You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:


Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

Adaptive and Selective Seed Abortion Reveals Complex Conditional Decision Making in Plants

Katrin M. Meyer, Leo L. Soldaat, Harald Auge and Hans-Hermann Thulke
The American Naturalist
Vol. 183, No. 3 (March 2014), pp. 376-383
DOI: 10.1086/675063
Stable URL:
Page Count: 8
Subjects: Biological Sciences Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
Find more content in these subjects: Biological Sciences Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
  • Download PDF
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
Adaptive and Selective Seed Abortion Reveals Complex Conditional Decision Making in Plants
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.


AbstractBehavior is traditionally attributed to animals only. Recently, evidence for plant behavior is accumulating, mostly from plant physiological studies. Here, we provide ecological evidence for complex plant behavior in the form of seed abortion decisions conditional on internal and external cues. We analyzed seed abortion patterns of barberry plants exposed to seed parasitism and different environmental conditions. Without abortion, parasite infestation of seeds can lead to loss of all seeds in a fruit. We statistically tested a series of null models with Monte Carlo simulations to establish selectivity and adaptiveness of the observed seed abortion patterns. Seed abortion was more frequent in parasitized fruits and fruits from dry habitats. Surprisingly, seed abortion occurred with significantly greater probability if there was a second intact seed in the fruit. This strategy provides a fitness benefit if abortion can prevent a sibling seed from coinfestation and if nonabortion of an infested but surviving single seed saves resources invested in the fruit coat. Ecological evidence for complex decision making in plants thus includes a structural memory (the second seed), simple reasoning (integration of inner and outer conditions), conditional behavior (abortion), and anticipation of future risks (seed predation).

Notes and References

This item contains 38 references.

