1982
DOI: 10.1515/9780691218090
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mechanical Design in Organisms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
145
0
2

Year Published

1996
1996
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 309 publications
(154 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
7
145
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, we present it very tentatively. In this study, we have not considered variation in mechanical and physical properties of the various tissues that compose stems (Wainwright et al, 1976;Kull et al, 1992;Speck, 1992;Niklas, 1993), or in other stem traits such as stem length, internodal distance, or presence of septa at intervals in hollow stems (Spatz et al, 1990). Such details are crucial for understanding biomechanical properties of stems.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, we present it very tentatively. In this study, we have not considered variation in mechanical and physical properties of the various tissues that compose stems (Wainwright et al, 1976;Kull et al, 1992;Speck, 1992;Niklas, 1993), or in other stem traits such as stem length, internodal distance, or presence of septa at intervals in hollow stems (Spatz et al, 1990). Such details are crucial for understanding biomechanical properties of stems.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Apart form the basic assumptions inherently involved in the bending theory of composites (cf. Wainwright et al 1976;Speck et al 1990;Niklas 1992;Vincent 1992) two main additional assumptions were necessary for the model of Tetraxylopteris. These concerned: (i) the mechanical properties in bending of the outer bark-like tissue of the periderm (figure 8e, f ) which is not readily comparable with biomechanically tested modern barks; and (ii) the mechanical contribution of the two lateral branch traces (figure 8e, f ) which are not longitudinally continuous along the stem but depart at relatively wide angles at the nodes.…”
Section: Assumptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, common-sense suggests that of the four factors numbered above, one would expect size (1) and crunch force (4) to be the primary determinants of a predatory mesostigmatid's feeding habit, i.e., the capability of the system. Insect cuticle (and probably other arthropod cuticle) is an excellent material for resisting bending (Wainwright et al 1976), so a substantial force applied is to be expected. Of course for those soil predatory mesostigmatids observed to attack a large worm prey simultaneously in numbers (see Walter and Proctor 2013), size (1) may be less important relative to crunch force (4).…”
Section: The Physics To Explain the Biology Involvedmentioning
confidence: 99%