www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN The quest for a unified theory

on biomechanical palm risk
assessment through theoretical
analysis and observation
Peter Sterken
Several methodologies related to the biomechanical risk assessment and the uprooting and breaking
potential of palms are reviewed and evaluated in this study. Also a simple mathematical model was
designed, to simulate the results of critical wind speed predictions for a tall coconut palm by using
classic beam theory and Brazier buckling. First, the review presents arguments that assess the
applicability of some influential claims and tree and palm risk assessment methods that have been
amply marketed in the last 20 years. Then, the analysis goes beyond the classical procedures and
theories that have influenced the arboricultural industry and related press so far. And afterwards,
rationale behind several postulated ideas are presented, that are hoped to be fruitful in the path
towards a new biomechanical theory for the biomechanical risk assessment of palms. The postulated
model envisages the palm stem as a viscoelastic and hollow cylinder that is not only prone to buckling,
ovalization and kinking, but also fatigue, shear, splitting and crack propagation. This envisaging was
also the main reason why simple Brazier buckling formulation was experimentally applied to simulate
the breaking risk of a cocostem. This study also enables a better understanding of the wide range of
factors that may influence the mechanical behaviour of trees and palms under (wind) loading.

Palm forests and orchards are crucial to many countries’ economies. Examples are the UNESCO World Heritage
Date Palm Groves in Elche, Spain and date, oil and coconut palm orchards in e.g. Africa, the Middle East, USA
and the Far East. However, palms can also widely be found in urban areas which are often highly-frequented by
pedestrians and vehicles. Hence, correctly assessing their structural stability is crucial. as they may cause great
harm when they uproot or break. Over the last decades, commercial devices and methods have been suggested
to assess the risk of palms falling down. For instance, sonic tomographs and drilling devices have been used to
detect decay, or other structural defects, in palm ­stems1,2. Other methods combine a wind load analysis with
breakage ­calculations3,4. And with pulling tests, trees are statically loaded with a rope to assess if they could
uproot or break, comparing the pulling load with a hypothetical wind load and extrapolating m ­ easurements3,5.
However, never has their practical applicability for palms been academically questioned in depth.
A Nature study showed how 70% of the researchers were unable to reproduce other researchers’ experiments
and ­results6. And it also suggested that those irreproducible claims and findings could have spawned flawed
research leads. Flawed leads and criteria can cause long-term societal damage, in the shape of potentially harm-
ful commercial methods and products that, in turn, could have serious consequences regarding the physical
integrity and health of its victims and ensuing legal c­ ases7. Hence, and in the field of palm risk assessment and
arboriculture in general, it would be not unreasonable to translate this observation into e.g. wrongly-assessed
trees and palms or inappropriate evidence adduced in courts of law.
In 2018, a pine tree killed a child in the El Retiro park, Madrid, Spain, while the maximum recorded wind
speed that day was only 70 km/h8. It was reported that the same tree had been assessed with a pulling test in
2016, and then visually assessed again a mere two days before the a­ ccident9. And 2 years later, a Canary date palm
(Phoenix canariensis) fell on several people, and thereby killing a man, in Ciutadella park in Barcelona, Spain.
A breeze of only 38.2 km/h had seemingly been sufficient to break the s­ tem10. Risk assessment of the palm had
been carried out too before the unforeseen collapse. This deadly accident triggered the implementation of risk
assessments on 2026 date palms (Phoenix dactylifera) in Barcelona, Spain, with oscillation tests and instrumental
analysis to detect inner faults in the ­stems10,11. The conclusions drawn by the City Council were based on the
assessment of the collapsed palm by an external c­ ompany10. On the webpage of that company it is claimed that

Unaffiliated, Plasencia, Spain. email: [email protected]

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

they have developed a method for the risk assessment of palms with a “reliability of almost a 100%”, involving
drilling and oscillation tests. The civil servant in charge also said that decayed areas in palms become problematic
when 70% or more of the stem diameter is ­affected12. And that the risk of breaking would gain importance if the
extent of decay exceeded at least 70% of the stem ­radius13. Nevertheless, the cavity had only affected 25% of the
radius when the stem b ­ roke13.
Hence, these examples highlight the need to assess the scientific veracity and validity of methods, claims and
criteria that have dominated the arboricultural industry and the academic field of tree and palm biomechanics
in the last 20 years.
For instance: Drilling, combined with other decay detecting devices, has been explored to localise decay in
palms by Ref.14. And also infestations and tunneling caused by Red Palm Weevil were assessed by Ref.2. But none
of the latter quantified corresponding strength loss in the structurally damaged palm trunks. However, and on
the other hand, a researcher suggested the use of a commercial microdrilling tool combined with a Visual Tree
Assessment (VTA) rule, for the breaking risk assessment of coconut palms (Cocos nucifera)1. That VTA rule was
supposedly a critical threshold of the ratio of the residual wall thickness versus the radius of the cross-section
(t/R), below which hollow dicotyledon trees would be prone to breakage, which was suggested to be t/R = 0.32
(or 70% of the cross-section being damaged)15. Ever since, that easy-to-apply rule has been used world-wide
for the breaking risk assessment of hollow tree and palm stems and used in combination with decay detecting
tools. Also breaking safety factors of severely decayed date palm stems (Phoenix dactylifera) were calculated by
scientists of renowned public institutions, for several wind speeds and in a highly-frequented pedestrian ­area16.
A risk assessment method was also suggested that would estimate breaking safety factors for Canary date palms
for a range of wind s­ peeds17. And longitudinal compression stress was calculated in a Mexican Fan Palm (Wash-
ingtonia robusta) with a static pulling test to simulate natural wind ­loading18.
However, some of the aforementioned methods are based on simplified beam theory: a longitudinal bend-
ing stress, caused by a static bending moment, is assumed to increase linearly from the neutral axis and is then
compared with a hypothetical and peripheral compression strength or Modulus of Rupture (MOR). Moreover,
some methods marketed in the arboricultural industry seem not to adduce any robust scientific evidence to
support their author’s claims or theirs can seriously q ­ uestioned19,20. And, as human lives may be at stake, one
should thus wonder if the door should not be left open to scrutiny.
For instance, the abovementioned claims could briefly be contrasted with the following: under loading in
the linear elastic regime, it was shown that a non-linear bending stress distribution in the palm stem had to be
accounted for as bending stress, density and MOR would increase exponentially, and not linearly, from the neutral
­axis21. It was also asserted that the peripheral tissues are denser and stiffer, due to a higher quantity of vascular
bundles, and can often be seen to be distributed as an outer ring, being this external layer that lends the trunk its
main load-bearing ­capacity22. And the inner core would contain more soft tissue than vascular bundles, working
as a foam-like structure with limited load-carrying a­ bilities22. Nonuniformities in the mechanical properties of
palm stems that set them apart from coniferous and dicotyledonous trees, such as e.g. a greater density at the
stem periphery, were accounted for while the palm stem was modeled with a hollow c­ ore23.
Moreover, wind and MOR are not the only factors to take into account: for self-loading and the elastic stabil-
ity (i.e. buckling) of plant stems, solutions were proposed by Ref.24 and e.g.25 in which the Modulus Of Elasticity
(MOE) is a determining factor. Greenhill’s proposal was later assessed by comparing it with other predictive
formulations and real buckling of saplings and pine t­ rees26,27. The assessment of the elastic stability of palm stems
under their own weight (buckling) based on MOE, together with a wind load estimation to optimise artificial
support systems, was suggested ­too28. Nevertheless, the latter could not offer any empirical evidence to support
his suggestion and acknowledged that his non-profit proposal was still a ­hypothesis28. Stiffness is a determining
factor for the Brazier buckling of circular hollow s­ ections29–31. And the structure and MOE of palm stems were
taken as a starting point to design conical shells for wind turbine towers subject to b ­ uckling22.
Hence, this brief warm-up shows already that two crucial components of palm biomechanics (MOE and
non-linear stress and strain) seem to be neglected by some influential claims and related commercial methods
and tools. This situation will be analysed more in depth further in this paper.
Next, a simplistic mathematical model was used here to support several analyses, and originated from the fol-
lowing: The most advanced study on palms and critical wind speeds for failure found, employed the engineering
approach to calculate hypothetical static wind loads, stem displacements and hypothetical stem fibre failure for
a theoretical 25 m-tall coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) with a 3D Finite Element software (3DFE), which did not
consider dynamic loading, damping, looping or inertia e­ ffects32. On the other hand, a static wind load analysis
model was presented, based on wind turbines, which was validated by comparing its results with those of renown
softwares for tree and palm risk a­ ssessments20. Therein, very good agreement was obtained for all 220 simula-
tions, while the bending stress was assumed to increase linearly from the neutral axis and stems were treated
as non-deformable beams made of an isotropic material (i.e. the same mechanical properties in all anatomical
directions, such as found in e.g. steel, rubber or butter). Nevertheless, the widely-implemented commercial
software packages simulated in Ref.20, the results of Ref.32 and the methods that have been applied commercially
for palm risk assessment by e.g.1,16, seem not to have been validated experimentally with large numbers of palms
yet. And never has their practical applicability for palms been academically questioned in depth.
Hence, the following is the first contribution of this paper to the field of palm biomechanics and risk assess-
ment: Several methodologies that have been suggested or marketed for the uprooting and breaking potential of
palms are reviewed and evaluated. To this end, the simple model of Ref.20 was slightly adjusted with simple Brazier
buckling formulation and a wind speed-dependent drag factor to simulate bending moments and Failure Index
(FI) of Ref.32. The palm was envisaged as a hollow wind turbine tower enduring pure longitudinal bending stress
and also Brazier buckling. This envisaging of the palm stem cross section as if it were a concentric ring was based
on the suggestions of Refs.21–23. The model was intentionally maintained simplistic in structure, as it was devised

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Gonzalez (2015)32 Windturbine Difference (%)

Windspeed (m/s) Moment (kNm) Moment (kNm) Bendingmoment
10 15.9360 15.9375 0.0094
20 53.0090 52.7194 − 0.5493
23 64.4670 64.3835 − 0.1297
30 88.6270 89.4902 0.9646
40 121.1350 120.2880 − 0.7041
50 151.2170 149.3047 − 1.2808
60 178.6600 180.6093 1.0793
Pearon Correlation Coefficient = 0.9998 Average difference = − 0.0872
Maximum difference = 1.0793
Wind Gonzalez (2015)32 Windturbine Difference (%)
m/s FI FI FI
10 0.0780 0.0776 − 0.5155
20 0.7490 0.7777 3.6904
23 1.0550 1.0421 − 1.2379
30 1.7920 1.8226 1.6789
40 2.8840 2.9391 1.8747
50 3.9780 3.9430 − 0.8876
60 5.0690 4.9419 − 2.5719
Pearon Correlation Coefficient = 0.9997 Average difference = 0.2902
Maximum difference = 3.6904

Table 1.  Comparison of moments and Failure Index ­between32 and the wind turbine model.

to support the herein offered analysis of the scientific veracity of some influential claims and commercial methods
that have been amply marketed, or used as evidence in court cases, in the last 20 years. Simple mathematical
formulations and simulations can allow hidden shortcomings to see the light of day, that otherwise would not
have been revealed had the study been based solely on a literature review (an example of this approach is Ref.20).
The second contribution of this paper is: exploratory analyses were conducted after observing the outcomes of
the model and an exhaustive review of publications related to palm biomechanics and mechanical theories that go
beyond simple beam theory. Hence, through review and theoretical analysis, several ideas are postulated that are
hoped to be fruitful in the path towards a new biomechanical theory for the risk assessment of palms and trees.

