• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Bowdoin Science Journal

  • Home
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Our Staff
  • Sections
    • Biology
    • Chemistry and Biochemistry
    • Math and Physics
    • Computer Science and Technology
    • Environmental Science and EOS
    • Honors Projects
    • Psychology and Neuroscience
  • Contact Us
  • Fun Links
  • Subscribe

Riley Simon '26

Plant Talk: Eavesdropping on Underground Plant Communication

December 3, 2023 by Riley Simon '26

Have you ever looked at a tiny sapling, a winding vine, or a massive oak tree and felt like they have some sort of personality? With the rustle of some leaves or the snap of a twig it might seem like these plants are talking to each other. As it turns out, these fantasies aren’t too far from the truth. Vascular plants (which consist of most plants other than mosses and algae) can actually communicate. These plants can exchange messages through their root systems with the help of mycorrhizal fungi. These fungi exist in a mutualistic relationship with plants and, along with acting as a living walkie talkie, they provide many survival benefits to the plants they live with. 

To be clear, vascular plants aren’t chatting in some sort of plant language in the same way that we talk to each other. Instead, they communicate through the transfer of infochemicals. “Infochemical” is an umbrella term for substances released by one plant and detected by another (Chen 2018). Infochemicals can take the form of plant hormones or nutrients and are passed between plants through the soil. The problem with this system is that transport through the soil is incredibly inefficient. When infochemicals move from plant to plant, they can quickly be absorbed by organic material or degrade in the soil such that they do not reach the intended “listener” plant. This is where mycorrhizal fungi come into play.

Mycorrhizal fungi (MF) are distinguished from other fungi by the symbiotic relationship that they have with plant roots. MF attach to plant roots and perform beneficial services for the plant in return for the carbon necessary for MF’s survival. MF networks add large amounts of surface area to plant root systems, allowing for the more efficient uptake of nutrients to the plants such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon. The MF relationship increases efficiency of water collection, enhances photosynthesis, and improves resistance to pathogens. (Barto 2012). 

When it comes to plant communication, MF act as “superhighways” for the infochemicals to travel from plant to plant. Instead of having to travel through the soil, infochemicals can be safely transported between plants through common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs). CMNs are made up of interconnected networks of fungal branches, which span the distance between plant roots (Chen 2018). These networks are not exclusive to one species of plant because MF are not host specific and therefore can associate with multiple species at the same time. This allows for messages, in the form of infochemicals, to be passed efficiently between plants of varying species. This method is exponentially more efficient than infochemical transport through the soil, allowing plants to communicate much easier.

You might be wondering, what do these plants have to talk about? It turns out, they have a whole lot to discuss. The world can be a dangerous place and plants use these CMN superhighways as an emergency warning system to let neighboring plants know about potential threats. A plant that experiences a disturbance, such as infection by a pathogen or herbivore attack, can send signals to surrounding plants to let them know of the potential danger. The plants receiving the message can then increase their defense to better prepare for the threat. This exact phenomenon has been observed in neighboring plants where one plant is infected with a pathogen, and then surrounding uninfected plants respond to infochemical signals by activating defense proteins (Chen 2018).

Beyond plant defense, there is still a lot to learn about how plants are communicating and what kinds of things they are “talking” about. There are still questions to be answered such as how plant relatedness impacts infochemical transfer or how far these networks can span underground. If we continue to eavesdrop on this “plant talk” then we can start to understand the interconnected nature of plant communities even better.

Works Cited

Barto, E. K., Weidenhamer, J. D., Cipollini, D., & Rillig, M. C. (2012). Fungal superhighways: do common mycorrhizal networks enhance below ground communication?. Trends in plant science, 17(11), 633–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.06.007

Chen, M., Arato, M., Borghi, L., Nouri, E., & Reinhardt, D. (2018). Beneficial Services of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi – From Ecology to Application. Frontiers in plant science, 9, 1270. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01270

Bonazzi, D. (2021). The secret underground life of trees. Weizmann Compass. Retrieved December 3, 2023, from https://www.weizmann.ac.il/WeizmannCompass/sections/features/the-secret-underground-life-of-trees.

 

Filed Under: Biology, Chemistry and Biochemistry Tagged With: Biology, Communication, Fungi, Nutrients, Trees

Mercury, Contaminating Our Oceans and Your Food

April 2, 2023 by Riley Simon '26

Mercury, you may know it as the solar system’s smallest planet or as the “red stuff” in old thermometers. You may have even heard of its toxic effects on people if exposure occurs. However, you may not know that mercury is significant outside of the realm of toxic thermometers and astronomy. The chemical element mercury is a contaminant that is being pumped into the atmosphere at an alarming rate and is poisoning aquatic environments. Mercury is becoming an increasingly common pollutant in our oceans and lakes and its toxic effects are causing harm to marine life and creating an imbalance in our marine ecosystems.

Before mercury can enter aquatic environments, it is released in large quantities by anthropogenic sources. Mercury can enter the atmosphere through natural sources such as volcanoes or forest fires, but it is primarily released through the burning of fossil fuels and small-scale gold mining (Montes 287). The release of mercury is problematic because it is very easily transported through the atmosphere. Mercury is a volatile element, which means that it evaporates at low temperatures (mercury can even evaporate at room temperature) and easily enters its gaseous state to be carried long distances through the air (Pollet 860).

After mercury is transported through the atmosphere and enters aquatic environments, it is transformed into its more toxic state, methylmercury (CH3Hg or MeHg). Mercury is transformed into methylmercury through the process of mercury methylation when Hg incorporates CH3, making it into CH3Hg (or MeHg). In the ocean, methylation of mercury is carried out by bacteria. Essentially, bacteria that are present in aquatic environments absorb mercury and perform the methylation reaction before releasing methylmercury back into the ecosystem (Poulain 1280-1281).

