Plants 'Recognize' Their Siblings

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that according to a recent study, Biologists have found that plants are able to recognize their own relatives. "Researchers at McMaster University have found that plants get fiercely competitive when forced to share their pot with strangers of the same species, but they're accommodating when potted with their siblings. [...] Though they lack cognition and memory, the study shows plants are capable of complex social behaviours such as altruism towards relatives, says Dudley. Like humans, the most interesting behaviours occur beneath the surface."

Link to Actual Paper

[dontthink]

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/biology_lette rs/RSBL20070232.pdf [royalsoc.ac.uk]

Roots - of all sorts.

[pragma_x]

The paper is short, but gets to the point:

We found that kin groups allocated less to their fine root mass than did stranger groups when they competed below ground, indicating that these plants could discriminate relatives. Root allocation did not differ between kin and stranger groups grown in isolated pots, indicating that the cues for kin recognition lie in root interactions. Siblings were less competitive than strangers, which is consistent with kin selection.

I'm not a botanist, but that sounds like a rather profound change in growth behavior just because a nearby root system "looks familiar". Then again, on a biochemical level, maybe that's all there is to it.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/biology_lette rs/RSBL20070232.pdf [royalsoc.ac.uk]

Re:When will you learn?!

[asninn]

The correct term is breatharian [wikipedia.org], actually (or oxygenarian if you're into KoL).

Genetic anyhow

[phorm]

Seems to me this is the same as how one is more likely to achieve compatibility or lower rejection-rates with closer relatives in terms of organ-transplants, etc

They don't recognise "relatives," they just see material that is close enough to not be considered an intruder.

It doesn't quite work the same with people, as "relatives" or "siblings" can in fact be imported (re-marriage) or separated (divorce, adoption) and thus unrecognized.

Re:PETA?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like I always say to any vegetarian:

"For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three"

This is a Maddox quote. Link to the original page this meme came from (with picture!) http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sp onsor [thebestpag...iverse.net]

Psychological Altruism vs Evolutionary Altruism

[Pfhorrest]

This is a perfect example of the difference between psychological altruism (what we normally think of as "altruism", as describes a sort behavior) and evolutionary altruism (which is a precise technical term in biology which describes a property of heritable traits, not behavior).

Psychological altruism is performing behavior which requires for motivation only the benefit (however broadly you are to construe benefit) of a person other than the one performing the action. So, if I'm inclined to do something nice for you, even if I don't get anything out of it, then I am an altruistic person, and such nice things are altruistic behavior.

Evolutionary altruism is having heritable traits which increase the reproductive fitness of others without increasing the reproductive fitness of the individual who has that trait. Sterility is evolutionarily altruistic (in social animals at least), and yet clearly not psychologically altruistic (you don't choose what genes you're born with).

These plants are evolutionarily altruistic. They are not psychologically altruistic, because they have no psychological traits at all.