Results
The simplistic model satisfactorily simulated bending moments (M) and FI of Ref.32.
A wind speed-specific dragfactor (Cd) was found that ranged from 0.61 (at 10 m/s) to 0.19 (at 60 m/s),
which enabled it to simulate the bending moments corresponding to the wind speeds. A Cd of 0.4 was reached
at u = 28 m/s (this result is given here too, as several of the herein investigated methods only employ a fixed Cd
for a fixed wind speed).
The varying theoretical t/R of the hollow wind turbine tower ranged from 2.248 (at u = 10 m/s), over 0.503
(at u = 23 m/s) to 0.213 (at u = 60 m/s) and those were the necessary parameters to simulate FI.
All results agreed reasonably for M and FI (see Table 1). Pearson correlation coefficient for M was: R = 0.9998,
and for FI it was: R = 0.9997. Maximum difference found was 1.08% for M and 3.69% for FI. The average differ-
ence for M was -0.087% and 0.290% for FI.
Lowest FI along the stem and for all wind speeds was found at a height of 13.1 m up the stem, whereas Ref.32
predicted failure between 6 and 10 m.
The alternative calculation by means of Brazier buckling, with a constant t/R, gave the same results too for
all wind speeds, taking MOE into account, instead of MOR. However, results for Brazier buckling did not agree
anymore when the height of the assessment varied, as the cocostem had been modeled as concavely tapered.
However, the Brazier calculations later agreed with the breaking safety predictions according to simple beam
theory (BS), for all heights along the stem and all wind speeds, when the stem was modeled as untapered (i.e.
resembling a straight date palm trunk), with a stem base diameter of 31.647 cm and a constant shell thickness
of 2.471215 cm. Pearson Correlation Coefficient was 1 and maximum difference found was 0.03% and average
difference found was 0.0092%. And when the height of the assessment along the stem was maintained, BS and
Brazier showed perfect agreement for all wind speeds (difference = 0%). However, the results for a straight stem
did then, logically, not agree with Ref.32 anymore as the latter had modeled a concavely-tapered coconut stem (a
stem base diameter of 31.647 cm and 20.9069 cm at a height of 13.1 m).
These results will be interpreted in the “Discussion” section, while arguments will also be presented that
question the applicability and scientific veracity of some claims. And afterwards, rationale will be presented to
postulate ideas that may serve to show the way towards a future unified theory on palm risk assessment.

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Discussion
Results agreed closely with Ref.32 when wind speed-specific drag coefficients were introduced that seemed to be
reasonable, as the latter lie slightly under the values published by Ref.17 for a stiffer Canary date palm (Phoenix
canariensis). Notwithstanding, the model’s outcome on its own would not be a valid contribution to the field of
palm biomechanics and risk assessment. Hence, and from here onwards, the following observations are deemed
to be crucial:
The ­researcher32 used data on the mechanical properties of green tissue of senile 80–100-year-old coconut
palm stems harvested in 2010 in Fiji and Samoa and which were then published in Ref.34. His model predicted
that the critical wind speed for failure of the stem fibres was 82.8 km/h (23 m/s). However, for instance, the
cyclone “Val” hit Samoa with wind speeds up to 140 knots (259.28 km/h) in 1­ 99135. The real palms from Ref.34
that served for Ref.32 must have withstood, along their life span of 80–100 years, many times wind speeds that
exceeded the theoretical “critical wind speed” of 82.8 km/h as predicted by Ref.32. And yet, those palms still
stood upright when they were harvested. And no mechanically-damaged tissue in the harvested cocostems was
reported in Refs.[32, 34], which suggests that those coconut palms had not suffered any failure of their stem fibres,
not even when wind speeds up to 259.28 km/h hit the island they were growing on. This observation adds up to
others (e.g.10,19,20,33) that suggest that the engineering approach as used by Ref.32 and used, albeit much simpler,
in e.g. the “tree-statics” of Ref.3 may have a limited predictive value.
Next: Lowest FI was calculated here at a height of 13.1 m up the stem, ­whereas32 predicted failure between
6 and 10 m at 23 m/s (while the failure area would move towards the stem base with higher wind speeds). The
reason behind this disagreement is simple: the herein employed model uses simple beam theory, which assumes
the deformation or curvature of the stem is null. A ­ nd32, on the other hand, depicted the bending over of the
slender palm with a highly-pronounced curvature in the lower half of the stem, which would, hence, cause greater
stresses. And as this happens, the upper half of the stem would align itself more with the wind and thus be less
deformed, while also the experienced stresses would be lower there (see the figure in Ref.32 p. 126).
Furthermore, the present model “fabricated” the rising stresses, by modeling the stem as a hollow wind turbine
tower with a changing t/R related to wind speed. The rationale behind this approach is the following: the beam
theory neglects that, in palm stems, stresses increase exponentially from the neutral axis and that non-linear
deformations and strong curvatures can be experienced by slender palms in high winds, as reported by e.g.23,32.
This is thus one of the arguments against the simple beam theory in slender trees and palms, and which has
been used in the present model and by e.g.1,3–5,16–18. One of the premises of that theory is that deformation of the
beam should be small. And if, for instance, a slender Mexican Fan Palm bends over, the curvature of the stem
could be too pronounced to be faithfully modeled with that theory. And real stresses due to that curvature would
hence be higher than predicted. For instance, a company markets commercial pulling test on palms and shows
it application on a 22-m-tall and leaning Mexican Fan Palms (La Aduana, Málaga)36. And theirs may thus be
an untenable and risky suggestion. A crucial observation can be made here: if regular beam theory (as used in
commercial pulling tests and wind load analysis software packages) had been blindly used for the coconut palm
simulation (i.e. assuming a stiff and solid beam with no sharp rise in stresses due to the pronounced curvature
of the stem and the bending stress increasing linearly from the neutral axis as if the cross-section were both
full and isotropic), breaking safety factors would have been greatly overestimated (nearly doubled at 60 m/s)
as stresses would have been underestimated. Which could lead to dangerous, and deadly, situations in real-life
palm risk assessments.
Next: As mentioned in Ref.20 the results of Ref.32 were not validated experimentally. Hence, and even bar-
ring structural defects such as cracks or decay, it is a theoretical model that may not allow for accurate safety
predictions yet. Furthermore, palm stems were reported to break either at mid-stem or just below the c­ rown37.
­Whereas32 predicted failure well below mid-stem, extending towards the bottom of the stem at higher wind
speeds and so, his results do not agree with real failures as reported by Ref.37. Also, the Red Palm Weevil (Rhyn-
chophorus ferrugineus) has been said to affect the structural stability of palm trunks by excavating tunnels which
could lead to their c­ ollapse38. The loss of structural integrity due to this tunneling is a type of defect that is not
taken into account in Ref.32 either. And Ref.39 suggested several factors that may influence breakage of coconut
palms subject to cyclones, and not all are taken into account in the simulation: e.g. the ratio between diameter of
the bole and stem height, different mechanical failure modes related to certain hybrids (e.g. the of Malayan Red
Dwarf versus Tall Palms), biomechanical degradation due to Phytophthora palmivora and crown characteristics
(weight and volume of fronds and crop). The latter also reported fracture of the bole at the root-soil plate level
and below ground, while other palms were left leaning after partial uprooting and others had their stems broken
at different h ­ eights39. This suggests that the predictive value of the approach used by Ref.32 is rather limited and
that, even though his is an impressive and highly-valuable contribution, it may not be extrapolable to real-life
palm risk assessments yet.
Next, the commercial pulling tests and wind load analysis software of Refs.4,5 have been used on palms
in Spain. Nevertheless, no clear references pointing towards scientific, peer-reviewed papers of theirs could
be found in those publications, relating to scientifically sound data and scientifically contrasted procedures
that would support their methods. Which, surprisingly, stands in sharp contrast with their criticisms toward
a competitor in business: that the latter would offer (similar) methods without adducing supporting scientific
­evidence4,5. Also an influential publication asserted with a “generalised tipping curve” that the critical threshold
of tilt angle for uprooting would be 2.5° (assertedly based on 400 trees), which seems to be the foundation of
their commercial pulling t­ ests3. That strong claim was later questioned as it still seemed unproven and thus
­hypothetical19. Moreover, the asserted results o ­ f3 stand in sharp contrast with those of recent researchers who,
after two million measurements on more than 8000 trees, do not assert to have found any critical threshold of tilt
angle ­yet40. Pulling tests have been seriously questioned of late and it is not clear to what extent their predictive

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1.  The strain gauge sensor was placed obliquely over an open cavity in a date palm, recording high shear
deformations. The red arrows show the direction of the strain, producing shear as the two halves of the stem
seemed to slide over each other, while a static pull was being applied.

value in dicotyledonous trees is reliable or ­not19,20. Which makes their use for monocotyledonous palms even
more questionable as the latter are biomechanically very different from trees. Pulling tests were developed from
pulling over dicotyledonous trees, with their corresponding characteristics (regarding material and geometry)
of their root system and stem base. However, and on the other hand, the fleshy palm roots tolerate significant
bending and twisting before they undergo mechanical f­ ailure41. And the roots also sprout from the stembase in
a way that is similar to onions. Moreover, the effects of organic exudates from the roots on the aggregation of soil
particles, which would thereby create a cement-like soil consistency, was reported ­too41. And these exudates have
seemingly not been reported for dicots yet. And, thus, recommending pulling tests for palms seems to stand for
blindly extrapolating hypothetical (as seemingly yet unproven) values for dicotyledons, into the unknown and
unexplored realm of palms, and this is could thus be deemed very questionable.
Next, destructive experiments were experimentally carried out with the pulling test method of Refs.3,45 on a
hollow date palm (Paseo Marítimo, Mataró, Spain) that presented a thin residual wall and a large longitudinal
­opening42. The palm was pulled with a fixed maximum load of 1.5 kN while performing 20 consecutive meas-
urements with a strain gauge sensor or “elastometer”. The measuring tools (elastometer, inclinometer) had been
provided by Refs.3,45. The distance between the two pins of the strain gauge sensor was 2000 mm. The direction
of the pull was perpendicular to the opening of the cavity. The first 18 measurements were carried out by plac-
ing the sensor aligned with the stem (longitudinally) and in the direction of the pull, conform to the classic
pulling test procedure. The highest longitudinal deformation (aligned with the stem) recorded was 0.089 mm
(at 2 m height) and 0.045 mm at the height of the cavity (1 m) with a static pulling load of 1.5 kN and conform
to the classic pulling test procedure of Ref.3. However, two alternative measurements were made afterwards by
placing the sensor first in an angle of 90° (horizontally and bridging the cavity opening) and then in an angle of
approximately 30° over the open cavity (Fig. 1), to assess if there could be any shear. Then, the strain gauge sen-
sor recorded the astonishing value of 0.321 mm at the same pulling load (1.5 kN) when placed obliquely (30°)
over the open cavity. Which is more than seven-fold the maximum axial strain measured at the same height of
the stem and aligned with the pull, which indicates that shear (and not longitudinal strain) was the highest. The
two sides of the open cavity seemed to slide over each other. This phenomenon can be visualised by bending a
softcover book: the pages slide over eachother. Palm wood is much weaker regarding shear stresses and when
this is coupled with extraordinary shear deformation (due e.g. a large, open cavity such as here) failure of the
hollow stem can be triggered at lower loads than predicted by the beam theory. And if this extremely hollow stem
exhibited high shear deformations under a transverse pull, then logic says that also other structural behaviours
(e.g. ovalization, cracking or kinking) could set in.
To continue: the death of a man crushed by a Canary date palm in 2020 in Barcelona (Spain), triggered the
implementation of drilling with the Resistograph of Ref.1 and “oscillation tests” on 2026 date palms with a “reli-
ability of almost a 100%”, carried out by Refs.36,43. Nevertheless, it was stated that drilling cannot predict the
residual strength of a structurally damaged ­trunk44,45. And it was shown that boring into decayed zones would
probably augment the speed at which decay s­ preads46. Micro-drilling would allow fungi to grow out radially

