Table 1 Comparison of different tree modeling methods
From: Coconut tree modeling based on abiotic factors and modified cosserat rod theory
Model | Assumptions | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
Pipe model | Homogeneity of pipe system, conservation of flow, hierarchy of branches, symmetry, uniform flow, resource limitation | Simplicity, conceptual clarity, hierarchical structure | Simplification, lack of realistic deformation, not suitable for palm family |
Classical rod theory | Tree structure as rods, homogeneous rods, uniform flow, conservation of mass and momentum, simplification of tree shape | Flexibility, realistic structural representations, applicability to complex shapes | Neglects some realistic properties, and complexity, not suitable for palm family |
Cosserat rod theory | Tree branches and stems are elastic, continuous deformation, no bending resistance, hierarchical structure, gravity as an external force | Torsion deformations, three-dimensional modeling, realistic representations | Data requirements, computational complexity, not suitable for palm family |
Biomechanics based model | Environmental Conditions, Resilience and Failure, Structural Heterogeneity | Comprehensive understanding, customization, realistic and holistic | Data and parameterization, complexity and computation, interactions with biological factors, validation, not suitable for palm family |
Proposed model | DBH to accommodate the variations in the coconut tree due to the cultivation practices, the coconut tree trunk is taken as the conical frustum | Suitable for the palm family. Consider the effect of wind, tropism, and gravitropism | Not suitable for trees with branches, not tested in other trees in the palm family |