The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mechanical Defences to Herbivory
Open accessAbstract
The two major mechanical defences of plants are toughness and hardness. These have different material causes and ecological functions. In any non-metal, high toughness is achieved by composite construction (i.e. by an organized mixture of components). The primary source of toughening in plants is the composite cell wall (cellulosic microfibrils set in a hemicellulose and, sometimes, lignin matrix), with a toughness of 3.45 kJ m −2 , which is ten-times the probable toughness of its individual components if they could be isolated. The toughness of most plant tissues is roughly proportional to the volume fraction of tissue occupied by cell wall ( Vc ) and, compared to animal tissues and non-biological composites, is very low. High toughness in plant cells is not produced by the walls themselves, but by their plastic intracellular collapse. This is a truly cellular toughening mechanism, one of the most potent ever discovered by materials scientists, depending on an elongate cell shape with microfibrils directed uniformly at a small angle to the cellular axis. Only ‘woody’ cells, tracheids and fibres, have this framework and only in the S2 layer of their secondary wall. Despite this non-optimum configuration, toughness is elevated by this mechanism ten-times above that due to cell wall resistance alone. The effectiveness of toughness in preventing herbivory is indisputable, but largely indirect due to confusion over a false equivalence between nutritional ‘fibre content’ and toughness. In contrast, generalized hardness requires high density. If hardness is due to high Vc , this conflicts with ‘woody’ toughness because there is then no lumen for cell walls to collapse into. Thus, dense seed shells may be brittle (i.e. low toughness) even if built from fibres. However, solid cell wall is not very hard. Instead, high hardness in plants is associated with amorphous silica and is always localized. The efficacy of hardness is more difficult to evaluate than toughness because some animals specialize in coping with it. Copyright 2000 Annals of Botany Company
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Dental Functional Morphology: How Teeth Work
Lucas, P. W. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511735011 · Cited by 550
Self-citationLeaves at low versus high rainfall: coordination of structure, lifespan and physiology
Wright, I. J., & Westoby, M. (2002) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00479.x · Cited by 389
Metadata
- Authors
- Lucas, P.
- Venue
- Annals of Botany
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 913-920
- ISSN
- 0305-7364 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165613829
- Cited by
- 457
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 37.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mechanical Defences to Herbivory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/anbo.2000.1261
- The paper
- Lucas, P. (2000). Mechanical Defences to Herbivory. Annals of Botany. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1261
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.