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

due to the microenvironment the narrow channel c­ reates47. And drilling was also questioned by Ref.48. And
correct assessments would rely on comparing results with both known standards and decay-free cores taken
from the same tree, which would make this method thus highly-invasive49. Hence, (micro)drilling is currently
highly questionable. And it was reported that the “oscillation tests” of that company were as follows: the palm is
pulled manually with a rope and if the whole stem moves the palm stem is regarded as ­sound50. This was the only
description found of those “oscillation tests” on palms after exhaustive online literature review. That company
recommends that their oscillation test be used in all palm risk ­assessments36. Nevertheless, no clear references
can be found in Refs.36,43 that would point to peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals that would validate
their claim, so it is not clear if it is scientifically tenable or not. However, their claim could be interesting, if robust
and supporting scientific evidence could be adduced and if their procedure were unbiased, documentable and
reproducible by a third party.
Next, the famous “70%” criterion was adduced by the Municipal Manager of the City Council of Barcelona
after the deadly accident with a Canary date palm and the manager was reported to have said that inner decay
was considered problematic if at least 70% of the stem diameter was affected by i­ t12. And that the risk of breaking
would gain importance if the extent of decay occupied at least 70% of the stem ­radius13. However, if the palm
collapsed with only 25% of its radius affected by decay, should one then not immediately refute the “70%” cri-
terion? Notwithstanding, the applicability of this criterion as suggested for palms by Ref.1, can easily be refuted
scientifically too: Firstly, suspicions of falsification were published regarding that highly-influential Visual Tree
Assessment (VTA) rule t/R = 0.32 or 70%51. That t/R rule for risk assessments defined the (supposedly) allowed
degree of hollowness of a tree trunk and is still being used world-wide, although it is allegedly the result of
­falsification51. Secondly, that famous “70% criterion” was, moreover, developed for dicotyledonous trees and not
for monocotyledonous palms. Thirdly, tangential MOR (tension perpendicular to grain) in coconut wood was
found to be as low as 0.233 kN/cm2 whereas longitudinal MOR could reach 5.22 kN/cm252. And shear strength of
date palm wood could be as low as 7.14% compared with its longitudinal MOR52. Even longitudinal MOR varied
greatly between coconut, oil and date p ­ alm52. For oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), the proportion of tensile strength
perpendicular to grain to longitudinal MOR was reported to be only 2.08%53. And another researcher found that
tangential MOR would be 36.77% approximately of longitudinal MOR in coconut p ­ alms32. Therefore, tangential
cracking followed by longitudinal splitting in straight hollow stems would thus be triggered earlier in date and oil
palms than in coconut palms. Palm wood is highly anisotropic compared to dicotyledonous hardwood trees and,
above all, there are great differences both among different palm species and even within the same palm species,
depending on e.g. age and growth. And, hence, a fixed t/R rule seems to be an untenable recommendation for
palms. And this would even not be applicable in stems with side openings or those with only heart ­decay30. Or
with irregularly-distributed pockets of decay combined with cracks or invaginations. Even if one dared to leave
aside the fact that high stresses can be caused by strong curvatures of slender palms in high winds (see e.g.23,32)
and those are not taken into account in the VTA t/R rule of 70%. Cross-sectional flattening or ovalization, leading
to cracking of thin-walled hollow stems, is neglected by classic beam theory too, while those structural failures
depend highly on the MOE of the ­wood54. And MOE, MOR and density vary greatly according to species, age,
et cetera and thus preclude a fixed t/R rule entirely from being useful when the aim is to predict the structural
collapse of (especially) palms.
Next: Scientists published breaking safety factors and critical wind speeds for severely decayed date palms in
a highly-frequented area in a major Spanish c­ ity16. Their suggestion that those decayed palms would withstand
wind speeds of at least 135 km/h even made ­headlines55. They did not fully explain the underlying methodology
in their online-published report. However, the manual of the acoustic tomograph (­ Fakopp56) they used, suggests
that breaking safety factors and critical wind speeds were calculated by means of simple beam theory, which
is based on longitudinal stress and strength, and assumes that wood is a homogeneous material (i.e. isotropy).
However, palm wood is highly anisotropic, meaning that shear, delamination, torsional, radial and tangential
tensile stresses could cause structural collapse, especially in decayed palm stems, even if the beam theory were
applicable. So, their claim that decayed palm stems in a market square would withstand hurricane-type winds,
is possibly based on what looks like a methodological error on their behalf. On the other hand, a method for
the breaking risk assessment of Canary date palms was offered in a scientific paper through beam theory and a
hypothetical static wind ­load17. But, fortunately, the latter acknowledged that their approach could not be valid
for decayed stem areas due to shear and that failure due to progressive fatigue was not considered either. And a
highly-cited researcher calculated longitudinal stress in a Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), seemingly
based on the assumption that bending stress would increase linearly from the neutral axis and by means of a static
pulling test combined with simple beam t­ heory18. However, the herein offered remarks suggests that the latter’s
approach for palms may be a simplification that has room for improvement too. A Spanish researcher published
results from static bending tests of planks, sawn from a Canary date palm, to be used in the context of mechanistic
risk assessment ­models57. Unfortunately, the procedure he used precludes his results from being useful in that
context, as current models need MOR and MOE values obtained from compressive axial and tangential tensile
tests. Nevertheless, in his review he rightly acknowledged the dubious efficiency of published risk assessment
models, as they would depend too much on a wide palette of unknown variables (e.g. Cd, MOE, MOR, density)
and that decay detecting tools were not efficient, as reference values did not exist (e.g. to calculate strength loss
in comparison with sound palm wood)57.
Next: Some readers will surely feel tempted to use the model for, and extrapolate the results to, commercial
palm risk assessments. But that would clearly be premature, as can be inferred from the following observations:
a wind-speed-specific drag coefficient was proposed herein to simulate the coconut palm of Ref.32. But a sturdy
stem (in contrast with the studied 25-m-tall and flexible stem) would need to be modeled with a different Cd.
And to make Cd transferrable to other palms, non-linear deformation would have to be taken into account. This
non-linearity is the result of the slenderness, anisotropy and geometry of the stem, the flexibility of the crown

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

and overall out-of-phase damping. A greater curvature of the stem leads to higher three-dimensional stresses
(longitudinal, radial and tangential). And Poisson’s ratios also determine deformation of the ­fibres32 and this
may differ too. And all of this clearly exceeds the capacities and predictive power of simple beam theory. Also,
wind drag has commonly been estimated as being proportional to the square of the wind speed. However, it was
shown that this estimation may be too high for flexible culms, as at higher wind speeds the drag would be linearly
­proportional58. And, hence, real loads would be lower than predicted. They also found that the risk of mechani-
cal damage was comparatively lower at higher wind speeds, as the plants’ height was reduced by up to 45%58. It
was suggested that coconut palms would resist hurricanes better than dicotyledonous trees because of the same
­strategy32. On the other hand, common sense and observation suggest that the mass of palms (stem, crown and
crop) combined with violent gusts may lead to dynamic loading that far exceeds predictions that take into account
static loading only. Two simulation studies did not consider dynamic loading, damping, looping or inertia
­effects20,32. Nevertheless, the results the first agreed very well with commercial softwares that, assertedly, would
include dynamics and natural f­ requencies20. For instance, it was asserted that “and statics integrated methods
that combine static pulling with dynamic wind load assessment (Wessolly 1991; Brudi and van Wassenaer 2002;
Detter and Rust 2013)” (sic)59. Related authors also suggested that a natural frequency factor was incorporated
in their calculation of the wind load and bending/uprooting moment of their pulling ­tests3. However, robust
scientific evidence that would support their claim was not found and neither did the mathematical simulations
find any evidence of d ­ ynamics20. Not including the influence of dynamics (e.g. the swinging of slender trees and
palms) in a wind load analysis could underestimate real wind-induced loads. Which means that the palm or
tree could thus fall down even if it had been assessed as “safe”. Also the weight of crop (e.g. dates or coconuts)
could add inertial forces to the swinging and this could be a subject for future research on wind loads in ­palms20.
Further: Mechanical properties (strength, stiffness and density) of green palm tissue are still a relatively unex-
plored field, although several palm species have been s­ tudied17,22,32,52,53,60–62. Properties from these publications
of other palm species could be introduced in the model to explore their importance relative to other influencing
factors such as slenderness, wind speeds, loads, et cetera. But, and even though this procedure has led to good
agreement for FI of Ref.32, more research on the applicability of the model should be carried out.
Also: The herein used approach is based on a simplified version of the theory of elasticity, which ignores stress
concentrations (e.g. around knurls or defects in wood), Inglis’ potential energies, fatigue and crack propagations
as described by Ref.63, which can lead to unexpected structural collapse if one relies solely on simple beam theory.
The need to explore those ideas was suggested, as understanding their influence could be the key to understand-
ing the relationship between structural failure and ­wind42. Fortunately, those relatively unexplored ideas were
later applied to calculate critical wind speeds for failure in forest t­ rees64. This could thus be an interesting starting
point for research on the breaking prediction of palms and trees.
Moreover, the beam theory as used by some of the herein mentioned authors is aimed only at predicting
conventional bending failure (axial compression stress that exceeds MOR), while low t/R ratios can lead to
Brazier buckling or tangential cracking followed by longitudinal splitting in hollow ­stems30. The formulations
were offered to predict the bending moment at which cracking failure would occur in hollow trees, based on
t/R, MOE and tangential tensile MOR54. So, and for instance, if one took an oil palm and a coconut palm, both
hollow and with an identical t/R and wind loading, the first would crack earlier than the second due to a lower
tangential MOR. And as t/R decreased, failure modes would be bending failure, cracking and Brazier buckling
respectively, for oil palm. Whereas in coconut palm, and depending on t/R, bending failure would occur earlier
than the other two modes due to a comparatively higher tangential MOR/longitudinal MOR proportion. Which
is also evidence why fixed t/R rules (e.g. 0.32 or 70% of the radius) and beam theory (e.g. pulling tests) cannot
be applicable to palms. Hence, incorporating cracking and buckling predictions in the assessment of decayed
and concentrically hollow palm stems, could also be an interesting lead.
Next, it was found that the Brazier calculations (based on MOE) agreed with the BS outputs (based on MOR)
of the model for all heights along the stem and all wind speeds, when the stem was modeled as untapered, which
is interesting. The relationships of varying MOR and MOE along the stem were based on the measured densities of
Ref.32, so there seems to be a consistent mathematical relationship between the MOR, MOE and density ­values32.
At first sight, densities of green palm wood could thus be an interesting future research subject. However, and
on the other hand, it was reported that no correlation existed between density and mechanical properties in date
palm ­wood52. Which would make future mechanistic modeling thus even more challenging.
Next: None of the herein investigated models and criteria fulfill the requirements (i.e. that models should
account for cell wall expansion and sclerification as a result of height growth and age) stated by Ref.60. And they
could therefore be precluded from being useful for palms, as the latter both grow and age.
Researchers also recorded longitudinal tensile stress on the surface of upright growing trunks, whereas
compression stress was found at the bent area of leaning trunks in coconut palms due to growth s­ tresses65. They
also found compression stress in the outermost portion of the inner cylinder of the coconut stems, which they
said was radically different from dicotyledonous and coniferous trees. So, this also questions the application
of fixed t/R rules, pulling tests or wind load analysis combined with beam theory on palms, as those methods
neglect growth stresses and their biomechanical importance. For instance, if the central cylinder were missing
(e.g. due to butt rot caused by Ganoderma zonatum) then the lack of those inner and outer growth stresses and
strains should be accounted for.
However, now we will suppose, and for the sake of the argument, that we approached the pitfall in which
some of the aforementioned companies and researchers have seemingly already fallen. At a first glance, it would
be appealing to suggest the following method: consider that commercial software packages for wind load and
breakage predictions were successfully s­ imulated20. And that special software packages were also suggested
to accurately measure the vertical area of e.g. a palm crown, which would thus allow to perform a wind load
estimation that would meet the standards of the commercial software packages ­investigated20. Suppose a wind

