Prof. on the box
After his phytophyllic antics were revealed to the world last year, serial seriously scientific stuntsman Iain Stewart – our original ‘Prof. in a box’ (see Plant Cuttings, November 2011) – has done it again. Not content to use contemporaneously generated botanical oxygen (‘bot-ox’?) to prove one can survive in a confined space supplied by plants alone, this time he's using oxygen (patently palaeohistorical, putatively photosynthetically produced) that's 2·5 billion years old (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bywvr)! Gimmicky? Yes, a bit. Does that matter? I don't think so (certainly not in a negative way, anyway). Arguably, this is the sort of eye-catching party piece that might just fire the imagination of impressionable youngsters and turn them on to the power of plants and the crucial role they play in all our lives. The ‘academic breathes oxygen’ incident (which doesn't sound nearly so impressive when reduced to its basics) is part of Stewart's new 3-part TV series entitled, ‘How to grow a planet’, which ‘tells a stunning new story about our planet … how the greatest changes to the Earth have been driven, above all, by plants’. It sounds like a TV adaptation of David Beerling's marvellous tome, The Emerald Planet (see Annals of Botany 100: 1605–1606, 2007, for a review; so, it should be no surprise that Beerling is listed as Series Consultant). Anyway, first broadcast by the UK's BBC on 7th February 2012, Episode 1 (‘Life from Light’) showed ‘how plants first harnessed light from the sun and created our life-giving atmosphere. He [Stewart] uncovers the epic battle between the dinosaurs and the tallest trees on the planet. And, using remarkable imagery, he shows plants breathing – and for the first time talking to each other …’. I can't wait to see the full series (publication deadlines mean that I'm writing this in advance) – and its remarkable imagery. If it lives up to its publicity (which I have to say has been remarkably low-key – I only found out about this from a chance conversation with a colleague near the water cooler … How on earth are we to get over the ‘plants really are quite important’ message if those who spend money making such programmes don't spend a few more euros to promote them!?!)), it promises to be even better(!) than the BBC's 2011 series, ‘Botany: A blooming history’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011vf07). More – plant – power to the Beeb, and to Iain! [The ‘respiration incident’ – and others – is already available to view (and incorporate in botany teaching sessions?) on YouTube, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwMkS8WixyI – Ed.]
Image: Daniel Mayer/Wikimedia Commons.
Science teaching resource
Relatively new to me – so maybe new to some of my devoted legion of readers (many of whom may be involved in teaching science, plant or otherwise) and therefore worthy of sharing – is news of the Understanding Science teaching resource (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/). Yes, it's ‘American’. So, you might be annoyed by the idiosyncratic spellings. And it is primarily directed at teaching students up to age 16. But, science is universal, and scientists are adaptable and resourceful, so we can accommodate ‘unusual’ spellings. Plus, it's what we encourage our students to do with the concepts, ideas and knowledge that means that a resource ostensibly directed at a 16-year old can still deliver extremely useful learning opportunities, etc, to 18-year olds such as first-year undergraduates. And: the stuff is free(!). I was particularly impressed with the recent resource – a ‘Science in Action’ item – relating to the traumatic birth pangs and tortured teenage years of Margulis' endosymbiotic theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/endosymbiosis_01; the greatest example of which is – undeniably! – the plant cell). In recounting that story the site offers numerous links to other resources that deal with important scientific ideas such as evidence- and hypothesis testing. All very impressive stuff – great for undergraduate teaching, and for those wider participation/out-reach activities that some of us engage in. Check it out for yourself!
Image: David Smith & Josh Frankel/Understanding Science, University of California, Berkeley.
Multi-purpose leaves!
