When did plants crawl from the sea? New study holds clues.

Plants may have adapted to terrestrial life earlier than previously thought, according to new research. 

Gert Hansen, SCCAP, Copenhagen
This photo shows green algae Spirogyra, which reproduce sexually by a process known as conjugation.
Gert Hansen, SCCAP, Copenhagen
This is a photo of a desmid, a unicellular charophyte green algae that has lost all traces of flagella in its life cycle.
Panny Kondor
This graphic shows key events in the establishment of a land flora. These were the primordial terrestrialization event by a unicellular ancestral charophyte followed by evolution of a novel cell wall in response to the new types of selection pressure. A particular successful lineage evolved the multicellular sporophyte as a platform for the development of complex body plans and vascularization, the latter facilitated by the new cell wall. Other lineages established themselves as extant terrestrial charophytes, here exemplified by Klebsormidium growing on a stone, while other taxa secondarily adopted an aquatic lifestyle yet retained the terrestrial traits in their cell wall as clues to their terrestrial ancestry.

Solid ground's first settlers  – plants – may have arrived earlier than we thought.

Scientists agree that all plants evolved from green algae. According to previous assumptions, these ocean-dwelling algae developed alternating life-cycles – a fundamental characteristic of plant life – just before taking root on land. But new evidence, published Wednesday in the journal Trends in Plant Science, may suggest otherwise.

"Our original quest was to go backwards in evolution to find simpler model organisms for our research," says co-author Jesper Harholt, of Carlsberg Laboratory in Copenhagen. "We found that the species we looked at did not get simpler in precisely the way we anticipated."

In the 1980s, botanical researchers proposed a new model for primordial terrestrialization, arguing that land plants could have descended from algal species that had already adapted to life on land. But until now, nobody could provide proof in support of that model.

While studying freshwater algae, Dr. Harholt and colleagues noticed that some species had notably complex cell walls. The cell wall provides essential structural support to land plants, which might otherwise be weighed down by gravity. Aquatic plants tend to have simpler cell walls, since gravity is counteracted by buoyancy underwater.  

Harholt’s "secondarily aquatic" algae were among the most genetically similar to terrestrial plants, which suggests that their common ancestor could have lived on land for hundreds of million years before developing alternating life-cycles.

"'Secondarily aquatic' means that we deal with terrestrial organisms that adapt to an aquatic life style, rather than organisms that have been aquatic all the time,” says co-author Peter Ulvskov, a professor of plant science at the University of Copenhagen. "A bit like whales, which are aquatic animals that have retained land animal traits from their ancestors."

Other physical data seem to support the new theory. Over evolutionary time, some of these algae lost their flagellae, which are tiny whip-like structures that help single-celled organisms swim. And most have no eyespot – a light receptor organelle that algae use to orient themselves in water. But indisputable proof remains elusive.

"We will not find fossil evidence," Harholt says. "The difference between an aquatic and a terrestrial alga is not preserved in fossils."

Many questions remain. For example, what evolutionary trajectory did algae follow on the path to terrestrial life? With only structural and genetic data to go on, researchers expect some degree of skepticism from the field at-large.

"Aquatic green algae, as direct ancestors of land plants, have been in the textbooks for a long time," says co-author Øjvind Moestrup, an evolutionary biologist and algae expert at the University of Copenhagen. "Whether doubt will prevail depends on the corroborating observations from researchers with specialization complementary to ours."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.