Skip to main content

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations. 

If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement over generations.  But we see movement in plants on a daily basis.  Flowers open and stems bend toward the sun - they are phototropic.  As all gardeners know, light is vital to the plant. 


Charles Darwin and his son carried out an elegant experiment on grass stems.  They put a cap on the very tip of the young stems.  What they found was that the stems no longer bent towards the light.  The bending is produced by elongation of the plant cells on one side of the stem.  Clearly, some kind of signal was being sent to these cells from the light-sensitive tip.  The Danish physiologist, Peter Boysen-Jensen, later showed that this signal was a chemical that travelled down from the tip only on the shaded side of the stem. The tips contain light-sensitive proteins - phototropins - that cause a hormone - auxin - to be transported down the stem. 

Day length matters to a plant. Plants are good time-keepers. The Earth spins as it orbits the sun, and it is the measure of day length that really matters.  Some plants - short-day plants - such as rice, will only flower when the day length drops below a certain threshold.  Others, such as spinach and sugar beet are long-day plants - flowering only when the day length rises above a certain level.  In this way, the plants monitor the seasons. Some are day-length neutral. 

Hello, darkness my old friend.  We refer to short-day plants, but it is the night that matters - the period of darkness.  A short-day plant will only flower if it gets a continuous period of darkness for a given length of time.  So, how do plants do this? 

One idea is that it involves a synchrony - a lining up - of an internal physiological clock with the light/dark periodicity.  Plants flower when these are in synchrony. But how would this work?

The plant produces a bloom inducing protein in a rhythmic cycle - the protein production ebbs and flows, but it is usually broken down as soon as it is produced, and this prevents the concentration rising.  As the evenings get lighter, this breakdown of the protein is blocked, and the concentration increases and triggers flowering.  That is one idea, but plants may have found different ways to solve the problem. 

Production of seed is only half of the solution.  Dispersal is a major part of the trick, for which nature has produced a variety of means.  And this is where plants use animals - animals move at greater speeds and distance. They may collect and bury nuts; their fur may pick up seed.  For plants and trees, animals make ideal dispersal kits.  Evolution is an interactive process. 

Ray Noble is a chartered biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As