Once organisms ingest methylmercury, they experience detrimental effects on their function and, ultimately, their survival. For example, seabirds with more than 0.2 μg (micrograms) of mercury in their blood per gram of wet weight have observed negative effects on their bodies’ systems and their function. An approximately equivalent concentration can be represented by one person out of the entire state of Alabama, which has a population of 5.04 million. At this level or greater, birds experience detrimental effects on their nervous and reproductive systems as well as changes to their hormonal makeup and trouble with motor and behavioral skills (Pollet 860). 

Another interesting observation of mercury contamination is its differing distribution of concentrations among populations. The methylmercury concentration in seabirds was explored between 2013 and 2019 when egg and blood samples were taken of Leach’s storm petrels along with the GPS tracking of foraging petrels. By comparing measured mercury concentration in blood and eggs to ocean depth of foraging locations, a correlation was found. The study concluded that the water depth had a significant effect on the methylmercury levels measured in Leach’s storm petrels. Storm petrels who foraged in deep waters had higher methylmercury concentrations in their blood than storm petrels who forage in shallow or coastal waters. The positive correlation between ocean depth and mercury concentration is likely due to differences in diet based on foraging location. This could also be related to the fact that mercury methylation is most efficient in deep water (Pollet 860).

These negative effects on seabirds also have broad effects on the entire ecosystem that they are a part of. This is because methylmercury biomagnifies up the food web. As the methylmercury moves up trophic levels in a food chain, its concentration in a given organism increases. This increase in concentration is dramatic. In fact, measured mercury concentrations in predator species can be millions of times greater than the concentration observed in surface waters. The problem of biomagnification is even more dramatic in Maine because of its latitude. While the phenomenon is not entirely understood, ecosystems located at higher latitudes have been observed to be more susceptible to biomagnification than tropical regions (Lavoie 13385-13394). 

Other than affecting our Maine wildlife, mercury contamination could have a negative impact on human health. Mercury is not only a problem for seabirds, but fish are also just as susceptible to contamination. This can become a major problem for commercial fisheries because the seafood they produce for our consumption have the potential for mercury contamination. In fact, there was an incident in Japan in 1956 when people who consumed contaminated seafood became severely ill or died. Over the course of 36 years after the incident, 2252 people were infected 1034 people were killed in relation to the initial methylmercury contamination (Harada 1-24). While this level of contamination is an anomaly, a 2018 study projected that approximately 38% of countries experience some level of human exposure to mercury due to contaminated seafood consumption. There are steps that can be taken to prevent this. For example, setting stricter regulations on mercury content limits, applying proper culinary treatments, or updating fishing practices could all diminish the probability of mercury exposure to humans (Jinadasa 112710). 

That being said, addressing the root of the problem is the only way to most effectively diminish mercury exposure for marine organisms and people. Mercury contamination is a problem that has a dramatic domino effect beginning in our atmosphere and ending in human consumption. It is an issue that is often forgotten in discussions of the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels. However, considering its impact on marine life and eventually human life, it is a byproduct that cannot be overlooked.

 

Works Cited

da Silva Montes, C., Ferreira, M. A. P., Giarrizzo, T., Amado, L. L., & Rocha, R. M. (2022). The
legacy of artisanal gold mining and its impact on fish health from Tapajós Amazonian
region: A multi-biomarker approach. Chemosphere, 287, 132263.

Harada, M. (1995). Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by
environmental pollution. Critical reviews in toxicology, 25(1), 1-24.

Jinadasa, B. K. K. K., Jayasinghe, G. D. T. M., Pohl, P., & Fowler, S. W. (2021). Mitigating the
impact of mercury contaminants in fish and other seafood—A review. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 171, 112710.

Lavoie, R. A., Jardine, T. D., Chumchal, M. M., Kidd, K. A., & Campbell, L. M. (2013).
Biomagnification of mercury in aquatic food webs: a worldwide meta-analysis.
Environmental science & technology, 47(23), 13385-13394.

Pollet, I. L., McFarlane-Tranquilla, L., Burgess, N. M., Diamond, A. W., Gjerdrum, C., Hedd, A.,
… & Mallory, M. L. (2023). Factors influencing mercury levels in Leach’s storm-petrels at
northwest Atlantic colonies. Science of The Total Environment, 860, 160464.

Poulain, A. J., & Barkay, T. (2013). Cracking the mercury methylation code. Science, 339(6125),
1280-1281.

Filed Under: Biology, Environmental Science and EOS Tagged With: contaminants, fossil fuels, Marine Biology, mercury, seabirds

Primary Sidebar

CATEGORY CLOUD

Biology Chemistry and Biochemistry Computer Science and Tech Environmental Science and EOS Honors Projects Math and Physics Psychology and Neuroscience Science

RECENT POSTS

  • Biological ChatGPT: Rewriting Life With Evo 2 May 4, 2025
  • Unsupervised Thematic Clustering for Genre Classification in Literary Texts May 4, 2025
  • Motor Brain-Computer Interface Reanimates Paralyzed Hand May 4, 2025

FOLLOW US

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Footer

TAGS

AI AI ethics Alzheimer's Disease antibiotics artificial intelligence bacteria Bathymetry Beavers Biology brain Cancer Biology Cell Biology Chemistry and Biochemistry Chlorofluorocarbons climate change Computer Science and Tech CRISPR Cytoskeleton Depression dreams epigenetics Ethics Genes honors Luis Vidali Marine Biology Marine Mammals Marine noise Medicine memory Montreal Protocol Moss neurobiology neuroscience Nutrients Ozone hole Plants Psychology and Neuroscience REM seabirds sleep student superintelligence Technology therapy

Copyright © 2025 · students.bowdoin.edu