The Power of Movement in Plants · Charles Darwin
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND SUMMARY OF CHAPTER.
We do not know whether it is a general rule with seedling plants that the illumination of the upper part determines the curvature of the lower part. But as this occurred in the four species examined by us, belonging to such distinct families as the Gramineæ, Cruciferae, and Chenopodeae, it is probably of common occurrence. It can hardly fail to be of service to seedlings, by aiding them to find the shortest path from the buried seed to the light, on nearly the same principle that the eyes of most of the lower crawling animals are seated at the anterior ends of their bodies. It is extremely doubtful whether with fully developed plants the illumination of one part ever affects the curvature of another part. The summits of 5 young plants of Asparagus officinalis (varying in height between 1.1 and 2.7 inches, and consisting of several short internodes) were covered with caps of tin-foil from 0.3 to 0.35 inch in depth; and the lower uncovered parts became as much curved towards a lateral light, as were the free seedlings in the same pots. Other seedlings of the same plant had their summits painted with Indian ink with the same negative result. Pieces of blackened paper were gummed to the edges and over the blades of some leaves on young plants of Tropaeolum majus and Ranunculus ficaria; these were then placed in a box before a window, and the petioles of the protected leaves became curved towards the light, as much as those of the unprotected leaves.
The foregoing cases with respect to seedling plants have been fully described, not only because the transmission of any effect from light is a new physiological fact, but because we think it tends to modify somewhat the current views on heliotropic movements. Until lately such movements were believed to result simply from increased growth on the shaded side. At present it is commonly admitted[7] that diminished light increases the turgescence of the cells, or the extensibility of the cell-walls, or of both together, on the shaded side, and that this is followed by increased growth. But Pfeffer has shown that a difference in the turgescence on the two sides of a pulvinus,—that is, an aggregate of small cells which have ceased to grow at an early age,—is excited by a difference in the amount of light received by the two sides; and that movement is thus caused without being followed by increased growth on the more turgescent side.[8] All observers apparently believe that light acts directly on the part which bends, but we have seen with the above described seedlings that this is not the case. Their lower halves were brightly illuminated for hours, and yet did not bend in the least towards the light, though this is the part which under ordinary circumstances bends the most.
It is a still more striking fact, that the faint illumination of a narrow stripe on one side of the upper part of the cotyledons of Phalaris determined the direction of the curvature of the lower part; so that this latter part did not bend towards the bright light by which it had been fully illuminated, but obliquely towards one side where only a little light entered. These results seem to imply the presence of some matter in the upper part which is acted on by light, and which transmits its effects to the lower part. It has been shown that this transmission is independent of the bending of the upper sensitive part. We have an analogous case of transmission in Drosera, for when a gland is irritated, the basal and not the upper or intermediate part of the tentacle bends. The flexible and sensitive filament of Dionaea likewise transmits a stimulus, without itself bending; as does the stem of Mimosa. [7] Emil Godlewski has given (‘Bot. Zeitung,’ 1879, Nos. 6–9) an excellent account (p. 120) of the present state of the question. See also Vines in ‘Arbeiten des Bot. Inst. in Würzburg,’ 1878, B. ii. pp. 114–147. Hugo de Vries has recently published a still more important article on this subject: ‘Bot Zeitung,’ Dec. 19th and 26th, 1879. [8] ‘Die Periodischen Bewegungen der Blattorgane,’ 1875, pp. 7, 63, 123, etc. Frank has also insisted (‘Die Naturliche wägerechte Richtung von Pflanzentheilen,’ 1870, p. 53) on the important part which the pulvini of the leaflets of compound leaves play in placing the leaflets in a proper position with respect to the light. This holds good, especially with the leaves of climbing plants, which are carried into all sorts of positions, ill-adapted for the action of the light.
Light exerts a powerful influence on most vegetable tissues, and there can be no doubt that it generally tends to check their growth. But when the two sides of a plant are illuminated in a slightly different degree, it does not necessarily follow that the bending towards the illuminated side is caused by changes in the tissues of the same nature as those which lead to increased growth in darkness. We know at least that a part may bend from the light, and yet its growth may not be favoured by light. This is the case with the radicles of Sinapis alba, which are plainly apheliotropic; nevertheless, they grow quicker in darkness than in light.[9] So it is with many aërial roots, according to Wiesner;[10] but there are other opposed cases. It appears, therefore, that light does not determine the growth of apheliotropic parts in any uniform manner. [9] Francis Darwin, ‘Über das Wachsthum negativ heliotropischer Wurzeln’: ‘Arbeiten des Bot. Inst. in Würzburg,’ B. ii., Heft iii., 1880, p. 521. [10] ‘Sitzb. der k. Akad. der Wissensch’ (Vienna), 1880, p. 12.
