The Roots of Plant Intelligence (TED talks)

[CT Guy]

Found this interesting and thought I'd share it:
About this talk

Plants behave in some oddly intelligent ways: fighting predators, maximizing food opportunities ... But can we think of them as actually having a form of intelligence of their own? Italian botanist Stefano Mancuso presents intriguing evidence.
About Stefano Mancuso

Stefano Mancuso is a founder of the study of plant neurobiology, which explores signaling and communication at all levels of biological organization, from genetics to molecules, cells and…

http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence.html


Another good one on bacteria:

About this talk

Bonnie Bassler discovered that bacteria "talk" to each other, using a chemical language that lets them coordinate defense and mount attacks. The find has stunning implications for medicine, industry -- and our understanding of ourselves.
About Bonnie Bassler

Bonnie Bassler studies how bacteria can communicate with one another, through chemical signals, to act as a unit. Her work could pave the way for new, more potent medicine.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html

Enjoy!

 

[MrFista]

Quorum sensing (Bonnie Bassler's talk) explains so much about how communities of microbes work together I recommend that to anyone interested in biofilms and microbes in soils.

Imagine making a gradient of molecules forcing attack activity from unprepared (very small numbers) of pathogens - body will fight it off, immune system will create memory cells and that particular problem will be history.

 

[spurr]

Cool, will check it out soon, thanks. TED talks are great. Other neat examples are:

(1) when some plants/trees are under biotic attack they release chemicals into the air that 'warns' other plants/tress they might come under attack. In response to this 'warning' the other plants/trees will begin forming defenses such as producing chemicals that ward off the biotic attack before they come under attack. IIRC this also happens during fires with some trees. Does this mean intellect? I am not sure but it's neat...

(2) I am not sure if this would be intelligence, but many (most?) vascular plants can self-regulate uptake of ions of nitrate/nitrite (but not ammonicial N), P, Ca, Mg, etc. They accomplish this via. levels of some amino acids in the phloem. Once a critical level of some amino acids are in the phloem the plant will reduce uptake of said ions. I think this is kind of like how humans get chemical singles in their brains tell us that we are full so we stop easting. This could just be an automatized response in plants (like when humans blink their eyes) and not mean intelligence, but it's neat none the less.


And here is a neat article in the NY Times I found a while ago about the topic of plants signaling each other, and other topics of defenses against attack:


"Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?hpw

EXCERPT:

The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds.

When plant biologists speak of their subjects, they use active verbs and vivid images. Plants “forage” for resources like light and soil nutrients and “anticipate” rough spots and opportunities. By analyzing the ratio of red light and far red light falling on their leaves, for example, they can sense the presence of other chlorophyllated competitors nearby and try to grow the other way. Their roots ride the underground “rhizosphere” and engage in cross-cultural and microbial trade.

“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said.

Plants can’t run away from a threat but they can stand their ground. “They are very good at avoiding getting eaten,” said Linda Walling of the University of California, Riverside. “It’s an unusual situation where insects can overcome those defenses.” At the smallest nip to its leaves, specialized cells on the plant’s surface release chemicals to irritate the predator or sticky goo to entrap it. Genes in the plant’s DNA are activated to wage systemwide chemical warfare, the plant’s version of an immune response. We need terpenes, alkaloids, phenolics — let’s move.

“I’m amazed at how fast some of these things happen,” said Consuelo M. De Moraes of Pennsylvania State University. Dr. De Moraes and her colleagues did labeling experiments to clock a plant’s systemic response time and found that, in less than 20 minutes from the moment the caterpillar had begun feeding on its leaves, the plant had plucked carbon from the air and forged defensive compounds from scratch.

Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl. Some of the compounds that plants generate in response to insect mastication — their feedback, you might say — are volatile chemicals that serve as cries for help. Such airborne alarm calls have been shown to attract both large predatory insects like dragon flies, which delight in caterpillar meat, and tiny parasitic insects, which can infect a caterpillar and destroy it from within.