Literature Cited
  • ['Ahrendt, L. W. A. 1961. Berberis and Mahonia. A taxonomic revision. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society of London 57:1–410.']
  • ['Balusca, F., S. Mancuso, D. Volkmann, and P. Barlow. 2004. Root apices as plant command centres: the unique “brain-like” status of the root apex transition zone. Biologia 59:7–19.']
  • ['Borges, R. M. 2005. Do plants and animals differ in phenotypic plasticity? Journal of Biosciences 30:41–50.']
  • ['Ellenberg, H. 1979. Zeigerwerte der Gefäßpflanzen Mitteleuropas. Scripta Geobotanica 9:1–122.']
  • ['Fernandes, G. W., and T. G. Whitham. 1989. Selective fruit abscission by Juniperus monosperma as an induced defense against predators. American Midland Naturalist 121:389–392.']
  • ['Firn, R. 2004. Plant intelligence: an alternative point of view. Annals of Botany 93:345–351.']
  • ['Gazoul, J., and A. Satake. 2009. Nonviable seed set enhances plant fitness: the sacrificial sibling hypothesis. Ecology 90:369–377.']
  • ['Gersani, M., J. S. Brown, E. E. O’Brien, G. M. Maina, and Z. Abramsky. 2001. Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. Journal of Ecology 89:660–669.']
  • ['Hendel, F. 1927. Trypetidae. Pages 1–231 in E. Linder, ed. Die Fliegen der paläarktischen Region. Vol. 49. Schweizerbartsche, Stuttgart.']
  • ['Hutchings, M. J., and E. A. John. 2004. The effects of environmental heterogeneity on root growth and root/shoot partitioning. Annals of Botany 94:1–8.']
  • ['Janzen, D. H. 1971. Escape of Cassia grandis L. beans from predators in time and space. Ecology 52:964–979.']
  • ['Jolivet, C., and G. Bernasconi. 2006. Experimental analysis of constitutive and induced defence in a plant-seed-predator system. Functional Ecology 20:966–972.']
  • ['Karban, R. 2008. Plant behavior and communication. Ecology Letters. 11:272–279.']
  • ['Karban, R., A. A. Agrawal, J. S. Thaler, and L. S. Adler. 1999. Induced plant responses and information content about risk of herbivory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:443–447.']
  • ['Manly, B. F. J. 1997. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman & Hall, London.']
  • ['Marquis, R. J. 1992. The selective impact of herbivores. Pages 301–325 in S. Fritz and E. Simms, eds. Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution and genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.']
  • ['Melser, C., and P. G. L. Klinkhamer. 2001. Selective seed abortion increases offspring survival in Cynoglossum officinale (Boraginaceae). American Journal of Botany 88:1033–1040.']
  • ['Meyer, K. M., L. L. Soldaat, H. Auge, and H.-H. Thulke. 2014. Data from: Adaptive and selective seed abortion reveals complex decision making in plants. American Naturalist. Dryad Digital Repository,']
  • ['Niesenbaum, R. A. 1996. Linking herbivory and pollination: defoliation and selective fruit abortion in Lindera benzoin. Ecology 77:2324–2331.']
  • ['Phillips, P. A., and G. P. Walker. 1997. Increase in flower and young fruit abscission caused by citrus bud mite (Acari: Eriophyidae) feeding in the axillary buds of lemon. 90:1273–1282.']
  • ['Poulin, R. 1995. “Adaptive” changes in the behavior of parasitized animals: a critical review. International Journal for Parasitology 25:1371–1383. doi:10.1016/0020-7519(95)00100-X.']
  • ['Sack, L., P. J. Melcher, W. H. Liu, E. Middleton, and T. Pardee. 2006. How strong is intracanopy leaf plasticity in temperate deciduous trees? American Journal of Botany 93:829–839.']
  • ['Sadras, V. O. 2007. Evolutionary aspects of the trade-off between seed size and number in crops. Field Crops Research 100:125–138.']
  • ['Schurr, U., A. Walter, and U. Rascher. 2006. Functional dynamics of plant growth and photosynthesis: from steady-state to dynamics—from homogeneity to heterogeneity. Plant, Cell and Environment 29:340–352.']
  • ['Seeley, T. D., and R. A. Levien. 1987. A colony of mind: the beehive as thinking machine. Sciences 27:38–43.']
  • ['Silvertown, J., and G. M. Gordon. 1989. A framework for plant behavior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:349–366.']
  • ['Soldaat, L. L., and H. Auge. 1998. Interactions between an invasive plant, Mahonia aquifolium, and a native phytophagous insect, Rhagoletis meigenii. Pages 347–360 in U. Starfinger, K. Edwards, I. Kowarik, and M. Williamson, eds. Plant invasions: ecological mechanisms and human responses. Backhuys, Leiden.']
  • ['Stenhouse, D. 1974. The evolution of intelligence: a general theory and some of its implications. Allen & Unwin, London.']
  • ['Stephenson, A. G. 1981. Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 12:253–279.']
  • ['Trewavas, A. 2002. Mindless mastery. Nature 415:841.']
  • ['———. 2003. Aspects of plant intelligence. Annals of Botany 92:1–20.']
  • ['———. 2004. Aspects of plant intelligence: an answer to Firn. Annals of Botany 93:353–357.']
  • ['———. 2005a. Green plants as intelligent organisms. Trends in Plant Science 10:413–419.']
  • ['———. 2005b. Plant intelligence. Naturwissenschaften 92:401–413.']
  • ['Van Volkenburgh, E. 1999. Leaf expansion: an integrating plant behavior. Plant, Cell and Environment 22:1463–1473.']
  • ['Vaughton, G., and S. M. Carthew. 1993. Evidence for selective fruit abortion in Banksia spinulosa (Proteaceae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 50:35–46.']
  • ['White, I. M. 1988. Tephritid flies. Diptera: Tephritidae. Pages 1–134 in C. Barnard, and R. R. Askew. Handbook for the identification of British insects. Vol. 10 (5a). Royal Entomological Society, London.']
  • ['Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatitistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.']