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

speed-specific drag factor be introduced, such as proposed for Canary date palms by Ref.17 or the one found here
for coconut palm. And that the formulations for the critical bending moments for tangential cracking from Ref.54
and the ones employed in this study for pure bending failure be incorporated, together with the wood properties
as published for several palm species by e.g.17,22,32,52,53,60–62. Furthermore, values for peripheral material proper-
ties were obtained from the ring that corresponds to the outer third of the r­ adius32,52. And take a non-linear
bending stress distribution in the cross-section of the stem, which rises exponentially from the neutral fibre to
the peripheral outer ring made of the most dense, stiffest and strongest t­ issues21. Then, a simplified assumption
would be to calculate stresses taking into account only the outer third of the radius (i.e. t/R = 0.33), as if it were
a hollow wind turbine tower and as has been done in the present study. And this, to simulate (in an extremely
simplified manner) non-linear bending stress and peripheral material properties (note: it should absolutely be
stressed here that this is not regarded as a validation of the VTA t/R = 0.32 rule, as the rationale for its use in
the model differ from the rationale of Refs.1,15, while the inapplicability of the latter’s claim has been amply evi-
denced in this study). In this way, theoretical safety factors could then be calculated and compared for bending
versus cracking failures of the hollow palm stem, for varying wind speeds and several palm species. This would
thus be similar to the widely-cited Statics Integrated Assessment (SIA) and Statics Integrated Methods (SIM) of
Refs.3,45, but then for palms and slightly enhanced (as it adopts cracking failure, the varying material properties
across and along the stem and a wind speed-specific drag factor). And as less advanced methods (e.g.1,3,16 have
already been commercially marketed, a non-scholar could perhaps be tempted to commercialise this model in
a software package or use it for their consultancy services too. However, this approach would still suffer from
the same limitations as described in Refs.19,20 and in the present study. And it would still be theoretical, as the
variables concerning the structural stability of hollow trees and palms may be too diverse to be assessed with
current ­methods19. And the combination of small deviations in the real palms from e.g. the published values for
MOR and MOE and theoretical drag factors (and hence predicted wind loads) could result in a global deviation
that may invalidate the outcomes (the latter concerns all of the herein investigated methods too)33. Hence, and
even though it is not the corresponding author’s idea to wholly negate the usefulness of the herein investigated
methods, it is crucial to point out that both their validation and predictive value are seemingly problematic.
A crucial rationale for presenting the utterly simplistic model in this paper was the following: supposedly
complex models such as e.g.3–5,45 or the advanced 3DFE simulation of Ref.32 may obscure that fact that those
models can be as tied to the same limitations as the simple model presented herein. And apparently complex
equations (or e.g. a high number of citations of the related papers) may deviate the readers from the fact that fac-
tual empirical and scientific evidence could still be missing that would validate the models for real-life purposes.
Hence, a simple model such as the herein presented one, may serve the purpose of pointing out the flaws and
limitations of the seemingly more advanced models, while it even seems capable of simulating internationally-
renown commercial software and ­methods20.
So, the time seems to be ripe now to go beyond the classical procedures as trusted upon by the arboricultural
community so far (and discussed before).
Even in straight, thin and idealised cantilever beams, bending–torsion coupling deformations can arise due
to the dissimilar bending stiffnesses when the two planes (horizontal/vertical) of the cross-section are of uneven
dimensions (instead of a e.g. a perfectly circular or annular cross-section)66. Palm and tree stems are not always
perfectly round due to dissimilar diameters in the horizontal versus the vertical plane (e.g. in cases of reaction
wood, open cavities or uneven radial growth due to touching physical obstacles). Hence, simple beam theory
(e.g. pulling tests) may thus not account for torsional (and, ultimately, catastrophic) behaviours, even in straight
stems. Moreover, if improperly applied, simple beam theory may theoretically predict the strength and stiffness
requirements of a structure to be satisfying, while unforeseen collapse may later occur because of the loss of
stability (buckling), including intriguing phenomena such as non-linear geometric deformation and ­wrinkles66.
Translated into arboricultural language: the tree or palm that had been assessed as “safe”, suddenly collapses
unexpectedly. Therefore the need in this paper to show the arboricultural community that structural collapses,
that have been studied for centuries in other fields such as mechanics and engineering, should not be ignored.
The risk of buckling of a Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta), assessed by the corresponding author
in 2003 in the Atocha train station (Madrid, Spain), gave birth to a proposal to assess the risk of Euler buckling
while carrying out wind load estimations in order to optimise artificial supports (e.g. cabling of the palm to
nearby structures)28. Prior to the assessment of the last standing palm, several other slender Mexican fan palms
in that train station had already collapsed, even though the interior of this giant greenhouse is free of wind loads
(Fig. 2). The photograph is a testimony to a rather neglected fact in commercial arboricultural methods: structural
collapse in absence of wind loading and pure post-buckling failure. In this case it was hypothesized that these
palms had initially become elastically unstable, by exceeding their critical stem height and weight. It was hypoth-
esized, too, that this had been caused by their unlimited growth towards the glass ceiling searching for light, the
absence of external loading stimuli such as wind (the lack of which would have made the palms not to invest
in stiffer and denser wood) and optimum growing conditions (permanent moisture and warmth). The weight
of the crown, small horizontal displacements, watering from the ceiling (i.e. fog to keep the atmosphere moist)
and resulting gravity forces would then have further influenced the failure process, leading to final collapse. This
example illustrates how plants can adapt to their environment and that biomechanical failure can be possible in
total absence of wind loading. In large-wave Euler buckling, the column curves and deviates laterally to escape
from compressive loads (such as e.g. self-weight) before axial stresses surpass axial MOR. The column becomes
elastically unstable and buckles under its own weight. The critical weight divided by self-weight gives the safety
factor and only when this safety factor is higher than unity can columns, or plants, bear additional loads such as
wind, snow or ice. The critical buckling height or weight is a function of stem height, diameter, tapering, MOE,
density of the wood and loading ­conditions27. The latter also showed that buckling safety can be overestimated
if the stem is improperly assumed to be untapered, cylindrical, free of imperfections and i­ sotropic27. They also

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 2.  The slender Mexican fan palm anchored to the ceiling of the Atocha train station, Madrid. The
cabling configuration was installed to minimise damage in case of post-buckling collapse. The other palms had
collapsed before, even though there are no events of wind inside this giant greenhouse.

offered an overview of why predictions of structural collapse may easily differ from real-life ­situations27. Moreo-
ver, the bifurcation point is the sudden jumping process of a beam from a straight-line to a bent shape, causing
­ uckling66. Pre-buckling analysis has proven to be rather straightforward for a simple pole, while the
instability or b
post-buckling process that describes the finite deformation of the structure (which may lead to its collapse after
damage and faults accumulate to a certain value) requires a large set of numerical s­ olutions67. Strong geometric
nonlinearities and large displacements of the post-buckling behavior of a slender rod were studied, leading to a
quantitative calculation of the post-buckling deflections of a hollow oil sucker r­ od67. Translated into the world
of palm biomechanics, it means that: while pre-buckling of the stem would already be a daunting task due to the
varying taper and MOE, predicting its post-buckling behaviour and final collapse (including structural faults
such as e.g. cracks or pockets of rot) seems to be out of reach, as palm stems are not human-made structures.
And yet, it seems reasonable not to ignore this type of structural behaviour in future palm risk assessments. It
was acknowledged too that Brazier buckling played a crucial role in the local instability of plant s­ tems66. And
this was also a reason to include Brazier buckling of a hollow wind turbine tower to simulate breaking safeties
of the coconut stem in the present paper.
Now, and as a second part of this “Discussion” section, the following reasonings elucidated from literature
overview, visual observation and intellectual reasoning, are presented to postulate ideas that may serve to show
the way towards a future unified theory on palm risk assessment.
First: The biomechanical structure of palms seems to have evolved towards highly-efficient energy dissipation
and viscoelastic damping capacities under strong and dynamic wind loading. To achieve this, a triple-helical mesh
of tough (high tensile strength) fibrovascular bundles is embedded in a soft parenchymatous foam, which both
contribute to damping and energy d ­ issipation32,68. The fibrovascular bundles run along the stem in a screw-like
fashion and across the stem in a radial zigzag pattern (this also sets palm wood also apart from dicotyledonous
wood, as in the latter the fibres are stiffly glued together and, most importantly, axially aligned). It was asserted
that this screw-like pattern can hold the bending stem together under high wind loading as it lends the stem a
higher stiffness and strength when the fibrovascular bundle orientations varied between 0° and 9°32. This pattern
was also suggested to minimise longitudinal splitting and thus enhance the mechanical efficiency of the s­ tem32.
This structure was an inspiration for spirally-laminated hollow veneer-based composite p ­ oles32. Also high micro-
fibril angles across the fibre cap would result in a high extensibility of the stiffening tissue, which would enable
palms to cope with considerable deformations under wind loads in Mexican fan ­palms69. Large deformations
in bending and torsion under wind loads of the petioles were said to combine efficiently with water and nutri-
tion conduction, due to the optimized connection of their vascular bundles to the leaf ­traces68, which allows to
suppose that also the crown is optimized regarding damping and energy dissipation brought about by dynamic
winds. And the contribution of both parenchymatous and vascular tissue of palms to energy dissipation, dynamic
response and flexibility, and thereby improving impact resistance, was described t­ oo70.
Second: Palm wood is highly sensitive to shear, delamination and splitting in comparison with dicotyledons.
For instance, when samples were taken by Ref.17 to perform longitudinal compression and tension tests, then this
irregular structure of the palm tissues unwillingly led to longitudinal fractures, sliding and shear in the samples,
and thus seriously limiting experimental data on axial MOR. And thick disks of coconut wood were manually torn
apart, while the delamination followed the helical pattern of the fibrovascular bundles that tangentially deviated
across the disc d ­ iameter32. Hence, it is thus not unreasonable to suppose that this sensitivity to delamination and
shear may lead to the stem’s structural collapse, especially when this helical path of bundles is interrupted by a
mechanical defect (e.g. pockets of rot, irregular decay, cracks or tunneling by Red Palm Weevil). This reasoning
aligns with another researcher’s too, who likened coconut and oil palm stems to a composite material made of a
matrix and reinforced elements and found that shear and tension perpendicular to grain greatly govern the bend-
ing behaviour and structural stability of the ­stem52. The aforementioned “spirally-laminated hollow veneer-based
composite poles” suggested by Ref.32 may be very stiff and strong when undamaged (i.e. if this helical pathway
of fibrovascular bundles is not interrupted by a mechanical defect and thus a completely defect-free beam). But,
an interruption along this path may trigger delamination and splitting along the “veneer”. Crack propagation
and splitting could thus follow the helical path of the fibrovascular bundles. And predictions based solely on

