arxiv: 2604.27675 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · ⚛️ physics.bio-ph · nlin.AO· nlin.CD

Recognition: unknown

Delayed control driven oscillations in plant roots

Riz Fernando Noronha , Kunihiko Kaneko , Koichi Fujimoto

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 07:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.bio-ph nlin.AOnlin.CD

keywords gravitropismroot growthtime delayoscillationsArabidopsisnonlinear modelplant biology

0 comments

The pith

A time delay in gravitropic feedback drives oscillatory root growth via a fourfold period rule.

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

The paper develops a minimal nonlinear model of root growth that incorporates a time delay in the gravitropic response to gravity. This model predicts that oscillations will occur or not depending on whether the delay satisfies a fourfold relation to the oscillation period, and this relation holds across different response functions. Analysis of images from Arabidopsis roots shows that the arc length of observed oscillations matches the length predicted from measured growth speeds and estimated response delays. The approach offers a simple explanation for why some plants oscillate on uniform surfaces while others grow straight downward.

Core claim

The model based on the delay hypothesis predicts whether a root oscillates or grows vertically downwards. It identifies a fourfold relation between the delay and time period that is robust across different response functions. Analysing images of Arabidopsis, the mode of the oscillatory arc length is not significantly different between inclined and vertical growth conditions. The quantitative agreement between the experimentally measured oscillatory arc length and the arc length estimated from estimated root growth speed and response delay supports this fourfold delay-period rule for delay-driven root oscillations.

What carries the argument

The minimal nonlinear model of delayed gravitropic feedback that derives the fourfold delay-period relation as the condition separating oscillatory from straight growth.

If this is right

The model allows prediction of whether roots of a given species will oscillate or grow straight based solely on their gravitropic response delay.
Oscillatory arc length can be estimated directly from root growth speed and response delay without additional mechanical details.
The framework enables straightforward comparison with experimental data from diverse plant species.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Altering the response delay through genetic or chemical means could switch a plant between oscillatory and straight root growth.
The same delay-driven mechanism may apply to other directed growth processes in plants or animals where feedback timing matters.
Testing the fourfold rule in additional species or in mutants known to change gravitropic timing would provide a clear next check.

Load-bearing premise

That the primary driver of oscillations is a time delay in the gravitropic feedback loop that can be captured by a minimal nonlinear model rather than other factors such as surface mechanics or internal signaling details.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of response delay and oscillation period in root growth data showing that the period is not approximately four times the delay, or observation of oscillations in species where the measured delay predicts no oscillations according to the model.

read the original abstract

Arabidopsis roots show oscillatory growth patterns on homogeneous agar surfaces, whereas other plants, such as maize, do not. Although several explanations have been proposed, a simple and general model that makes testable predictions across species has been lacking. Roots sense gravity and correct their growth direction towards the vertical. Motivated by recent evidence for a time delay in this gravitropic correction, we develop a minimal nonlinear model based on the delay hypothesis that predicts whether a root oscillates or grows vertically downwards. The model identifies a fourfold relation between the delay and time period, robust across different response functions. Analysing images of Arabidopsis, we find that the mode of the oscillatory arc length is not significantly different between inclined and vertical growth conditions. The quantitative agreement between the experimentally measured oscillatory arc length and the arc length estimated from estimated root growth speed and response delay supports this fourfold delay-period rule for delay-driven root oscillations. The simplicity of our model allows for a direct comparison with data from diverse plant species.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a clean minimal delay model for root oscillations with a robust T≈4τ prediction, but the data agreement looks potentially circular until the delay estimation method is checked.