Enemies of the plant’s enemies are not the only ones to tune into the emergency broadcast. “Some of these cues, some of these volatiles that are released when a focal plant is damaged,” said Richard Karban of the University of California, Davis, “cause other plants of the same species, or even of another species, to likewise become more resistant to herbivores.”

Yes, it’s best to nip trouble in the bud.

Dr. Hilker and her colleagues, as well as other research teams, have found that certain plants can sense when insect eggs have been deposited on their leaves and will act immediately to rid themselves of the incubating menace. They may sprout carpets of tumorlike neoplasms to knock the eggs off, or secrete ovicides to kill them, or sound the S O S. Reporting in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Hilker and her coworkers determined that when a female cabbage butterfly lays her eggs on a brussels sprout plant and attaches her treasures to the leaves with tiny dabs of glue, the vigilant vegetable detects the presence of a simple additive in the glue, benzyl cyanide. Cued by the additive, the plant swiftly alters the chemistry of its leaf surface to beckon female parasitic wasps. Spying the anchored bounty, the female wasps in turn inject their eggs inside, the gestating wasps feed on the gestating butterflies, and the plant’s problem is solved.

 

[VerdantGreen]

cool stuff, here is a link to a bbc report called 'plants can think and remember'
obviously watered down but interesting.
i would be interested to read the actual paper if someone can access it.

off to watch the vid now.

VG

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I'm going to have to blaze down and then come back to read this!

 

[spurr]

cool stuff, here is a link to a bbc report called 'plants can think and remember'
obviously watered down but interesting.
i would be interested to read the actual paper if someone can access it.

off to watch the vid now.

VG

I had an annoying episode trying to the paper because in the BBC article (nor other similar articles about the findings) the paper was not cited, but, alas, I am pretty sure this is the correct paper, in full text for you

I have yet to read this paper but I will today, from my very fast review it seem to indicate light electrochemical (photochemical) response are systemic throughout the whole plant and 'remembered' by the plant:


"Evidence for Light Wavelength-Specific Photoelectrophysiological Signaling and Memory of Excess Light Episodes in Arabidopsis"
Magdalena Szechyn´ska-Hebda, Jerzy Kruk, Magdalena Go´recka, Barbara Karpin´ska, Stanisław Karpin´ski
The Plant Cell, Vol. 22: 2201–2218, July 2010

(html) http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/content/full/22/7/2201
(pdf) http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/reprint/22/7/2201.pdf

 

[spurr]

For those who are unaware, Arabidopsis thaliana is a 'reference' plant (i.e. "model organism"[1]) that plant scientists use to study/model effects that are applicable to other plants like cannabis. This is like how mice are model organisms for effects of drugs on humans.

[1] http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Arabidopsis.html

 

[spurr]

@ CTGuy:

If you are willing could you please add your new website (or is it a blog?) URL to this thread? "Reading list" https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=191516

I would have added it but don't know the URL. Thanks.

 

[MrFista]

Memory in plants.

A stolon on a bean grown will curl when rubbed. Put it in the dark and rub it it doesn't curl. take it out of the dark within two hours it remembers the previous rub and curls.

 

[NUG-JUG]

I love TED TALKS! check out the one by Daniel Dennet on dangerous memes..

I wonder if plants like touching each other?

 

[guest2012y]

I love TED TALKS! check out the one by Daniel Dennet on dangerous memes..

I wonder if plants like touching each other?

I wonder if they like us touching them...
Really though,if you've seen the botany of desire and agree how the symbiotic relationship is formed between plants and humans,then why you'd also agree that plants form that same kind of symbiotic relationship with each other. I believe.

 

[spurr]

I wonder if they like us touching them...

They don't, well, at least not in general. Brushing plants is a method to induce SAR (Systematic Acquired Resistance), which is when plant goes into a type of survival mode. SAR is also induced via. application of various chemicals (like chitosan, salicylic acid, jasmonic acid, harpin protein, etc.) biotic attack, etc. Inducing SAR is a useful method to increase plant stress resistance and increasing growth rates, etc., but it's due to the plant triggering defensive measures. I don't see it as a thing that would make the plant 'happy'.

