Antinutrients - a stupid idea?
-
I read this everywhere: "above ground plants are trying to ward off being eaten by animals, so that's why they eVoLvEd to have antinutrients"
Has anyone pointed out that this makes absolutely no sense?
The antinutrient effect can't be something that happens later like bad digestion, because how would the animal know what plant did it in order to avoid that plant in the future? And the antinutrient effect definitely can't be something that the animal can't even feel at all, like lower mineral availability.
The only thing that would deter the animal would be a bad tasting plant or a hot pepper sensation or something.
Besides, plants get eaten constantly by animals, obviously. So this antinutrient evolution didn't work at all.
Am I missing something?
I'm not arguing against the existence of antinutrients (yet), I'm just arguing against the alleged anti-animal purpose of the antinutrients.
-
@Insr said in Antinutrients - a stupid idea?:
Am I missing something?
Yes, but you aren't ready to hear it.
-
2 things to potentially consider:
-
The effect of certain anti-nutrients is very likely much more prominent in insects or other smaller animals that don't have an adaptation to process the plant. So a lot of creatures might feel negative effects a lot sooner than say a human.
-
If you look at the plant less as an individual and more as a species then it makes sense because animals will eat, get sick and then possibly avoid eating the plant in the future. Some animals can probably communicate not to eat certain plants to members of their family/colony/tribe too.
-
-
@Insr allelopathy is real so there's probably an equivalent for plant-animal interactions.