There are few certainties in plant biology. But, surely, a truth universally acknowledged is that leaves are green, designed to engage in photosynthesis to create food for humans, and are found on the aerial parts of plants? Well, it ain't necessarily so. Not all leaves are green – go to the USA's New England States in the ‘fall’ to see that notion debunked (in glorious Technicolor!). And leaves don't just engage in food production (which, incidentally, is for the plant's own selfish ends; only coincidentally does it benefit those creatures that feed on/off the plant's biomass …); some leaves trap invertebrates and derive extra nourishment therefrom. Well, combining that latter activity and a subterranean placement of those quintessential aerial organs we have Caio Pereira et al.'s study of Philcoxia minensis (PNAS 109: 1154–1158, 2012). Non-sensationalistically entitled ‘Underground leaves of Philcoxia trap and digest nematodes’, their study provides evidence that subterranean leaves of that genus do indeed trap and digest nematodes, and consequently the taxon should now be considered carnivorous. This behaviour was predicted on the basis of morphological and habitat similarity of Philcoxia to other carnivorous plants – and is understandable given the low nutrient status of the cerrado of Brazil where it is found. Interestingly, previous attempts to determine P. minensis' carnivory – by Peter Fritsch et al. (Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 4th series 58: 447–467, 2007) – failed to find the tell-tale signature of protease activity, suggesting it was not carnivorous. However, and presciently(?), citing ‘potential sources of error’ in their work, they did not rule out the possibility. To discover a new carnivorous plant might seem somewhat unlikely in the 21st Century (where we like to think we know practically all there is to know about everything), but – if Mark Chase et al. are correct – there are probably a lot more carnivores out there than we currently recognise (Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 329–356, 2009). Truly, fascinating plants – as is further demonstrated in Król and colleagues' review of the antics of those amazingly able and adept animal assimilators (Annals of Botany 109: 47–64, 2012). However, fascinating though the Brazilian revelation is (and it is!), I'm even more excited by the distribution pattern of Genlisea (a genus related to Philcoxia), which is shown in the image above. Is it just me, or does the ‘sticky-out bit’ on the right of South America look like it could fit into the indentation on the left of Africa? Now, I don't know about you, but one could imagine – crazy perhaps, but bear with me – that the taxon evolved in one terrestrial location in the dim-and-distant past when the present-day continents of South America and Africa were side-by-side – maybe even joined as one ‘super-continent’ – but became dispersed to those disparate continents when that original birthplace became split asunder and different chunks of terra not-so-firma moved apart (almost as if those continental land masses were drifting over the surface of the earth like croutons atop some sort of geological soup …). I wonder …?
Image: Petr Dlouhý/Wikimedia Commons.
Nicotine: an ancient addiction?
It must be terribly depressing if you don't have plants in your life to give you purpose and a reason to get up in the morning, put digit to keyboard, or whatever. Still, for those who are intellectually botanically bereft, there is always one plant-derived stimulant or another to fill the void. And most of those in use have been exploited by man for a long time. But for how long have ‘we’ been using such phytological pick-me-ups as crutches to prop up our humdrum lives? Well, a rather long time in the case of nicotine, according to work by Dmitri Zagorevski et al. (Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 26: 403–411, 2012). Using GCMS (gas chromatography–mass spectrometry; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chromatography%E2%80%93mass_spectrometry) and LCMS (liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_chromatography%E2%80%93mass_spectrometry) they detected the presence of nicotine in a Late Mayan period flask (from approx. 700 ad/ce). Tellingly, clues to the former contents of the now-empty container were its inscription, which translates as ‘the home of its/his/her tobacco’. Still, in accordance with a true sceptical scientific approach, the flask's residues were duly examined and the presence of nicotine (which addictive alkaloid is famously found in tobacco; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine) was proved. Interestingly, if rather circularly, this independent hi-tech ‘proof of contents’ apparently constitutes only the second case to confirm that the text on the exterior of a Mayan vessel corresponds to its ancient use(!). Presumably, this also represents evidence that even if you live in a supposed sub-tropical paradise like olden-days southern Mexico, you may still seek distraction and abstraction by indulging in the occasional bit of alkaloid abuse. And perhaps modern-day Mayans will choose to puff away on a cheroot as the world ends on 21st December 2012 (according to pessimism connected with the misunderstanding that the ancient Mayan calendar ‘runs out’ on that date; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon), and – hopefully! – still be doing so on the 22nd of December, 2012 in relief that the world didn't end … [This was written before the 21st December 2012. If you're reading this item after that date, count yourselves lucky! – Ed.]
Image: Wolfgang Sauber/Wikimedia Commons.