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 9

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 3.  When a decayed desert fan palm stem was statically pulled, collapse was initiated by splitting of the
hollow stem. Cracks first appeared above and below the open cavity and initiated at its borders (red arrows) and
total collapse only ensued after large longitudinal splitting and delamination.

simple beam theory and axial stress and strain would then be less than acceptably reliable. Observations and
experiments that seem to support this hypothesis are e.g. the aforementioned Canary date palm that crushed a
man in Barcelona, as a small inner crack was said to have triggered the sturdy stem’s collapse with a breeze of
only 38.2 km/h10. Also pulling test experiments carried out in 2004 by the corresponding author showed that
the mechanically damaged palm stems under artificial loading started splitting first, leading to full collapse
­afterwards42. Those experiments (partially published in ­200542) had been kindly supported by Josep Selga S.L., the
City Councils of Terrassa and Mataró and the Asociación Española de Arboricultura, while the instrumentation
had been kindly provided too (Picus tomograph: L. Göcke Argus Electronics; Pulling tests: Brudi and Partner
Tree consult and Dr. Ing. L. Wessolly; Resistograph F300, IML: the City Council Terrassa). The aim was to assess
whether the pulling tests of Refs.3,45 could be adapted to palms or not and if experimental data for MOE could
be obtained from standing palms. Acoustic tomography (Picus tomograph) and microdrilling (Resistograph
F300) had also been carried out on several damaged palms, but had not facilitated any reliable breakage predic-
tion either (unpublished results). An example is shown in Fig. 3 where a desert fan palm (Washingtonia filifera)
collapsed under a static pull, after slanted longitudinal splitting and delamination was initiated at the border of
the open cavity (upwards and downwards)42. Also Fig. 4 shows how delamination (triggered at the height of the
open cavity under a static pull) led to total collapse of a date palm stem. No primary axial compression failure
was observed m ­ acroscopically42. And a hollow date palm exhibited extremely high shear values in comparison
with axial deformation at the height of a large, open cavity (Fig. 1)42. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to sup-
pose that if strong, cyclic and repetitive dynamic wind loading had beaten these three palms (instead of a static
pull), the risk of structural failure could have been heightened by progressive fatigue of the wood around the
structural defects (and thus earlier crack formations/propagations and at lower loads than with the static pull).
Third: Highly deformable and soft but elastic materials can exhibit types of structural deformation under
mechanical loads that are unlike those commonly observed in elastic structures that behave l­ inearly71. Kinking
at the inner side of soft, elastic cylinders was observed after the cylinders had become elastically unstable due
to Euler ­buckling71. The extreme localization of curvature at the compressed inner (not outer) side exceeded
a critical value leading to a sharp fold. When the cylinder was kept under a bending load for several minutes,
irreversible defects appeared at the location of the inner kink which, in subsequent loading cycles, progressively
lowered the cylinder’s structural stability under the same amount of l­oad71. Translated into palm stems, and
assuming they are highly deformable, soft and elastic, this means that inner kinks and defects could appear and
lead to structural collapse due to fatigue and cyclic loading beyond the critical curvature. Brazier buckling was
also observed in soft, elastic and hollow cylinders and the occurrence of either kinking and/or ovalization was
found to be dependent on the ratio between the diameter and the wall t­ hickness71. When one envisages palm
stems as has been done in the present paper (a viscoelastic cylinder), then the kinking and ovalization of the
cylinder (here: the palm stem), after becoming elastically unstable, could thus lead to abrupt structural collapse
while not obeying simple beam theory. Calculation of the critical curvature at which buckling sets in was said

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 10

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 4.  When a decayed date palm stem was statically pulled, splitting was initiated at the open cavity and
total collapse ensued by delamination.

to be rather straightforward, but the posterior evolution of the kink or defect would need detailed non-linear
­theory71. Hence, the modeling of elastic pre-buckling (i.e. prior to these aforementioned structural failures) seems
to be more within reach for palm stems than post-buckling collapses. No experiments have been performed on
palms yet to either confirm or refute these extrapolated suggestions, but the latter are possibly worth considering
in future research or risk assessments.
Fourth: Developing a mechanical model seems currently out of reach as strength and stiffness (and thus
damping) seem to evolve over time in the palm stem as a function of the location of the vascular bundles within
the trunk, age (and ensueing additional cell wall layers and (secondary) growth within the trunk) and growth
­conditions52. Also the lack of a statistical correlation between MOR and MOE and wood density in date palms
is, inexplicably, contrary to other investigated palm species, which also obstructs the path towards reliable
mechanistic ­modelization52.
Fifth: It was stated that “Reliable prediction of delamination growth is still proving to be problematic” in
human-made wood products, whereas simply localising starting points for delamination would possibly be more
within ­reach72. From which it can thus be inferred, that reliable predictions of delamination-triggered collapses
of Nature-made palm and tree trunks seem currently to be out of reach. But that would still be no reason to
neglect this type of structural failure).
Sixth: The existence of silica in palms was mentioned by Ref.52 (p. 158) and studied by e.g.73,74. Researchers
concluded from a literature review that the mechanical properties of palms could be enchanced by ­silica73. And
the role of silica in plants was described as: “Biomineralization is a naturally occurring process by which living
organisms form skeletons from inorganic minerals such as silica and calcium”75. The latter also found flexural
rigidity in rice plant leaves to increase with increasing silica content. It has been suggested by practitioners
and arborists in Spain that silica and biomineralization would make the palm stem stiffer and stronger around
structurally defective areas, as an alleged reaction to strength loss percieved by the palm itself (i.e. a substitute
for compensation or thigmomorphogenesis as studied in dicotyledons), but no scientific findings were found
that would support their suggestion.
Seventh: Local mechanical performance (i.e. damping and the diminution of stress discontinuities) of a
Mexican fan palm stem could be controlled by the plant itself up to a certain point by ­adaptation69. Which would
further complicate the mechanical modeling of structural stability versus (wind) loads.
Eighth: The cracking formulation of Ref.54 should unfortunately be precluded from being useful in hollow
palms, as their formulation assumes that the fibres are aligned along the tree axis, while palms present a mesh of
triple-helical fibrovascular bundles in a screw-like pattern along and across the palm stem.
Ninth: Based on visual observation, young and still flexible and soft Mexican fan and windmill (Trachycarpus
fortunei) palm stems seem to exhibit a viscoelastic behaviour when manually pushed and pulled. Their moving
out-of-phase with the pulls can be felt by hand and feels like a structure made of foam, but with a certain resil-
ience. Their behaviour resembles neither that of a steel spring nor that of foam or a stiff and non-deformable
beam. And this in contrast with e.g. flexible dicotyledonous saplings and tree branches that almost behave like
springs or lashes when laterally loaded and released by hand. Also visual observation of the damped manner in
which older, taller and stiffer Mexican fan, date and windmill (Trachycarpus fortunei) palm stems move out-of-
phase in strong winds seems to confirm this. And in several palm species the woven mesh of leaf sheath palm
fibres attached to the stem also exhibits a damping and viscoelastic behaviour when manually manipulated. In
windmill palm for instance, the stem is wrapped in a burlap-like mesh of brown and coarse leaf sheath fibre,
clasped around the trunk. Manual manipulation of that mesh suggests that friction among the fibres could
contribute to damping of leaf and stem movements. A review of published findings on damping and energy
dissipation in palms seems to confirm these visual obervations too (­ see32,68–70). A viscoelastic structure exhibits
a non-linear response to the strain rate, in which cyclic stress is out-of-phase with strain, as some of the stored
energy is recovered upon removal of the load, while the remaining energy is dissipated as heat. The modulus is

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 11

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

represented by a complex quantity: on the one hand the stiffness is defined by elastic behaviour and, on the other
hand, the energy dissipative ability of the material is defined by the material’s viscous behaviour. Hence, one could
thus hypothesise that the palm stem could be neither an elastic nor a viscous structure, but a combination of both.
So now, the aforementioned observations lead us to the following:
The herein postulated model envisages the palm stem as a viscoelastic and hollow cylinder prone to Euler
and Brazier buckling and ovalization and kinking. This hypothetical model could graphically be imagined as a
hollow foam pool noodle with a triple-helicoidal embedded mesh of tough (a high tensile strength) fibre bundles.
Both the foam of the pool noodle and the mesh of fibres contribute to the damping while the latter also adds
flexural stiffness under bending. The cylinder exhibites a non-linear response to the strain rate, in which cyclic
stress is out-of-phase with strain, which makes the whole structure viscoelastic. This envisaging was the main
reason why Eq. (10) for Brazier buckling, with a constant t/R for all wind speeds, was experimentally applied to
simulate FI of the cocostem of Ref.32.
However, it would also be prone to delamination, splitting and shear as the bundles are glued together with
“foam” along their screw-like path. The momentum the cylinder should withstand should be a result of dynamic
wind loads, mass and inertia that cause a non-linear deformation and pronounced curvature of the cylinder
(non-linear due to the varying material properties along the (tapered) stem and structural damping). Strains
in the stem would then not be linearly proportional to the load, by which Hooke’s law (ut tensio sic vis) would
not be not applicable. And stress would rise non-linearly along the stem radius from the core to the periphery.
Progressive fatigue of the wood, or at structural defects (e.g. crack initiations and progressive propagation due
to repeated dynamic wind loading), should be taken into account. This model would now possibly align quite
well with the scientific findings cited in this paper.
Nevertheless, a simple mind experiment can reveal the additional baffling challenges found in real palms:
imagine a date palm trunk that has been severely tunneled by Red Palm Weevil and/or pockets of rot: the struc-
ture resembles a piece of Gruyère cheese and allows remaining bundles of sound strands to be torn off by hand, as
the stiff vascular bundles are just lightly glued together by means of a foamy parenchymatous tissue. The remain-
ing bundles and volumes of sound wood, bordering the void and decayed spaces, could then resemble irregularly
shaped columns. Now, imagine the loading of this disk of “Gruyère cheese” due to a bending moment: an infinite
variety of kinds of structural failure would take place within the remaining “columns”: buckling, sliding, shear,
sideways kinking of the fibres, torsion, crack propagations along a triple-helical path, stress concentrations, et
cetera. And as the smart reader will surely agree to, this three-dimensional failure process is totally impossible
to depict, or assess, by means of drilling, tomography or simple beam theory. Doubtful readers can have a look
at the Figs. 10 and 11 in Ref.17 and imagine that the wood blocks in those figures were the remaining “columns”
of our imagined trunk. And, as it can be seen in those figures, the blocks structurally failed due to shear, even
under pure axial compression and ­tension17. And now let us add the following: looping movements of a tall palm
in winds has already been ­recorded18. These looping and circular motions of the stem, inevitably, cause a rotative
loading of the cross-section of that same stem. This rotative motion thus causes compression stress (and tension
stress on the opposite side) at the periphery and in a circular motion, Real wind loading of palms is thus very dis-
similar to the unidirectional loadings (assumed or performed) by e.g.1,3,16–18,32,36. And let us add too, that shearing
behaviours can be caused due to structural defects (e.g. see Fig. 1), and couple this with the rotative motion and
possible progressive fatigue processes in the root system and stem. Now the abovementioned reasonings leave us
with a mind-boggling panorama of infinite variables, which seemingly precludes all herein investigated methods
from being reliable. However, and from a constructive point of view, these postulated ideas are possibly the best
starting point for the development of a future risk assessment method. And the herein offered observations can
be used by arboricultural professionals to enhance their tree and palm risk assessment consultancy reports.
This is only a partial theory, which need not cancel out others per sé, but may overlap others so as to reach
a more acceptable degree of predictive accuracy. This may be a step toward a more complete, fully-unified and
more reliable theory that would enable us to make predictions that agree with observations to an acceptable
degree of accuracy. Constructing a complete theory from scratch looks excruciatingly difficult now, so perhaps
the way forward would be to overlap existing partial theories. Partial theories describe a limited variety of events
while leaving others aside. Current partial theories in arboriculture do not seem to be valid on their o ­ wn19,20,33.
33
Examples are theories that neglect common mechanical behaviours of the wooden b ­ ody , simple beam theory
and dubious t/R criteria for palm risk assessments. Or predictions of uprooting and breakage that are based on a
static wind load analysis, if the latter does not take into account the influence of slenderness, dynamics, mass and
inertia in slender and top-loaded (due to e.g. a lion-tailed crown or heavy crop) palms and t­ rees20. A complete
theory would thus contain a number of parameters which values, in real-life, cannot be predicted yet and such
values may have to be chosen to fit in through experiment. A very appealing goal would be now to overcome
this mind-boggling and infinite combination of behaviours and (structural and material) properties, and distill
it all into one simple and generic law/model, as was elegantly done for buckling by Ref.24.
Researchers have taken sound stems as a starting point (e.g.17,18,32. But, perhaps structurally-damaged trunks
should be the place from where to start, as the latter are generally the aim and goal of risk assessments. Future
methods could thus perhaps focus on deformations of the stem under circular (wind or artificial) loading, while
three-dimensional mechanical behaviours and failures can reasonably be expected within a damaged stem. And
also three-dimensional material properties should be taken into account: i.e. MOR and MOE in all anatomical
directions. But, as taking those values from published tables would not be feasible (due to the high variability
of those properties), different methods from the ones used by e.g.1,3,5,16–18,32,36 should perhaps be devised. For
instance, a preliminary investigation was carried out on forced vibrations, and resulting resonance frequency
values, for a Mexican fan palm, in the light of the identification of trunk decay and its level of s­ everity76. And
this could perhaps open up new leads for research. Vibration analysis could monitor repetitive motion signals,
to detect abnormal vibration patterns and levels, which could allow the assessment of the overall structural