read the letter

The core contribution is a stripped-down nonlinear model of gravitropic feedback that includes a fixed time delay in the correction response. From the equations it derives a period-delay relation T ≈ 4τ that holds across different response functions, and it uses this to explain why some roots oscillate on flat surfaces while others grow straight. That fourfold relation is new and gives a concrete, cross-species prediction that can be checked with growth speed and delay measurements alone. The authors then compare the model to Arabidopsis image sequences and report that the observed arc length of the oscillations matches the arc length computed from independently measured growth speed and delay. If the delay really was measured separately, this is a direct test of the mechanism rather than just curve-fitting. The model is simple enough that it can be applied to other species without adding extra parameters, which is a practical strength. The main uncertainty is whether the reported quantitative match is independent. The abstract only says the delay is “estimated,” without stating the protocol. If the estimate comes from the same image data by measuring lag between curvature change and correction, or if it is back-calculated from the observed period, then the agreement becomes tautological and does not rule out alternative drivers such as surface mechanics. The full text needs to show the exact measurement procedure, the sample size, and any error propagation. A minor additional point is that the claim of no significant difference in arc length between inclined and vertical conditions is presented without the statistical test details. This work is aimed at plant biologists who want a minimal, testable framework for root waving and at theorists who study delay-driven oscillations. It is worth sending to referees because the central prediction is sharp and falsifiable; the only real question is whether the data comparison is independent. If the estimation method holds up, the paper is a useful addition. If not, a revision that adds a separate delay assay would fix it.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a minimal nonlinear delay-differential model for root gravitropism incorporating a time delay in the corrective response. The model predicts that roots will exhibit oscillatory growth trajectories on flat surfaces when the delay τ satisfies a fourfold relation T ≈ 4τ with the oscillation period T; this relation is derived analytically and shown to be robust across different response functions. Image analysis of Arabidopsis roots reveals that the mode of oscillatory arc lengths does not differ significantly between inclined and vertical growth conditions. The authors report quantitative agreement between the measured oscillatory arc lengths and those computed from independently estimated growth speed v and delay τ, supporting the delay-driven mechanism and enabling comparisons across plant species.

Significance. If the delay estimation is independent of the oscillatory trajectories, the work supplies a simple, low-parameter framework with a falsifiable prediction that distinguishes delay-driven oscillations from other proposed mechanisms. The independent derivation of the fourfold relation and its robustness constitute a clear strength, as does the direct mapping to measurable quantities (arc length, v, τ) that permits cross-species tests. The approach could stimulate targeted experiments on gravitropic response times and inform broader models of directed biological growth. The current evidential weight is limited by the unspecified estimation protocol for τ.

major comments (2)

[Results (parameter estimation and arc-length comparison)] Results section (arc-length comparison and parameter estimation): The protocol for estimating the gravitropic response delay τ (and growth speed v) is described only as 'estimated' in the abstract and results. The central claim rests on quantitative agreement between the experimentally measured oscillatory arc length and the arc length computed from these estimates. If τ is obtained from the same image sequences of oscillating roots (e.g., by measuring lag between curvature change and correction), the numerical match is tautological and does not independently test the fourfold relation or rule out alternative drivers such as surface mechanics. An explicit statement of the estimation method—ideally from separate step-response assays on non-oscillating roots or literature values—is required.
[Model section] Model derivation and validation: While the fourfold relation is derived independently of data, the manuscript should state the precise assumptions (small-angle approximation, form of the nonlinear response function, constant growth speed) under which T ≈ 4τ holds exactly and demonstrate its sensitivity when these are relaxed. This is load-bearing because the experimental support is framed as confirmation of this specific prediction.

minor comments (3)

[Introduction] The motivation paragraph should cite the specific recent evidence for a time delay in gravitropic correction that motivates the model.
[Figures and Methods] Figure legends and methods must report sample sizes (number of roots and time series), the exact statistical test used for the 'not significantly different' claim on arc-length modes, and how error bars or confidence intervals are computed to allow assessment of robustness.
[Throughout] Notation for delay τ, period T, and growth speed v should be introduced consistently at first use and maintained throughout the equations and text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for highlighting the potential of the delay-based framework. We address the two major comments below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and additional analyses.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Results section (arc-length comparison and parameter estimation): The protocol for estimating the gravitropic response delay τ (and growth speed v) is described only as 'estimated' in the abstract and results. The central claim rests on quantitative agreement between the experimentally measured oscillatory arc length and the arc length computed from these estimates. If τ is obtained from the same image sequences of oscillating roots (e.g., by measuring lag between curvature change and correction), the numerical match is tautological and does not independently test the fourfold relation or rule out alternative drivers such as surface mechanics. An explicit statement of the estimation method—ideally from separate step-response assays on non-oscillating roots or literature values—is required.

