↓ Skip to main content

Measuring the compressive modulus of elasticity of pith-filled plant stems

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring the compressive modulus of elasticity of pith-filled plant stems
Published in
Plant Methods, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13007-017-0250-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loay A. Al-Zube, Daniel J. Robertson, Jean N. Edwards, Wenhuan Sun, Douglas D. Cook

Abstract

The compressional modulus of elasticity is an important mechanical property for understanding stalk lodging, but this property is rarely available for thin-walled plant stems such as maize and sorghum because excised tissue samples from these plants are highly susceptible to buckling. The purpose of this study was to develop a testing protocol that provides accurate and reliable measurements of the compressive modulus of elasticity of the rind of pith-filled plant stems. The general approach was to relying upon standard methods and practices as much as possible, while developing new techniques as necessary. Two methods were developed for measuring the compressional modulus of elasticity of pith-filled node-node specimens. Both methods had an average repeatability of ± 4%. The use of natural plant morphology and architecture was used to avoid buckling failure. Both methods relied up on spherical compression platens to accommodate inaccuracies in sample preparation. The effect of sample position within the test fixture was quantified to ensure that sample placement did not introduce systematic errors. Reliable measurements of the compressive modulus of elasticity of pith-filled plant stems can be performed using the testing protocols presented in this study. Recommendations for future studies were also provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 7 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Materials Science 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,576,001
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#961
of 1,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,768
of 331,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#38
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.