When physics meets botany …
This column is always fascinated by the way new insights arise when different disciplines are brought together to tackle an ostensibly botanical problem. So, too, is the UK's Royal Society, hence its august organ entitled Journal of the Royal Society Interface, a ‘cross-disciplinary publication promoting research at the interface between the physical and life sciences’ (http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/). Combining mechanics, dentistry and biology, Peter Lucas and colleagues have examined the evolutionary optimization of material properties of a thick-shelled tropical seed (Journal of the Royal Society Interface 9: 34–42, 2012) and nicely demonstrated that its mechanical properties are adapted to permit them to germinate while preventing their predation. In their own words, ‘The seed has evolved a complex heterogeneous microstructure resulting in hardness, stiffness and fracture toughness values’, but which still permits ‘cracking the shell via internal turgor pressure (i.e. germination)’. The thick-shelled tropical seed-bearing plant studied was a member of the Annonaceae (the custard apple family; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annonaceae), Mezzettia parviflora Becc. (which information is rather bizarrely not mentioned in the article's title, abstract, or key words). My researches reveal that, whilst M. parviflora Becc. is apparently the ‘official’ name for the plant, M. herveyana Oliv. is listed as a synonym (http://www.asianplant.net/Annonaceae/Mezzettia_parviflora.htm). And this latter taxon is critically endangered per the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List; http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/31712/0), known only from a single collection found in Malacca (Malaysia). Could this endangered status be due in part to a seed coat that has actually now become too cracking-resistant? Whether the afore-mentioned ‘thick-shelled tropical seed’ was present in Antarctica at the time of the Cretaceous lithostrotian titanosaur (known rather inelegantly as MLP 11-II-20-1), whose discovery was announced by Ignacio Cerda et al. (Naturewissenschaften 99: 83–87, 2012), is not disclosed. But it may have been. In which case any resistance by the nut to the dietary attentions of the vegetarian sauropod may in part explain the demise of that group of dinosaurs in 65·5 million years bc/bce. Or, maybe they just couldn't cope with the ‘cold snap’ that subsequently developed down there? Anyway, just another crazy notion I'm happy to toss into the pot!
Image: Eva Kröcher/Wikimedia Commons.
Tongue-tied? Let the flowers do the talking!
Traditionally, 14th February – Saint Valentine's Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine%27s_Day) – is the day when lovers bear their souls and declare their love for one another, often accompanied by gifts (‘inducements’, bribes …?) of flowers, chocolates, maybe even jewellery. However, such is the power of plants, oftentimes you can probably ‘get away’ with just flowers (after all, rose is an anagram of Eros …). Or so one might like to think (I suspect that the purveyors of cut flowers are probably keen to promote that idea at least …). Nevertheless, such assumptions need to be tested to determine any veracity, which is what psychologist Nicolas Guéguen has done (Social Influence 6: 105–112, 2011). In two experiments he showed that ‘women's perception of male attractiveness and their potential mating behavior are positively affected by simple exposure to flowers’. So, would-be wooers, you can omit the chocolates, and you can forego the jewellery, but don't forget the flowers. Otherwise your Valentine's Day might be remembered for a rather different outcome (as one Mr Capone – allegedly(?) – can attest; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre).
Image: Wikimedia Commons.
Lest you missed it …
Daily deluged as we so often are with so much ‘stuff’, it can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff (http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/separate+the+wheat+from+the+chaff.html), or maybe even the wheatey from the chaffey. So, in case you missed it, I conclude this month's selection with a little botanical gem.
The answer is blowin' in the wind …
How does a rooted-to-the-spot plant escape the attentions of would-be herbivores? Well, according to Kazuo Yamazaki in his review straightforwardly entitled ‘Gone with the wind: trembling leaves may deter herbivory’ (Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 104: 738–747, 2011), they move, and rather rapidly, too! No, they don't run away, but by employing rapid – though passive – movements, such as the wind-induced trembling of leaves, they may keep invertebrate invaders at bay. Those movements may dislodge herbivores or parasites or dissuade gravid females from laying their eggs on the ‘movable feast’. The leafy jinglings and janglings may also serve to uncover animals previously hidden by the foliage, subjecting them to the undesired attentions of their own predators. Furthermore, the tremblings may assist the dispersal of plant volatile compounds thereby repelling herbivores and/or attracting their predators. Lovely stuff (and so elegant, it must be correct!). As in the human world, so too it would seem in the plant world, it's the movers and shakers (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/movers-and-shakers.html) who get things done.
Image: Wikimedia Commons.
Chaffey N. 2012. Plant Cuttings, March. Annals of Botany 109(4): iii–vi.