Do environmental stimuli modify sensitive plant (Mimosa pudica L.) risk assessment?

Abstract

Although plants and animals both assess their environment and respond to stimuli, this reaction is considered a behavior in animals and a response in plants. Responses in plants are seen within various timescales- from the nanosecond stimuli is presented to a lifelong progression. Within this study, we bridge the gap between animal behavioral studies and plant response. Sensitive plants (Mimosa pudica L.) are an ideal subject for this due to the rapid closure of their primary leaflets when touched. We designed a multimodal, or stress combination, experiment to test two hypotheses with sensitive plants: if they could be distracted and if they would alter their risk assessment when exposed to external stimuli (wind and sound). To evaluate the distraction hypothesis, we measured an individual's latency to close, hypothesizing that if the plants were distracted, they would take longer to close. To evaluate the uncertain risk hypothesis, we quantified the latency to reopen, hypothesizing that if the plants were uncertain, they would take longer to reopen. We also quantified the number of pinnae closed on the selected stem to test for changes in risk assessment across treatments. We expected the unimodal treatments would distract or alter risk assessment, and the multimodal treatment would elicit an enhanced response. Multimodal stimuli had a significant effect on the number of pinnae closed before the tap, but we found no evidence that plants were distracted by any stimulus tested. We found that temperature had a significant effect on the latency to close, and that plants modified their risk assessment when exposed to experimental wind stimuli. By manipulating environmental stimuli, we found that sensitive plants trade-off energy and perceived risk much in the way that is commonly found in animals. Framing the study of plants' responses to environmental stimuli as behavioral questions may generate new insights.

Fig 1. Photos of study site at the Gump Marine Lab, Moorea, French Polynesia.

Fig 2. Photos of experimental tap.

a) Before experimental tap, b) Experimental tap on the petiole, c) After experimental tap. Also pictured is the tag below the third fully developed leaf from the apex towards the basis.

Fig 3

a. Number of pinnae closed, b. latency to open, c. latency to close as a function of treatment. Treatments include C (control), M (multimodal), S (sound), and W (wind).