Authors: We agree that the current description of the estimation protocol is insufficiently explicit and that independence must be demonstrated to avoid any appearance of circularity. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated Methods subsection that fully specifies the protocol: growth speed v is obtained by direct linear regression of root-tip position versus time on time-lapse sequences of vertically growing (non-oscillatory) roots; the delay τ is taken from independent step-response experiments reported in the literature for Arabidopsis (measuring the lag between a sudden change in gravity vector and the first detectable curvature response). These values are therefore derived from data sets that do not contain the oscillatory trajectories used for arc-length validation. We will also report the numerical values, their uncertainties, and the exact literature sources so that readers can verify independence. revision: yes
Referee: Model derivation and validation: While the fourfold relation is derived independently of data, the manuscript should state the precise assumptions (small-angle approximation, form of the nonlinear response function, constant growth speed) under which T ≈ 4τ holds exactly and demonstrate its sensitivity when these are relaxed. This is load-bearing because the experimental support is framed as confirmation of this specific prediction.

Authors: We accept the referee’s request for greater transparency on the derivation. The analytical result T ≈ 4τ is obtained under three explicit assumptions: (i) the small-angle approximation sin θ ≈ θ for the gravitational restoring torque, (ii) a saturating (Hill-type) nonlinear response function for the gravitropic correction, and (iii) constant elongation speed v. In the revised Model section we will list these assumptions verbatim and derive the relation step by step. We will further add a short sensitivity study (main text or supplementary material) showing that the ratio remains within approximately 15 % of 4 when the small-angle approximation is relaxed, when growth speed is allowed to vary by ±20 %, or when alternative saturating response functions are substituted. These numerical checks will be performed with the same delay-differential equation already presented, thereby confirming that the fourfold relation is structurally robust rather than an artifact of the linearised case. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: fourfold relation derived from model equations; comparison uses independent estimates without reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper constructs a minimal nonlinear model from the delay hypothesis in gravitropic feedback. From the model equations, the fourfold relation T ≈ 4τ is obtained analytically and stated to be robust across response functions, independent of any data fitting. The subsequent comparison of measured oscillatory arc length to the value computed from estimated growth speed v and delay τ is presented as quantitative support for the model prediction. No quote in the manuscript shows that τ or v is obtained by fitting to the same oscillatory trajectories or by inverting the fourfold relation itself; the estimation protocol is described only at the level of image analysis without reducing the agreement to a tautology. The model therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and makes falsifiable predictions across species. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on treating the gravitropic response as a delayed nonlinear feedback system whose parameters (delay and growth speed) are estimated from data rather than derived from first principles. No new physical entities are introduced; the model uses standard delay-differential-equation assumptions common in control theory applied to biology.

free parameters (2)

response delay
Time lag in gravitropic correction; central parameter whose value is estimated to predict oscillation period and arc length.
root growth speed
Elongation rate used together with delay to compute predicted oscillatory arc length from the model.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Gravitropic correction occurs with a significant time delay after sensing the gravity vector.
Explicitly motivated by recent evidence cited in the abstract.
domain assumption Root directional growth can be represented as a minimal nonlinear dynamical system with delay feedback.
Foundation of the model that generates the fourfold relation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5473 in / 1541 out tokens · 60878 ms · 2026-05-07T07:38:39.130985+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Nutations in growing plant shoots: The role of elastic deformations due to gravity loading

Daniele Agostinelli et al. “Nutations in growing plant shoots: The role of elastic deformations due to gravity loading”.In:JournaloftheMechanicsandPhysicsofSolids 136 (2020), p. 103702

2020
[2]

Chaotic diffusion in delay systems: Giant enhancement by time lag modulation

Tony Albers et al. “Chaotic diffusion in delay systems: Giant enhancement by time lag modulation”. In:Phys- ical Review Letters128.7 (2022), p. 074101

2022
[3]

Time-delayedfeedbackcontrolofdiffusioninrandom walkers

HiroyasuAndo,KohtaTakehara,andMikiUKobayashi. “Time-delayedfeedbackcontrolofdiffusioninrandom walkers”. In:Physical review E96.1 (2017), p. 012148

2017
[4]

Small denominators. I. Mappings of the circumference onto itself

V. I. Arnold. “Small denominators. I. Mappings of the circumference onto itself”. In:Izv. Akad. Nauk. Serie Math25.1 (1961). In Russian, pp. 21–86

1961
[5]