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 12

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

condition of the trunk. But then one would still be left wondering whether that approach would reliably assess
e.g. the risk of delamination and crack propagation, or ovalization and kinking.
Nevertheless, it is now clear that if we stay within the limits of the theories that are the basis of methods such
as e.g. the tree-statics ­of3, t/R rules used by Ref.1,15 or the ill-fated pulling tests as reported by Ref.77, then our
mind will possibly not be able to devise the path of evolution.

Conclusion
It appears that in the current study, and for the first time, the tenability of influential claims has been analysed
regarding palm biomechanics in the context of risk assessment (breaking and uprooting). Theoretical wind load-
ing and breaking strength of a coconut palm had been computer-generated with a 3D Finite Element ­software32.
The latter’s results were simulated herein with a simple model on a spreadsheet, by using MOR (classic beam
theory) and MOE (Brazier buckling) and a hollow, tapered cylinder and applying a wind speed-dependent drag
factor. However, elementary scholars and students can easily follow the simple formulations, and that was the
intention too: the model was devised to support the herein offered analysis of the scientific veracity of some
influential claims and commercial tree and palm risk assessment methods that have dominated the arboricultural
industry and press in the last 20 years. But most importantly, and on the remains of the previously questioned or
refuted claims, fresh observations based on review and reasoning have been presented to construct new ideas,
which have been postulated herein as a possible path towards a new theory on palm risk assessment. The pos-
tulated model envisages the palm stem as a viscoelastic and hollow cylinder that is not only prone to buckling,
ovalization and kinking, but also fatigue, shear, splitting and crack propagation. This envisaging was the main
reason why a simple Brazier buckling formulation was experimentally, and successfully, applied herein to simulate
the breaking risk of a coconut palm stem.
A review of available publications also suggests that the strongest claims on palm risk assessment methods
could be found in non-scientific grey literature, such as magazines for arborists, websites of arboricultural firms
and lay press. One could thus wonder why the latter have had such an impact, been so influential and marketed at
such a grand scale. Scientific papers from peer-reviewed journals, on the other hand, did not offer the supposed
solutions and impacting claims. It is interesting to note, that the publications that offer dubious but influential
claims would not have been detected, had the review been conducted in a traditional academic manner (i.e.
searching only in academic databases). The field related to biomechanical tree and palm risk assessment seems
thus especially wanting in terms of independent scientific research.
Several claims currently seem to have the quality of unsupported suggestions, against which contrary evidence
can easily be found, or are suggestive of irresponsible practice. So, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that
unforeseen collapses and accidents could thus be a result. For instance, it was reported how two date palms were
unexpectedly torn down in Spain while carrying out a risk assessment with an undetermined kind of pulling
­test77. Fortunately, a bystander caught the unfortunate event on video and it graphically shows how that pulling
test causes the palm to collapse and (unintentionally) destroy p ­ roperty77.
This study should also open eyes to possible consequences (e.g. legal consequences in cases of loss of life or
property) that could sprout from marketing criteria and methods which foundations seem difficult to reconcile
with sound scientific practice, observation and reasoning. Evidence of Irresponsible Research Practices (IRP)
and flawed or questionable claims have been laid bare here and i­ n19,20. Simultaneously, a debate is emerging on
whether IRP and Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FFP) should be taken more seriously if it leads to
grossly negligent or potentially harmful practices or ­products78. The latter also said that societal or ecological
consequences of IRP would be relevant in setting the boundaries of its criminalisation. This is also why, among
other reasons, a culture of unbiasedness, reproducibility, rigour and transparency should be promoted in research.
Another unsettling finding of the review was that a wide array of papers on palms was found in journals that
have been listed as predatory by Ref.79. The shady side of predatory journals is that lightly-reviewed articles or
floppy editing can promote influential claims that are based on IRP or FFP. For instance, the low scientific cred-
ibility of a predatory journal was evidenced by Ref.80 who managed to publish a bogus paper, just to prove that
peer-review was apparently non-existent.
It has been shown that palms can withstand considerable deformations under wind loads, due to the biome-
chanical peculiarities and orientation pattern of the fibre caps of the single vascular bundles, embedded in the
soft parenchymatous t­ issue69. And yet, a breeze of maximum 38.2 km/h and a small structural defect apparently
sufficed to break a sturdy Canary date palm and kill a p ­ erson10. And a rind-core design in plants (i.e. a rind of lig-
nified tissues surrounding an incompressible core of parenchymatous tissues that could change in shape but no in
volume) would theoretically reduce the probability of Euler and Brazier b ­ uckling81. And yet, the tall Mexican fan
palms of the Atocha station in Madrid had buckled and collapsed in total absence of wind. This suggests that the
real reasons behind, and proper assessment of, the uprooting or breaking of trees and palms still remain elusive.
Lastly, the present paper is merely the result of a review combined with intellectual and theoretical exercising,
as the corresponding author has had no financial support to perform the experiments needed to either confirm
or refute some of the herein postulated ideas. Nevertheless, it is hoped that this study may offer ideas for future
experiments and also motivate the arboricultural community in the search for more reliable tree and palm risk
assessment methods through independent and unbiased research.

Methods
Research was carried out by simulating the results of the 3D Finite Element Analysis of Ref.32 and a review of
publications and commercial methodologies was conducted. The outcomes of the model highlight the observa-
tions drawn from the review.

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 13

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Wind load analysis. The mathematical structure was published in Ref.20,33 and the necessary parameters
were taken from Ref.32. The procedure of adapting the wind turbine model of Ref.20 was intentionally maintained
simple. Firstly, the wind profile was calculated as:
 α
hz
vz = vg G (1)
hg

where, vz is the wind speed at a certain height above ground level (m/s), in this case ranging from 10 to 60 m/s,
taken from Ref.32; vg is the maximum wind speed expected, not influenced by the roughness of the surrounding
terrain (m/s); hz is the height above ground level at which vz is reached (m); hg is the height above ground level
at which vg is reached (280 m); α is the surface friction coefficient (0.16); G is a gust factor (1.22).
The wind load formula was calculated as:
 9.80665
F = 0.5Cd ρAv2 (2)

1000
where, F is the force of the wind in the crown (kN); Cd is the drag coefficient stands for the flexibility that the
palm or tree employs in order to diminish the force of the wind and is dimensionless; ρ is the air density at a
certain altitude and temperature (kg/m3); A is the vertical area of the palm (crown and stem) (­ m2); v is the wind
speed (m/s1).
The vertical area of the crown (A) was 3 ­m2, the stem area 5.95 ­m2 (taking the basal and top diameters and
the length of the stem), P was 25 m and air density was 1.20 kg/m3 according to Ref.32.
The lever creates a bending moment (M in kNm) calculated as:
M = PF (3)
where, M is the bending moment (kNm); P is the lever (25 m); F is the force of the wind in the crown (kN).

Wind speed‑specific drag factor. The model simulated the bending moments of Ref.32 as follows:
First, drag factors were introduced in the model of Ref.20, to agree with the bending moments for all corre-
sponding wind speeds of Ref.32. A wind speed-specific drag coefficient represents the streamlining, and resulting
decrease in frontal area, of the crown and stem as the wind speed increases. The relationship found was:
0.63561235 − 0.11187391
y = 0.11187391 +  x
1 + 30.416375

2.5433076 (4)

where: y is the drag factor, dimensionless; x is the wind speed at 10 m height, in m/s.
The coefficient of determination was R2 = 0.9997. This automatically calculated wind-speed-specific drag
factor was then copied into the wind load analysis model of Ref.20.

Breaking strength. Gonzalez32 calculated FI (dimensionless) with non-static linear analysis (due to the
large deformations of the coconut stem) and by taking into account three-dimensional stresses (longitudinal,
radial and tangential) and Poisson’s ratios. An FI of greater than 1 means that the stem fibres hypothetically
suffer failure without necessarily leading to the collapse of the stem. The model simulates FI of Ref.32 by simply
modelling the stem as the shell of a hollow wind turbine tower. To fit in the wind turbine model’s simplicity,
three-dimensional stresses (longitudinal, radial and tangential) and Poisson’s ratios were translated into pure
axial compression stress, with the following procedure:
The increasing stresses, caused by increasing non-linear deformations of the stem under an increasing load,
were calculated by varying its shell thickness. That is, a certain wall thickness (t) over the radius of the stem (R)
gives a t/R ratio and a corresponding cross-section modulus (W in ­mm3). If the shell gets thinner, longitudinal
peripheral bending stress rises and vice versa. At all heights of the hollow tower, a certain W and a certain com-
pression strength or modulus of rupture (MOR in kN/mm2) are needed to resist M in simple bending.
The cross-section modulus of the stem W was calculated as follows:
 3 
πdnet
W= ∗ 1000 (5)
32
where, W is cross-section modulus (­ mm3); dnet is the net diameter (cm).
Diameter of the stem at a given height was calculated according to Ref.32 (p. 43) and thus modeled as tapered.
Then, compression stress (σ in kN/mm2) was calculated as:
M ∗ 100
σ=
Wring (6)

Finally, breaking safety (BS in %) was calculated as:

 
MOR
BS = ∗ 100 (7)
σ
Peripheral MOR values varied along the stem height according to Ref.32 (p. 83). A BS of less than 100%, means
that the outer stem fibres hypothetically suffer failure under pure axial compression stress.

