Plants are wonderful creatures on the earth.But they cannot move from place to place like us,yet they perform all the physiological functions like transportation etc.how do you appreciate this from your lesson point of view
Answers
Answered by
17
Besides the energetics issue that others have mentioned, which, I do believe is the primary issue, here are a few other things to consider, all in conjunction, including with the energetics issue:
1. Plants have thick cell walls.
2. Plants are rooted.
3. Plants don't move but have very developed dispersal mechanisms. Seeds are the obvious example, but just consider how grass or runners spread. Ferns and some trees do have motile sperm.
4. Plants are modular. Preservation of the "individual" plant, in the same sense of an animal, isn't as important.
5. Historical contingency. (This, by the way, should be the "default" answer for any "why didn't xxx organism evolve to do yyy.") While there may be a theoretical niche for moving, photosynthetic organisms, those are two very separate organisms that never exchange any substantial genetic material - it would have to be genetically engineered.
Anyway, a thought experiment to put it all together. It might make sense for plants to move if they can't obtain consistent sunlight in one location. However, those areas are likely to already be colonized (historical contingency issue), and it will need to outcompete the plants that already established in that target location. Those plants will be our usual plants; thick cell walls, low energy costs of not moving. The point is, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where the benefit of moving to a plant will outweigh its costs!
1. Plants have thick cell walls.
2. Plants are rooted.
3. Plants don't move but have very developed dispersal mechanisms. Seeds are the obvious example, but just consider how grass or runners spread. Ferns and some trees do have motile sperm.
4. Plants are modular. Preservation of the "individual" plant, in the same sense of an animal, isn't as important.
5. Historical contingency. (This, by the way, should be the "default" answer for any "why didn't xxx organism evolve to do yyy.") While there may be a theoretical niche for moving, photosynthetic organisms, those are two very separate organisms that never exchange any substantial genetic material - it would have to be genetically engineered.
Anyway, a thought experiment to put it all together. It might make sense for plants to move if they can't obtain consistent sunlight in one location. However, those areas are likely to already be colonized (historical contingency issue), and it will need to outcompete the plants that already established in that target location. Those plants will be our usual plants; thick cell walls, low energy costs of not moving. The point is, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where the benefit of moving to a plant will outweigh its costs!
Similar questions