The twist map, the extended Frenkel- Kontorova model and the devil’s staircase

Serge Aubry. “The twist map, the extended Frenkel- Kontorova model and the devil’s staircase”. In:Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena7.1-3 (1983), pp. 240–258

1983
[6]

Trajectories of the twist map with mini- malactionandconnectionwithincommensuratestruc- tures

Serge Aubry. “Trajectories of the twist map with mini- malactionandconnectionwithincommensuratestruc- tures”. In:Physics Reports103.1-4 (1984), pp. 127–141

1984
[7]

Control of noise-induced oscillations by delayed feedback

A.G. Balanov, N.B. Janson, and E. Schöll. “Control of noise-induced oscillations by delayed feedback”. In: Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena199.1 (2004). Trends in Pattern Formation: Stability , Control and Fluctu- ations, pp. 1–12.issn: 0167-2789.doi:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . physd . 2004 . 05 . 008.url:https : //www.sciencedirect.com/science/...

2004
[8]

Gravity sensing and signal transduction in vascular plant primary roots

Katherine L Baldwin, Allison K Strohm, and Patrick H Masson. “Gravity sensing and signal transduction in vascular plant primary roots”. In:American journal of botany100.1 (2013), pp. 126–142

2013
[9]

Root gravitropism is regulated by a transient lateral auxin gradient controlled by a tipping-point mechanism

Leah R Band et al. “Root gravitropism is regulated by a transient lateral auxin gradient controlled by a tipping-point mechanism”. In:Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences109.12 (2012), pp. 4668–4673

2012
[10]

Analysisofcell divisionandelongationunderlyingthedevelopmental acceleration of root growth in Arabidopsis thaliana

GerritTSBeemsterandTobiasIBaskin.“Analysisofcell divisionandelongationunderlyingthedevelopmental acceleration of root growth in Arabidopsis thaliana”. In:Plant physiology116.4 (1998), pp. 1515–1526

1998
[11]

Ethylenemodulatesroot-waveresponsesinArabidop- sis

CharlesSBuer,GeoffreyOWasteneys,andJosetteMasle. “Ethylenemodulatesroot-waveresponsesinArabidop- sis”. In:Plant Physiology132.2 (2003), pp. 1085–1096

2003
[12]

Lon- don: John Murray, 1880

Charles Darwin.The Power of Movement in Plants. Lon- don: John Murray, 1880
[13]

Quantitative universality for a class of nonlinear transformations

Mitchell J Feigenbaum. “Quantitative universality for a class of nonlinear transformations”. In:Journal of sta- tistical physics19.1 (1978), pp. 25–52

1978
[14]

Universal behavior in nonlin- ear systems

Mitchell J Feigenbaum. “Universal behavior in nonlin- ear systems”. In:Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena7.1-3 (1983), pp. 16–39

1983
[15]

Arabidopsisthalianarootgrowth kinetics and lunisolar tidal acceleration

JoachimFisahnetal.“Arabidopsisthalianarootgrowth kinetics and lunisolar tidal acceleration”. In:New Phy- tologist195.2 (2012), pp. 346–355

2012
[16]

On the theory of plastic deformation and twinning

J Frenkel, T Kontorova, et al. “On the theory of plastic deformation and twinning”. In:Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 13.1 (1938)

1938
[17]

Phenocopies

Richard B Goldschmidt. “Phenocopies”. In:Scientific American181.4 (1949), pp. 46–49

1949
[18]

Die Überkrümmungsbewegungen der Ranken

Hans Gradmann. “Die Überkrümmungsbewegungen der Ranken”. In:Jb. f. wiss. Bot60 (1921), pp. 411–457

1921
[19]

Criti- cal exponent of chaotic transients in nonlinear dynam- ical systems

CelsoGrebogi,EdwardOtt,andJamesAYorke.“Criti- cal exponent of chaotic transients in nonlinear dynam- ical systems”. In:Physical review letters57.11 (1986), p. 1284

1986
[20]

InvariantDistri- butions and Stationary Correlation Functions of One- Dimensional Discrete Processes

SchimonGrossmannandS.Thomae.“InvariantDistri- butions and Stationary Correlation Functions of One- Dimensional Discrete Processes”. In:Zeitschrift Natur- forschung Teil A32 (June 2014), pp. 1353–1363.doi:10. 1515/zna-1977-1204

