Plants Versus Animals: Do They Deal with Stress in Different Ways?

Abstract

Both plants and animals respond to stress by using adaptations that help them evade, tolerate, or recover from stress. In a synthetic paper A. D. Bradshaw (1972) noted that basic biological differences between plants and animals will have diverse evolutionary consequences, including those influencing how they deal with stress. For instance, Bradshaw argued that animals, because they have relatively well-developed sensory and locomotor capacities, can often use behavior and movement to evade or ameliorate environmental stresses. In contrast, he predicted that plants will have to emphasize increased physiological tolerance or phenotypic plasticity, and also that plants should suffer stronger selection and show more marked differentiation along environmental gradients. Here we briefly review the importance of behavior in mitigating stress, the behavioral capacities of animals and plants, and examples of plant responses that are functionally similar to behaviors of animals. Next, we try to test some of Bradshaw's predictions. Unfortunately, critical data often proved non-comparable: plant and animal biologists often study different stressors (e.g., water versus heat) and measure different traits (photosynthesis versus locomotion). Nevertheless, we were able to test some of Bradshaw's predictions and some related ones of our own. As Bradshaw predicted, the phenology of plants is more responsive to climate shifts than is that of animals and the micro-distributions of non-mobile, intertidal invertebrates ("plant" equivalents) are more sensitive to temperature than are those of mobile invertebrates. However, mortality selection is actually weaker for plants than for animals. We hope that our review not only redraws attention to some fascinating issues Bradshaw raised, but also encourages additional tests of his predictions. Such tests should be informative.

Patterns of tree growth in relation to environmental variability in the tropical dry deciduous forest at Mudumalai, southern India

“…Unpredictable environments can select for traits that show short-term physiological or functional plasticity during the lifetime of an organism (Schlichting 1986;Sultan 2000), and for plants functional plasticity is important due to their lack of mobility (Bradshaw 1972;Schlichting 1986;Huey et al 2002). Previous studies have demonstrated that root growth, branch growth and biomass allocation can show highly plastic responses to stress, spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability of resources in the environment (Nicotra et al 1997;Sultan et al 1998;Vretare et al 2001).…”

Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis and alleviation of salinity stress

“…Indeed, survival necessitates the ability to rapidly adapt to changes in the environment, especially those which represent long term or chronic changes. Whenever possible, one of the easiest ways to counteract such stresses is to relocate to a more suitable niche (Huey et al 2002). However, such a strategy is obviously restricted in a short term period and is not achievable with stationary organisms such as plants.…”

Relation of form to life habit in free-living cupuladriid bryozoans

“…Others build erect colonies, branching upwards to escape constraints of life close to the substrate, yet they too remain rooted in one position and are thus subject to the limitations of a sessile life (Huey et al 2002). In contrast, free-living bryozoans are unattached and rest freely on the seafloor (McKinney & Jackson 1989).…”