We should bear in mind that the power of bending to the light is highly beneficial to most plants. There is therefore no improbability in this power having been specially acquired. In several respects light seems to act on plants in nearly the same manner as it does on animals by means of the nervous system.[11] With seedlings the effect, as we have just seen, is transmitted from one part to another. An animal may be excited to move by a very small amount of light; and it has been shown that a difference in the illumination of the two sides of the cotyledons of Phalaris, which could not be distinguished by the human eye, sufficed to cause them to bend. It has also been shown that there is no close parallelism between the amount of light which acts on a plant and its degree of curvature; it was indeed hardly possible to perceive any difference in the curvature of some seedlings of Phalaris exposed to a light, which, though dim, was very much brighter than that to which others had been exposed. The retina, after being stimulated by a bright light, feels the effect for some time; and Phalaris continued to bend for nearly half an hour towards the side which had been illuminated. The retina cannot perceive a dim light after it has been exposed to a bright one; and plants which had been kept in the daylight during the previous day and morning, did not move so soon towards an obscure lateral light as did others which had been kept in complete darkness.
Even in the case of ordinary heliotropic movements, it is hardly credible that they result directly from the action of the light, without any special adaptation. We may illustrate what we mean by the hygroscopic movements of plants: if the tissues on one side of an organ permit of rapid evaporation, they will dry quickly and contract, causing the part to bend to this side. Now the wonderfully complex movements of the pollinia of Orchis pyramidalis, by which they clasp the proboscis of a moth and afterwards change their position for the sake of depositing the pollen-masses on the double stigma—or again the twisting movements, by which certain seeds bury themselves in the ground[13]—follow from the manner of drying of the parts in question; yet no one will suppose that these results have been gained without special adaptation. Similarly, we are led to believe in adaptation when we see the hypocotyl of a seedling, which contains chlorophyll, bending to the light; for although it thus receives less light, being now shaded by its own cotyledons, it places them—the more important organs—in the best position to be fully illuminated. The hypocotyl may therefore be said to sacrifice itself for the good of the cotyledons, or rather of the whole plant.
But if it be prevented from bending, as must sometimes occur with seedlings springing up in an entangled mass of vegetation, the cotyledons themselves bend so as to face the light; the one farthest off rising up, and that nearest to the light sinking down, or both twisting laterally.[14] We may, also, suspect that the extreme sensitiveness to light of the upper part of the sheath-like cotyledons of the Gramineæ, and their power of transmitting its effects to the lower part, are specialised arrangements for finding the shortest path to the light. With plants growing on a bank, or thrown prostrate by the wind, the manner in which the leaves move, even rotating on their own axes, so that their upper surfaces may be again directed to the light, is a striking phenomenon. Such facts are rendered more striking when we remember that too intense a light injures the chlorophyll, and that the leaflets of several Leguminosae when thus exposed bend upwards and present their edges to the sun, thus escaping injury. On the other hand, the leaflets of Averrhoa and Oxalis, when similarly exposed, bend downwards. [13] Francis Darwin, ‘On the Hygroscopic Mechanism,’ etc., ‘Transactions Linn. Soc.,’ series ii. vol. i. p. 149, 1876. [14] Wiesner has made remarks to nearly the same effect with respect to leaves: ‘Die undulirende Nutation der Internodien,’ p. 6, extracted from B. lxxvii. (1878). Sitb. der k. Akad. der Wissensch. Wien.
It was shown in the last chapter that heliotropism is a modified form of circumnutation; and as every growing part of every plant circumnutates more or less, we can understand how it is that the power of bending to the light has been acquired by such a multitude of plants throughout the vegetable kingdom. The manner in which a circumnutating movement—that is, one consisting of a succession of irregular ellipses or loops—is gradually converted into a rectilinear course towards the light, has been already explained. First, we have a succession of ellipses with their longer axes directed towards the light, each of which is described nearer and nearer to its source; then the loops are drawn out into a strongly pronounced zigzag line, with here and there a small loop still formed. At the same time that the movement towards the light is increased in extent and accelerated, that in the opposite direction is lessened and retarded, and at last stopped. The zigzag movement to either side is likewise gradually lessened, so that finally the course becomes rectilinear. Thus under the stimulus of a fairly bright light there is no useless expenditure of force.
As with plants every character is more or less variable, there seems to be no great difficulty in believing that their circumnutating movements may have been increased or modified in any beneficial manner by the preservation of varying individuals. The inheritance of habitual movements is a necessary contingent for this process of selection, or the survival of the fittest; and we have seen good reason to believe that habitual movements are inherited by plants. In the case of twining species the circumnutating movements have been increased in amplitude and rendered more circular; the stimulus being here an internal or innate one. With sleeping plants the movements have been increased in amplitude and often changed in direction; and here the stimulus is the alternation of light and darkness, aided, however, by inheritance. In the case of heliotropism, the stimulus is the unequal illumination of the two sides of the plant, and this determines, as in the foregoing cases, the modification of the circumnutating movement in such a manner that the organ bends to the light. A plant which has been rendered heliotropic by the above means, might readily lose this tendency, judging from the cases already given, as soon as it became useless or injurious. A species which has ceased to be heliotropic might also be rendered apheliotropic by the preservation of the individuals which tended to circumnutate (though the cause of this and most other variations is unknown) in a direction more or less opposed to that whence the light proceeded. In like manner a plant might be rendered diaheliotropic.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.