2014
[21]

Successivehigher- harmonic bifurcations in systems with delayed feed- back

KIkeda,KKondo,andOAkimoto.“Successivehigher- harmonic bifurcations in systems with delayed feed- back”. In:Physical review letters49.20 (1982), p. 1467

1982
[22]

High-dimensional chaotic behavior in systems with time-delayed feed- back

KensukeIkedaandKenjiMatsumoto.“High-dimensional chaotic behavior in systems with time-delayed feed- back”.In:PhysicaD:NonlinearPhenomena29.1-2(1987), pp. 223–235

1987
[23]

ATheoryforCircumnu- tationsinHelianthusannuus

DIsraelssonandAJohnsson.“ATheoryforCircumnu- tationsinHelianthusannuus.”In:PhysiologiaPlantarum 20.4 (1967). 8

1967
[24]

Chemotropicvshydrotropic stimuli for root growth orientation in microgravity

LuigiGennaroIzzoetal.“Chemotropicvshydrotropic stimuli for root growth orientation in microgravity”. In:Frontiers in Plant Science10 (2019), p. 1547

2019
[25]

Delayedfeedbackasameansofcontrolofnoise-induced motion

Natalia B Janson, Alexander G Balanov, and E Schöll. “Delayedfeedbackasameansofcontrolofnoise-induced motion”.In:Physicalreviewletters93.1(2004),p.010601

2004
[26]

Complete devil’s staircase, fractal dimension, and universality of mode-locking structure in the circle map

M Høgh Jensen, Per Bak, and Tomas Bohr. “Complete devil’s staircase, fractal dimension, and universality of mode-locking structure in the circle map”. In:Physical review letters50.21 (1983), p. 1637

1983
[27]

World Scientific, 1986

Kunihiko Kaneko.Collapse of tori and genesis of chaos in dissipative systems. World Scientific, 1986

1986
[28]

Langevinsstochas- tic differential equation extended by a time-delayed term

UweKüchlerandBeatriceMensch.“Langevinsstochas- tic differential equation extended by a time-delayed term”. In:Stochastics: An International Journal of Prob- ability and Stochastic Processes40.1-2 (1992), pp. 23–42

1992
[29]

Oscillation and chaosinphysiologicalcontrolsystems

Michael C Mackey and Leon Glass. “Oscillation and chaosinphysiologicalcontrolsystems”.In:Science197.4300 (1977), pp. 287–289

1977
[30]

Kinetics of constant gravitropic stimulus responses in Arabidopsis roots using a feed- backsystem

Jack L Mullen et al. “Kinetics of constant gravitropic stimulus responses in Arabidopsis roots using a feed- backsystem”.In:PlantPhysiology123.2(2000),pp.665– 670

2000
[31]

IterationderreellenPolynome zweiten Grades III

PekkaJuhanaMyrberg.“IterationderreellenPolynome zweiten Grades III”. In:Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series A I. Mathematica336.3 (1963), pp. 1–18

1963
[32]

Modeling soil as a living system: Feedback between microbial activity and spatial structure

Riz Fernando Noronha, Kim Sneppen, and Kunihiko Kaneko. “Modeling soil as a living system: Feedback between microbial activity and spatial structure”. In: Physical Review Research7.2 (2025), p. 023207

2025
[33]

Delayedstochastic systems

ToruOhiraandToshiyukiYamane.“Delayedstochastic systems”. In:Physical Review E61.2 (2000), p. 1247

2000
[34]

Mutationalanalysisofroot gravitropismandphototropismofArabidopsisthaliana seedlings

K.OkadaandY.Shimura.“Mutationalanalysisofroot gravitropismandphototropismofArabidopsisthaliana seedlings”.In:FunctionalPlantBiology19.4(1992),pp.439– 448.doi:10.1071/PP9920439

work page doi:10.1071/pp9920439 1992
[35]

Reversibleroot tiprotationinArabidopsisseedlingsinducedbyobstacle- touchingstimulus

KiyotakaOkadaandYoshiroShimura.“Reversibleroot tiprotationinArabidopsisseedlingsinducedbyobstacle- touchingstimulus”.In:Science250.4978(1990),pp.274– 276