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 14

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Failure Index (FI) was then calculated as:

100
FI = (8)
BS
Necessary t/R ratios at all wind speeds had to be found beforehand, so that bending moments at varying wind
speeds would match FI of Ref.32. The correlation of wind speed-dependent t/R ratios for wind speeds equal or
greater than 20 m/s was found to be:
1120164.9 − 0.20706989
y = 0.20706989 +  x
1 + 0.25220961

3.346368 (9)

where: y is the t/R ratio, dimensionless; x is the wind speed, in m/s.

The coefficient of determination was R ­ 2 = 0.9979.
Next, a linear correlation was established for wind speeds from 10 to 19.99 m/s by taking as a starting point the
necessary t/R for agreement with FI at 10 m/s. This linear correlation is different from the exponential one (the
latter for wind speeds above 20 m/s), as stem deformation (and stresses) are very low between 10 and 19.99 m/s
due to the small curvature of the stem.
The t/R ratio allows to calculate Wring of the concentric outer ring of the hollow tube by discounting Whollow
of the hollow area from W. Note that this just a mathematical adaptation (not a real t/R) to translate stem defor-
mation and resulting three-dimensional stresses into theoretical longitudinal compression stress to fit into the
simple wind turbine model. This simplicity also allows for easier comprehension of the remarks offered hereafter.
Thus, Ref.32 calculated FI due to large displacements of the cocostem subjected to strong steady winds and
visible to the naked eye, with non-linear geometry analysis. In the present model, these non-linear changes in
stresses caused by the large deformations were represented by changes in axial compression stress due to bending
moments affecting the shell of a wind turbine tower. This is the reverse-engineering of the proposal published
by Ref.22 where the latter calculated the buckling resistance of man-made shells (such as wind turbine towers),
taking the palm stem anatomy and material properties as a starting point.

Brazier buckling. The wind turbine model also simulates FI by modelling the stem as a round shell subject
to Brazier buckling, with the equation given by Ref.29 (p. 293). The critical stress for Brazier buckling was cal-
culated as:
     
1 MOE t
σcritbrazier = ∗ ∗ (10)
4 10 Rcav
where, σcritbrazier is the critical stress that causes Brazier buckling of the shell, kN/cm2; MOE is the modulus of
elasticity, in kN/cm2; t is the thickness of the shell which remains constant for all wind speeds, in cm; Rcav is the
radius of the cavity, in cm.
Longitudinal MOE values varied along the stem height according to Ref.32 (p. 79). The necessary thickness
of the shell, for agreement with BS, was introduced (1,632535 cm). The radius of the stem at 13.1 m height was
10.45 cm.
The safety factor against Brazier buckling is then:
σcritbrazier
Safetybrazierbuckling = ∗ 100
σcompression

where, σcompression is the longitudinal compression stress taken from Eq. (6), in kN/cm2; Safetybrazierbuckling is the
safety factor against Brazier buckling, in %.

Literature review
The review of publications related to palm risk assessment was conducted as follows: searching on Google
(incognito mode) was chosen, as this enabled to detect highly-influential authors and claims in grey literature
too (e.g. articles in magazines, websites and newspapers) that would not have been detected in databases that
are commonly used for academic purposes and reviews (e.g. Scopus or Pubmed). Search terms evolved around
the following: ‘biomecanica palmera datilera’, ‘biomechanics coconut palm’, ‘drilling decay palm’ and ‘visual
tree assessment palm’ (in English and Spanish). Then, the process was continued by manually selecting other
publications that were cited in the publications retrieved during the first search. The cycle was repeated until
sufficient evidence was found to support the analyses. Publications were sought for that offered commercial
tools, alleged solutions for the risk assessment of palms or have been influential in e.g. the arboricultural indus-
try, the mass media or court cases. Some of the reviewed publications had already been retrieved for Refs.19,20.
Unfortunately, some publications are available to members only and could thus not be scrutinised (e.g. PALMS
of the International Palm Society).

Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science Frame
repository, https://​osf.​io/​gehdu/?​view_​only=​99cfd​4418a​08483​583c4​b86a3​72582​f5.

Received: 3 July 2021; Accepted: 1 November 2021

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 15

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

References
1. Rinn, F. Detecting fungal decay in palm stems by resistance drilling. Florida Arborist. 1, 10–17 (2013).
2. Rasool, K. G. et al. Evaluation of some non-invasive approaches for the detection of red palm weevil infestation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.
27, 401–406. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​sjbs.​2019.​10.​010 (2020).
3. Brudi, E. & van Wassenaer, P. Trees and statics: Non- destructive failure analysis. in Tree Structure and Mechanics Conference Pro-
ceedings: How Trees Stand Up and Fall Down (eds. Smiley E.T. & Coder K.D.) 53–70 (Champaign, Illinois: International Society of
Arboriculture, 2001). http://w ​ ww.​tree-c​ onsul​ t.o
​ rg/u
​ pload/m ​ ediap ​ ool/p​ df/b​ aumst​ atik_u ​ nd_b ​ iomec​ hanik/t​ rees-a​ nd-s​ tatic​ s-n
​ onde​
struc​tive-​failu​re-​analy​sis.​pdf. Accessed 2 May 2019.
4. Rinn, F. Limits of the SIA method & online application for tree-breakage safety evaluation. Western Arborist. 2, 22–28 (2018).
5. Rinn, F. Principles and challenges of static load tests (‘pull-testing’) for estimating uprooting safety. Western Arborist. 1, 36–41
(2017).
6. Baker, M. 1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452–454. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​53345​2a (2016).
7. Boetto, E. et al. Frauds in scientific research and how to possibly overcome them. J. Med. Ethics https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​medet​
hics-​2020-​106639 (2020).
8. Barroso, F.J. Muere un niño de cuatro años en el parque del Retiro al caerle encima un árbol que habían revisado los técnicos. El
País. https://​elpais.​com/​ccaa/​2018/​03/​24/​madrid/​15218​96233_​995662.​html Accessed 5 May 2019 (2018).
9. Europapress. El pino del Retiro se revisó el jueves y no había fisuras: "No se puede prever este tipo de caída porque no da señales".
Europapress. https://w ​ ww.e​ uropa​ press.e​ s/m
​ adrid/n ​ otici​ a-p
​ ino-r​ etiro-r​ eviso-j​ ueves-n ​ o-fi
​ sura​ s-n​ o-p
​ uede-p​ rever-t​ ipo-c​ aida-p ​ orque-​
no-​da-​senal​es-​20180​32612​2215.​html Accessed 12 May 2019 (2018).
10. Conesa, S. Una fisura y el viento derrumbaron la palmera que mató a un hombre en la Ciutadella. El Periodico. https://​www.​elper​
iodico.​com/​es/​barce​lona/​20201​109/​infor​me-​defin​itivo-​accid​ente-​mortal-​ciuta​della-​palme​ra-​81971​68 Accessed 31 May 2021
(2020).
11. City Council Barcelona Tree risk management plan strengthened after the palm tree accident in La Ciutadella. Barcelona City
Council, Ecology. Urban Planning, Infrastructures and Mobility. https://​ajunt​ament.​barce​lona.​cat/​ecolo​giaur​bana/​en/​notic​ia/​
tree-​risk-​manag​ement-​plan-​stren​gthen​ed-​after-​the-​palm-​tree-​accid​ent-​in-​la-​ciuta​della_​10054​16 Acccessed 31 May 2021 (2020).
12. Cabeza, A. La palmera que mató a un hombre en Barcelona cayó por una concurrencia de varias causas. ABC. https://​www.​abc.​
es/​espana/​catal​unya/​barce​lona/​abci-​palme​ra-​mato-​hombre-​barce​lona-​cayo-​concu​rrenc​ia-​varias-​causas-​20200​82813​18_​notic​ia.​
html?​ref=​https%​3A%​2F%​2Fwww.​google.​es%​2F Accessed 31 May 2021 (2020).
13. Polo, J. Un cúmulo de factores propició la caída mortal de la palmera de la Ciutadella. La Vanguardia. https://​www.​lavan​guard​ia.​
com/l​ ocal/b​ arcel​ ona/2​ 02008​ 28/4​ 83136​ 18679​ 8/c​ umulo-f​ actor​ es-p ​ ropic​ io-c​ aida-m
​ oral-p ​ almer​ a-c​ iutad​ ella-b
​ arcel​ ona.h
​ tml Accessed
26 June 2021 (2020).
14. Lin, C. J., Chang, T. T., Juan, M. Y. & Lin, T. T. Detecting deterioration in royal palm (Roystonea regia) using ultrasonic tomography
and resistance micro drilling techniques. J. Trop. For. Sci. 23(3), 260–270 (2011).
15. Mattheck, C., Betghe, K. & Erb, D. Versagenskriterien für Baume. Allg. Forst-u. J.-Ztg. 164(1), 9–12 (1992).
16. Berdón, J.B., Vilanova, M.M. & Santiago, M. Informe técnico valoración de la estabilidad frente al viento de las palmeras de la Plaza
de España de Mérida, mediante tomografía sónica. Instituto del Corcho, La Madera y el Carbón Vegetal—Centro de Investigaciones
Científicas y Tecnológicas de Extremadura Junta de Extremadura, o C.M.C. CICYTEX. http://​www.​merida.​es/​desca​rgas/​jardi​nes/​
infor​me-​tomog​rafia-​palme​ras-​plaza-​espana.​pdf Accessed 31 May 2021 (2016).
17. Pantaleo, A., Pellerano, A., Ferrini, F. & Villa, G. Modelling the stability of Phoenix canariensis palms under external loads: An
application to a real case. Adv. Hort. Sci. 19(2), 101–110 (2005).
18. James, K.R. A dynamic structural analysis of trees subject to wind loading. PhD thesis, Melbourne School of Land and Environ-
ments. University of Melbourne (2010).
19. Sterken, P. Tree risk assessment: A review of methods. Arb. Mag. Spring Issue 180(1), 40–43. https://​doi.​org/​10.​31219/​osf.i​ o/​4v95b
(2018).
20. Sterken, P. On trees and wind turbines. Arboricult. J. Int. J. Urban Forestry. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03071​375.​2021.​19032​39 (2020).
21. Gibson, L. J. The hierarchical structure and mechanics of plant materials. J. R. Soc. Interface 9, 2749–2766. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​
rsif.​2012.​0341 (2012).
22. Wu, L., Liu, W., Su, Z., Wang, N. & Huang, J. Buckling design of conical shells based on palm trunks: Survey of power-law distrib-
uted thin-walled conical. J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.) 21(3), 313–319. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12204-​016-​1727-y (2016).
23. Winter, D. F. Erratum and reformulation: On the stem curve of a tall palm in a strong wind. SIAM Rev. 38(3), 485–486. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1137/​S0036​14459​62989​21 (1996).
24. Greenhill, G. Determination of the greatest height consistent with stability that a vertical pole or mast can be made, and the greatest
height to which a tree of given proportions can grow. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 4, 65–73 (1881).
25. Schulgasser, K. & Witztum, A. On the strength of herbaceous vascular plant stems. Ann. Bot. 80, 35–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​
anbo.​1997.​0404 (1997).
26. Jaouen, G., Alméras, T., Coutand, C. & Fournier, M. How to determine sapling buckling risk with only a few measurements. Am.
J. Bot. 94(10), 1583–1593. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3732/​ajb.​94.​10.​1583 (2007).
27. Dargahi, M., Newson, T. & Moore, J. Buckling behaviour of trees under self-weight loading. Forestry 00, 1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1093/​fores​try/​cpz027 (2019).
28. Sterken, P. The elastic stability of palms. Botanical Society of America. Plant Sci. Bull. 54(4), 153–154 (2008).
29. Gordon, J. E. Structures. Or Why Things Don’t Fall Down (Penguin Books, 1978).
30. Huang, Y. S., Hsu, F. L., Lee, C. M. & Juang, J. Y. Failure mechanism of hollow tree trunks due to cross-sectional flattening. R. Soc.
open sci. 4, 160972. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rsos.​160972 (2017).
31. Wang, J. & Sadowski A.J. Buckling of elastic cylindrical shells under symmetric but non uniform bending moment distributions.
In Conference paper. EUROSTEEL 2017. (Ernst & Sohn, 2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​cepa.​124.
32. Gonzalez, O.M. An engineering approach to understand senile coconut palms as foundation for biomimetic applications (Doctoral
Thesis). Griffith School of Engineering Griffith Sciences. Griffith University Australia (Gold Coast Campus, 2015).
33. Sterken, P. Prognosis of the development of decay and the fracture-safety of hollow trees. Arboricult. J. Int. J. Urban Forestry. 29(4),
245–267. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03071​375.​2006.​97474​66 (2006).
34. Gonzalez, O.M., Gilbert, B.P., Bailleres, H. & Guan, H. Compressive strength and stiffness of senile coconut palms stem green
tissue. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials (ACMSM23) (Ed. Smith,
S.T.) (Southern Cross University, 2014).
35. Aladjadjiyan, A. Food Production: Approaches, Challenges and Tasks (IntechOpen, 2012). (ISBN-10:9789533078878).
36. Passola, G. Estudio de riesgo de palmera Phoenix dactylifera. PDF file downloaded on 15 June 2017. https://​study​lib.​es/​doc/5​ 1196​
72/​mater​ial-​estud​io-​de-​riesgo-​de-​palme​ras Accessed 15 June 2017 (2017).
37. Griffith, M. P., Noblick, L. R., Dowe, J. L., Husby, C. E. & Calonje, M. A. Cyclone tolerance in New World Arecaceae: Biogeographic
variation and abiotic natural selection. Ann. Bot. 102(4), 591–598. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​aob/​mcn132 (2008).
38. Massa, R. et al. Experimental and numerical evaluations on palm microwave heating for Red Palm Weevil pest control. Sci. Rep.
7, 45299. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​srep4​5299 (2017).

