ArticlePloS one2023
Do environmental stimuli modify sensitive plant (Mimosa pudica L.) risk assessment?
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.