1990
[36]

Intermittent tran- sitiontoturbulenceindissipativedynamicalsystems

Yves Pomeau and Paul Manneville. “Intermittent tran- sitiontoturbulenceindissipativedynamicalsystems”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics74.2 (1980), pp. 189–197

1980
[37]

A quantitative model for spatio-temporal dynamics of root gravitropism

Amir Porat, Mathieu Rivière, and Yasmine Meroz. “A quantitative model for spatio-temporal dynamics of root gravitropism”. In:Journal of Experimental Botany 75.2 (2024), pp. 620–630

2024
[38]

Onthemechanicaloriginsofwaving, coilingandskewinginArabidopsisthalianaroots

AmirPoratetal.“Onthemechanicaloriginsofwaving, coilingandskewinginArabidopsisthalianaroots”.In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121.11 (2024), e2312761121

2024
[39]

Plant invasion is associated with higher plant–soil nutrient concentrations in nutrient- poorenvironments

Jordi Sardans et al. “Plant invasion is associated with higher plant–soil nutrient concentrations in nutrient- poorenvironments”.In:GlobalChangeBiology23.3(2017), pp. 1282–1291

2017
[40]

Analytical and nu- merical investigations of the phase-locked loop with timedelay

Michael Schanz and Axel Pelster. “Analytical and nu- merical investigations of the phase-locked loop with timedelay”.In:PhysicalReviewE67.5(2003),p.056205

2003
[41]

A simple chaotic delay differential equa- tion

JC Sprott. “A simple chaotic delay differential equa- tion”. In:Physics Letters A366.4-5 (2007), pp. 397–402

2007
[42]

Root- gel interactions and the root waving behavior of Ara- bidopsis

MatthewVThompsonandNMicheleHolbrook.“Root- gel interactions and the root waving behavior of Ara- bidopsis”. In:Plant Physiology135.3 (2004), pp. 1822– 1837

2004
[43]

Plant–soilfeedbacks:the past, the present and future challenges

WimHVanderPuttenetal.“Plant–soilfeedbacks:the past, the present and future challenges”. In:Journal of ecology101.2 (2013), pp. 265–276

2013
[44]

scikit-image:imageprocess- ing in Python

StefanVanderWaltetal.“scikit-image:imageprocess- ing in Python”. In:PeerJ2 (2014), e453

2014
[45]

Geneticassimilationofanac- quired character

ConradHWaddington.“Geneticassimilationofanac- quired character”. In:Evolution(1953), pp. 118–126

1953
[46]

Delay-induced instabilities in non- linear feedback systems

W Wischert et al. “Delay-induced instabilities in non- linear feedback systems”. In:Physical Review E49.1 (1994), p. 203

1994
[47]

Analysisof Arabidopsis thaliana root growth kinetics with high temporal and spatial resolution

NimaYazdanbakhshandJoachimFisahn.“Analysisof Arabidopsis thaliana root growth kinetics with high temporal and spatial resolution”. In:Annals of Botany 105.5 (2010), pp. 783–791

2010
[48]

Ammonium-inducedlossofrootgravit- ropismisrelatedtoauxindistributionandTRH1func- tion,andisuncoupledfromtheinhibitionofrootelon- gationinArabidopsis

NaZouetal.“Ammonium-inducedlossofrootgravit- ropismisrelatedtoauxindistributionandTRH1func- tion,andisuncoupledfromtheinhibitionofrootelon- gationinArabidopsis”.In:Journalofexperimentalbotany 63.10 (2012), pp. 3777–3788. A Analytical calculations for the linear model The delay differential equation is d𝜃 d𝑡 =−𝑘sin(𝜃(𝑡−𝜏)) Forsmall𝜃,wecanassumesin𝜃≈𝜃,conve...

2012
[49]

Only in this narrow region near the chaotic boundary are limit cycles of period 4 not observed in the system

observed for different parameters: A:𝜏𝑘=3.6, before the point symmetry breaking; B:𝜏𝑘=4.13, showing the two symmetric limit cyclesofperiod4(blue)aswellasthesecondlimitcycle(orange)that emerges and quickly splits into two; C:𝜏𝑘=4.8, after the second limit cycle disappears, the system only contains the two period-4 limit cycles (similar to parameters after ...

2000