Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 186, Issue 1, pp 33–35 | Cite as

Insufficient evidence for habituation in Mimosa pudica. Response to Gagliano et al. (2014)

  • Robert BieglerEmail author
Views and Comments

Abstract

Gagliano et al. (Oecologia 175(1):63–72, 2014) reported that Mimosa pudica habituates to repeated stimulation, as shown by a reduction in response, dishabituation, and stimulus specificity. I argue that Gagliano et al.’s data show an absence of dishabituation, that their experimental design needs an additional condition to test whether there is stimulus specificity, and that most of their data can be explained by motor fatigue. Some data are not easily explained by fatigue, and I suggest a further analysis that may clarify the issue. The status of habituation in Mimosa remains uncertain.

Keywords

Minimal intelligence Habituation Non-associative learning Plant behaviour 

Notes

Author contribution statement

RB conceived, designed, and executed this study and wrote the manuscript. No other person is entitled to authorship.

References

  1. Calvo P, Baluska F (2015) Conditions for minimal intelligence across eukaryota: a cognitive science perspective. Front Psychol 6:1–4Google Scholar
  2. Dussutour A, Latty T, Beekman M, Simpson SJ (2010) Amoeboid organism solves complex nutritional challenge. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(10):4607–4611CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Gagliano M et al (2014) Experience teaches plants to learn faster and forget slower in environments where it matters. Oecologia 175(1):63–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Garzon PC, Keizer F (2011) Plants: adaptive behaviour, root-brains and minimal cognition. Adap Behav 19(3):155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kenzer AL et al (2013) Stimulus specificity and dishabituation of operant responding in humans. J Exp Anal Behav 100(1):61–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Rankin CH et al (2009) Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learn Mem 92(2):135–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Reid CR, Garnier S, Beekman M, Latty T (2015) Information integration and multiattribute decision making in non-neuronal organisms. Anim Behav 100:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Segall JE, Block SM, Berg HC (1986) Temporal comparisons in bacterial chemotaxis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83(23):8987–8991CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Shemesh H, Arbiv A, Gersani M, Ovadia O, Novoplansky A (2010) The effects of nutrient dynamics on root patch choice. PLoS One 5(5):e10824CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations