4.6 Article

Optimality of the Munch mechanism for translocation of sugars in plants

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE
Volume 8, Issue 61, Pages 1155-1165

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0578

Keywords

phloem transport; sugar translocation; microfluidics; biomimetics; osmotic pumping

Funding

  1. Danish National Research Foundation [74]
  2. Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
  3. Materials Research Science and Engineering Centre at Harvard University
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1021779] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Plants require effective vascular systems for the transport of water and dissolved molecules between distal regions. Their survival depends on the ability to transport sugars from the leaves where they are produced to sites of active growth; a flow driven, according to the Munch hypothesis, by osmotic gradients generated by differences in sugar concentration. The length scales over which sugars are produced (L-leaf) and over which they are transported (L-stem), as well as the radius r of the cylindrical phloem cells through which the transport takes place, vary among species over several orders of magnitude; a major unsettled question is whether the Munch transport mechanism is effective over this wide range of sizes. Optimization of translocation speed predicts a scaling relation between radius r and the characteristic lengths as r similar to (L-leaf L-stem) 1/3. Direct measurements using novel in vivo techniques and biomimicking microfluidic devices support this scaling relation and provide the first quantitative support for a unified mechanism of sugar translocation in plants spanning several orders of magnitude in size. The existence of a general scaling law for phloem dimensions provides a new framework for investigating the physical principles governing the morphological diversity of plants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available