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 16

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

39. Labouisse, J.-P., Sileye, T. & Hamelin, C. New observations on the resistance of coconut cultivars to tropical cyclones in Vanuatu.
CORD 23(2), 28–38. https://​doi.​org/​10.​37833/​cord.​v23i2.​164 (2007).
40. Abbas, S. et al. Tree tilt monitoring in rural and urban landscapes of Hong Kong using smart sensing technology. Trees Forests
People 2, 100030. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tfp.​2020.​100030 (2020).
41. Stubbs, C. J., Cook, D. C. & Niklas, K. J. A general review of the biomechanics of root anchorage. J. Exp. Bot. 70(14), 3439–3451.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​jxb/​ery451 (2019).
42. Sterken, P. A Guide for Tree-Stability Analysis. First print edition. (Royal Belgian Library, 2005) (ISBN: 9090193774).
43. Passola, G. Nuevo protocolo de evaluación de riesgo de caída/rotura para Phoenix dactylifera. https://​docto​rarbol.​com/​es/​nuevo-​
proto​colo-​de-​evalu​acion-​de-​riesgo-​de-​caida​rotura-​para-​phoen​ix-​dacty​lifera/. Accessed 31 May 2021.
44. Wessolly, L. Fracture diagnosis of trees Part 3: Boring is no way for reliable fracture diagnosis. Stadt und Gruen 9, 635–640 (1995).
45. Wessolly, L. & Erb, M. Manual of Tree Statics and Tree Inspection (English edition) (Patzer Verlag, 2016). (ISBN 978-3-87617-143-2).
46. Helliwell, D. R. A short note on effects of boring holes in trees. Arboricult. J. Int. J. Urban Forestry. 30(3), 245–248. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​03071​375.​2007.​97474​99 (2007).
47. Kersten, W. & Schwarze, F. W. M. R. Development of decay in the sapwood of trees wounded by the use of decay-detecting devices.
Arboricult. J. Int. J. Urban Forestry. 28(3), 165–181. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03071​375.​2005.​97474​17 (2005).
48. Matheny, N. P. et al. Assessing fracture moment and angle with fractometer. J. Arboricult. Int. J. Urban Forestry. 25(1), 18–23 (1999).
49. Goh, H. L., Rahim, R. A., Rahiman, M. H. F., Talib, M. T. M. & Tee, Z. C. Sensing wood decay in standing trees: A review. Sens.
Actuators A 269, 276–282. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​sna.​2017.​11.​038 (2018).
50. Revilla, M.V. Doctor ÁRBOL. Diario de Almería. https://​www.​diari​odeal​meria.​es/​almer​ia/​Doctor-​ARBOL_0_​11434​85713.​html
Accessed 31 May 2021 (2017).
51. Gruber, F. Untenable failure criteria for trees: I. The residual wall thickness rule. Arboricult. J. Int. J. Urban Forestry. 31(1), 5–18.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03071​375.​2008.​97475​14 (2008).
52. Fathi, L. Structural and mechanical properties of the wood from coconut palms, oil palms and date palms. Doctoral Thesis. Fakultät
für Mathematik, Informatik und Naturwissenschaften (University of Hamburg, 2014).
53. Thanate, R., Tanong, C. & Sittipon, K. An investigation on the mechanical properties of trunks of palm oil trees for the furniture
industry. J. Oil Palm Res. 1, 114–121 (2006).
54. Huang, Y. S., Chiang, P. L., Kao, Y. C., Hsu, F. L. & Juang, J. Y. Cracking failure of curved hollow tree trunks. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7,
200203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rsos.​200203 (2020).
55. Morcillo, M.A. Las palmeras de la Plaza de España pueden soportar vientos de hasta 135 Km/h. Hoy. https://​www.​hoy.​es/​merida/​
201701/​08/​palme​ras-​plaza-​espana-​pueden-​20170​10800​2815-v.​html Accessed 2 July 2021 (2017).
56. Fakopp. Manual for the ArborSonic3D acoustic tomograph. http://u ​ pload.f​ akopp.c​ om/m
​ anual​ s/M
​ anual.e​ n-U
​ Sv6.2.3​ .p
​ df Accessed
31 May 2021 (2020).
57. Calaza, P. Aproximación a la variabilidad espacial del módulo de elasticidad, humedad, resistencia a la flexión y densidad de un
ejemplar centenario de Phoenix canariensis. La Cultura del árbol 57, 11–17 (2010).
58. Speck, O. Field measurements of wind speed and reconfiguration in Arundo donax (Poaceae) with estimates of drag forces. Am.
J. Bot. 90(8), 1253–1256. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3732/​ajb.​90.8.​1253 (2003).
59. James, K. R., Dahle, G. A., Grabosky, J., Kane, B. & Detter, A. Tree biomechanics literature review: Dynamics. Arboricult. Urban
Forestry 1, 1–15 (2014).
60. Rich, P. M. Mechanical architecture of arborescent rainforest palms. Principes 30(3), 117–131 (1986).
61. Rich, P. M. Mechanical structure of the stem of arborescent palms. Bot. Gaz. 148(1), 42–50 (1987).
62. Shengcheng, Z. Anatomical and mechanical features of palm fibrovascular bundles. Doctoral Thesis. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14989/​
doctor.​k17904. (Kyoto University, 2013).
63. Griffith, A. V. I. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Proc. R. Soc. 221, 582–593. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rsta.​1921.​0006
(1921).
64. Virot, E., Ponomarenko, A., Dehandschoewercker, E., Quéré, D. & Clanet, C. Critical wind speed at which trees break. Phys. Rev.
E 93, 023001. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1103/​PhysR​evE.​93.​023001 (2016).
65. Huang, Y. S., Chen, S. S., Lin, T. P. & Chen, Y. S. Growth strain in coconut palm trees. Tree Physiol. 22, 261–266. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1093/​treep​hys/​22.4.​261 (2002).
66. Liu, J. L. & Gong, Y. Buckling and wrinkling: Valuable topics in mechanics class. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 144(2), 02518001.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​EI.​1943-​5541.​00003​63 (2018).
67. Liu, J. L., Mei, Y. & Dong, X. Q. Post-buckling behavior of a double-hinged rod under self-weight. Acta Mech. Solida Sin. 26(2),
197–204. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0894-​9166%​2813%​29600​19-1 (2013).
68. Rüggeberg, M., Speck, T. & Burgert, I. Structure–function relationships of different vascular bundle types in the stem of the Mexican
fanpalm (Washingtonia robusta). New Phytol. 182, 443–450. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1469-​8137.​2008.​02759.x (2009).
69. Rüggeberg, M. et al. Stiffness gradients in vascular bundles of the palm Washingtonia robusta. Proc. R. Soc. B. 275, 2221–2229.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rspb.​2008.​0531 (2008).
70. Wang, N., Liu, W., Huang, J. & Ma, K. The structure–mechanical relationship of palm vascular tissue. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed.
Mater. 36, 1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jmbbm.​2014.​04.​001 (2014).
71. Ghatak, A. & Das, A. L. Kink instability of a highly deformable elastic cylinder. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(7), 076101. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1103/​physr​evlett.​99.​076101 (2007).
72. Bucur, V. Delamination in Wood, Wood Products and Wood-Based Composites (Springer, 2011). (ISBN: 978-90-481-9550-3).
73. Bokor, B. et al. Silicon uptake and localisation in date palm (Phoenix dactylifera)—A unique association with sclerenchyma. Front.
Plant Sci. 10, 988. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpls.​2019.​00988 (2019).
74. Lins, U., Barros, C. F., da Cunha, M. & Miguens, F. C. Structure, morphology, and composition of silicon biocomposites in the
palm tree Syagrus coronata (Mart.) Becc. Protoplasma 220, 89–96. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00709-​002-​0036-5 (2002).
75. Yamanaka, S. et al. Structures and physiological functions of silica bodies in the epidermis of rice plants. Appl. Phys. Lett. 95,
123703. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/1.​32322​04 (2009).
76. Djamel, O. Monitoring of a cross-sectional vibrational mode in the trunk of a palm tree. Arboricult. Urban Forestry 46(4), 307–318.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​48044/​jauf.​2020.​022 (2020).
77. Portal de Cádiz (2021). Video tronchan esta palmera del parque Genovés y este es el motivo. Portal de Cádiz. https://​www.​porta​
ldeca​diz.​com/​cadiz-​capit​al/​62146-​video-​tronc​han-​esta-​palme​ra-​del-​parque-​genov​es-y-​este-​es-​el-​motivo Accessed 29 July 2021
(2021).
78. Dal-Ré, R., Bouter, L. M., Cuijpers, P., Gluud, C. & Holm, S. Should research misconduct be criminalized?. Res. Ethics 16(1–2),
1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​17470​16119​898400 (2020).
79. Beall, J. Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers. https://​beall​slist.​net/#​update. Accessed 6 June 2021.
80. Anderson, R. Guest Post—Why Should We Worry about Predatory Journals? Here’s One Reason. https://​blog.​cabel​ls.​com/​2020/​
03/​03/​guest-​post-​why-​should-​we-​worry-​about-​preda​tory-​journ​als-​heres-​one-​reason/ Accessed 6 June 2021 (2020).
81. Niklas, K. J. Plant height and the properties of some herbaceous stems. Ann. Bot. 75, 133–142. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​anbo.​1997.​
0404 (1995).

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 17

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Author contributions
P.S. is the only author.

Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.S.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2021

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:22134 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01679-4 18

Vol:.(1234567890)