Comparing the dynamics of stomatal networks to the problem-solving dynamics of cellular computers

  • Jevin D. West
  • David Peak
  • Keith Mott
  • Susanna Messinger
Conference paper

Abstract

Is the adaptive response to environmental stimuli of a biological system lacking a central nervous system a result of a formal computation? If so, these biological systems must conform to a different set of computational rules than those associated with central processing. To explore this idea, we examined the dynamics of stomatal patchiness in leaves. Stomata—tiny pores on the surface of a leaf—are biological processing units that a plant uses to solve an optimization problem—maximize CO2 assimilation and minimize H2O loss. Under some conditions, groups of stomata coordinate in both space and time producing motile patches that can be visualized with chlorophyll fluorescence. These patches suggest that stomata are nonautonomous and that they form a network presumably engaged in the optimization task. In this study, we show that stomatal dynamics are statistically and qualitatively comparable to the emergent, collective, problem-solving dynamics of cellular computing systems.

Keywords

Stomata Networks Distributed Computation Complex Systems Stomatal Networks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    P. Bak. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organised Criticality. Copernicus Press, New York, NY, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    P. Bak and C. Tang. Self-organized criticality: an explanation of 1/f noise. Physical Review Letters, 59:381, 1987.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    W. Beyschlag and J. Eckstein. Stomatal patchiness. Progress in Botany, 59:283–298, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    K. Christensen and Z. Olami. Variation of the gutenberg-richter b values and nontrivial temporal correlations in a spring-block model for earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth, 97(B6):8729–8735, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    I. R. Cowan and G.D. Farquhar. Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment. Symposium of the Society for Experimental Biology, 31:471–505, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. P. Crutchfield. The calculi of emergence — computation, dynamics and induction. Physica D, 75(l–3):ll–54, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. P. Crutchfield and M. Mitchell. The evolution of emergent computation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 92:10742–10746, 1995.ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    P.F. Daley, K. Raschke, J.T. Ball, and J.A. Berry. Topography of photosynthetic activity of leaves obtained from video images of chlorophyll fluorescence. Plant Physiology, 90(4): 12333–1238, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Gacs, G.L. Kurdyumov, and L.A. Levin. One-dimensional homogeneous media dissolving finite islands. Problems of Information Transmission, 14(3):92–96, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    JW Haefner, TN Buckley, and KA Mott. A spatially explicit model of patchy stomatal responses to humidity. Plant, Cell and Environment, 20(9):1087–1097, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    S.M. Messinger, K.A. Mott, and D. Peak. Task performing dynamics in irregular, biomimetic networks. Complexity, 12:14–21, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Meyer and B. Genty. Mapping intercellular co2 mole fraction (ci) in rosa rubiginosaleaves fed with abscisic acid by using chlorophyll fluorescence imaging — significance of ci estimated from leaf gas exchange. Plant Physiology, 116:947–957, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    K.A. Mott and T.N. Buckley. Stomatal heterogeneity. Journal of Experimental Botany, 49:407–417, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    K.A. Mott and T.N. Buckley. Patchy stomatal conductance: emergent collective behaviour of stomata. Trends in Plant Science, 5:258–262, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    K.A. Mott, F. Denne, and J. Powell. Interactions among stomata in response to perturbations in humidity. Plant, Cell and Environment, 20(9):1098–1107, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    K.A. Mott and D. Peak. Stomatal patchiness and task-performing networks. Annals of Botany, pages 1–8, 2006.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    K.A. Mott, J. Shope, and T.N. Buckley. Effects of humidity on lightinduced stomatal opening: evidence for hydraulic coupling among stomata. Journal of Experimental Botany, 50(336):1207–1213, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. Peak, J.D. West, S.M. Messinger, and K.A. Mott. Evidence for complex, collective dynamics and emergent, distributed computation in plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(4):918–922, 2004.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. Sipper. Evolution of parallel cellular machines: the cellular programming approach. Springer-Ver lag, New York, NY, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    I. Terashima. Anatomy of non-uniform leaf photosynthesis. Photosynthesis Research, 31:195–212, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    J.D. West, D. Peak, J.Q. Peterson, and K.A. Mott. Dynamics of stomatal patches for a single surface of xanthium strumarium 1. leaves observed with fluorescence and thermal images. Plant Cell and Environment, 28(5):633–641, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jevin D. West
    • 1
  • David Peak
    • 2
  • Keith Mott
    • 3
  • Susanna Messinger
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations