the P- ∆ ( P-Delta ) effect in columns and frames us- ing the two-cycle method based on the solution of the beam-column differential equation, MethodsX 11, 10.1016/j.mex.2023.102248 (2023). 11

    2023

  16. [24]

    Von Forell, D

    G. Von Forell, D. Robertson, S. Y. Lee, and D. D. Cook, Preventing lodging in bioenergy crops: A biomechanical analysis of maize stalks suggests a new approach, Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 4367 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Huang, W

    J. Huang, W. Liu, F. Zhou, Y. Peng, and N. Wang, Me- chanical properties of maize fibre bundles and their con- tribution to lodging resistance, Biosystems Engineering 151, 298 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    M. Shu, L. Zhou, X. Gu, Y. Ma, Q. Sun, G. Yang, and C. Zhou, Monitoring of maize lodging using multi- temporal Sentinel-1 SAR data, Advances in Space Re- search 65, 470 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    P. M. Berry, C. J. Baker, D. Hatley, R. Dong, X. Wang, G. A. Blackburn, Y. Miao, M. Sterling, and J. D. Whyatt, Development and application of a model for calculating the risk of stem and root lodging in maize, Field Crops Research 262, 108037 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Ottesen, J

    M. Ottesen, J. Carter, R. Hall, N. W. Liu, and D. D. Cook, Development and stochastic validation of a pa- rameterized model of maize stalk flexure and buckling, In Silico Plants 5, 1 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Oduntan, B

    Y. Oduntan, B. Kunduru, K. Tabaracci, E. Mengistie, A. G. McDonald, R. S. Sekhon, and D. J. Robertson, The effect of structural bending properties versus mate- rial bending properties on maize stalk lodging, European Journal of Agronomy 159, 127262 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    K. J. Niklas and F. C. Moon, Flexural stiffness and mod- ulus of elasticity of flower stalks from allium sativum as measured by multiple resonance frequency spectra, American Journal of Botany 75, 1517 (1988)

    1988

  23. [31]

    Ogilvie and D

    G. Ogilvie and D. Cook, Measuring the Effects of the Leaf Blades and Leaf Sheaths on the Dynamic Behavior of Maize, 2025 Intermountain Engineering, Technology and Computing (IETC) , 1 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    U. S. Darshil, P. R. Thomas, and H. R. Michael, The strength of plants: theory and experimental methods to measure the mechanical properties of stems, Journal of Experimental Botany 68, 4497– (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Marco, S

    C. Marco, S. Florian, S. Thomas, and S. Olga, Effect of drought stress on bending stiffness in petioles of caladium bicolor (araceae), American Journal of Botany 100, 2141 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    C. V. Piper and W. J. Morse, The soy bean: history, varieties and field studies (Wash- ington : G.P.O., 1967)

    1967

  27. [35]

    R. C. Umburanas, J. Kawakami, E. A. Ainsworth, J. L. Favarin, L. Z. Anderle, D. Dourado-Neto, and K. Re- ichardt, Changes in soybean cultivars released over the past 50 years in southern Brazil, Scientific Reports 12, 1 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Yamaguchi, T

    N. Yamaguchi, T. Sayama, H. Yamazaki, T. Miyoshi, and M. Ishimoto, Quantitative trait loci associated with lodg- ing tolerance in soybean cultivar ‘ Toyoharuka ’, Breeding Science 64, 300 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    W. Li, L. Wang, H. Xue, M. Zhang, H. Song, M. Qin, and Q. Dong, Molecular and genetic basis of plant ar- chitecture in soybean, Frontiers in Plant Science 15, 1 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kawasaki, Y

    Y. Kawasaki, Y. Tanaka, K. Katsura, and L. C. Pur- cell, Yield and dry matter productivity of Japanese and US soybean cultivars, Plant Production Science 1008, 1 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Brown and A

    D. Brown and A. J. Cox, Innovative uses of video analy- sis, The Physics Teacher 47, 145 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    A. V. Knyazev, M. E. Argentati, I. Lashuk, and E. E. Ovtchinnikov, Block Locally Optimal Preconditioned Eigenvalue Xolvers (BLOPEX) in hypre and PETSc, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 29, 2224 (2007), arXiv:0705.2626

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    F. A. Michael, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design (Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    Guzzi, E

    F. Guzzi, E. Parrotta, S. Zaccone, T. Limongi, G. Cuda, and G. Perozziello, Microfluidics for Cellular Applications (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    P. J. Banks, Anticlastic curvature in anisotropic beams, The Aeronautical Journal 78, 525–528 (1974)

    1974

  36. [44]

    G. J. McShane, M. Boutchich, A. Srikantha Phani, D. F. Moore, and T. J. Lu, Young’s modulus measurement of thin-film materials using micro-cantilevers, Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 16, 1926 (2006)

    1926

  37. [45]

    de Langre, Plant vibrations at all scales: a review, Journal of Experimental Botany 70, 3521 (2019)

    E. de Langre, Plant vibrations at all scales: a review, Journal of Experimental Botany 70, 3521 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    R. R. Sola-Guirado, R. Luque-Mohedano, S. Tombesi, and G. Blanco-Roldan, Effect of leaves in the dynamic response of olive tree branches and their computational model, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 203, 107490 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Y. Wu, S. Wang, D. Zhou, C. Xing, Y. Zhang, and Z. Cai, Evaluation of elastic modulus and hardness of crop stalks cell walls by nano-indentation, Bioresource Technology 101, 2867 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Y. Xu, R. Zhang, Z. Hou, C. Yan, X. Xia, C. Ma, S. Dong, and Z. Gong, Mechanical properties of soybean plants under various plant densities, Crop and Pasture Science 71, 249 (2020). 12 TABLE VII. List of data subjected to the dynamic test. Sample number, location of sway ( Lne...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.