Really though,if you've seen the botany of desire and agree how the symbiotic relationship is formed between plants and humans,then why you'd also agree that plants form that same kind of symbiotic relationship with each other. I believe.

I have not seen that but I highly doubt they form a symbiotic relationship with humans. Maybe that movie wrongly used that term? I could possily see some type of synergistic effect, but not symbiotic.

 

[NUG-JUG]

I wonder if they like us touching them...
Really though,if you've seen the botany of desire and agree how the symbiotic relationship is formed between plants and humans,then why you'd also agree that plants form that same kind of symbiotic relationship with each other. I believe.

I bet they'd rather touch each other than us..because we're always about cut, bend, or spray them. although we're trying to think about how a plant thinks from a human brain point of view, which is hard

 

[spurr]

I wonder if plants like touching each other?

Some plants like other plants near them, like companion planting. But in general plants don't like to touch other plants because that means they would get shaded by other plants which makes them 'compete' for light. This is a major reason plants stretch, it has to due with the amount of red light intracanopy in relation to far-red light intracaonpy. Far-red light penetrates into the canopy well (passing through upper canopy leafs), but red light does not. The ratio of red to far-red light intracanopy is a major trigger for plants to grow (stretch) because the greater the far-red light and the less the red light intracaonpy makes them think they are being shaded. It's like two people fighting over food...

This topic is one reason plants can stretch more under traditional HPS than traditional MH. Because HPS has more far-red, which means HPS would provide a higher red:far-red ratio intracanopy vs. MH which would provide a lower red:far-red ratio intracanopy (i.e. amount of red and far-red would be closer under MH than under HPS).

This topic is also why it's best to not have a crowded canopy during veg and pre-flowering, and why using a light mover and strong(ish) fan helps a lot (due to sunfleck). That and the light mover allows the ratio of red to far-red ratio to stay lower than with a stationary light.

 

[NUG-JUG]

Some plants like other plants near them, like companion planting. But in general plants don't like to touch other plants because that means they would get shaded by other plants which makes them 'compete' for light.

say you have a bush do the various shoots not like each other? that would mean the plant is kind of annoyed by itself..?

I've had this saved awhile got it from a member here named Secondtry..very knowledgeable fellow..

http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda chalker-scott/Horticultural Myths_files/index.html

Linda Chalker-Scott, Ph.D., Extension Horticulturist and Associate Professor,
Puyallup Research and Extension Center, Washington State University
The Myth of Stoic Trees
“Unless it causes visible damage, touching or brushing has little effect on plants”
The Myth?
For those of us whose vocation or avocation includes sustainable management of landscape plants, one of
our core tenets is basing our practices on scientifically objective criteria. This column has tried to bring
some of that science to practitioners and has also identified some of the questionable practices and
products with no basis in science. Therefore, informed professionals and gardeners alike are rightly
skeptical when they hear that plants respond to touch. Of course, damaging forms of contact with plants,
whether by herbivores or construction equipment, will elicit a response from plants. But plants
responding to gentle stroking is a little too “touchy-feely” for many of us. Is this science or
pseudoscience?
The Reality
Plants, being immobile, have responses to their environment often quite different from organisms that can
escape unsuitable conditions. Therefore, plant responses to touch (often termed mechanical perturbation
or MP in the scientific literature) can be exquisitely sensitive. The ability of some carnivorous plants to
actively trap food is an example of touch response, as is leaf movement of sensitive plants (Mimosa spp.),
and coiling of vine tendrils. These are relatively rapid responses compared to another type of touch
response called thigmomorphogenesis. This word was coined several decades ago by one of the first
researchers in the area, and is used to describe more long-term changes in the appearance of a plant (“-
morpho-“) in response to repeated touching (“thigmo-“).
Thigmomorphogenesis can be induced by many types of environmental MP including wind, water spray,
snow load, and rubbing from other plants. People, wild and domesticated animals, and even insects can
also cause these changes. The responses are species-specific in terms of the amount of MP required and
in the morphological changes seen. Initially studied in annual crop plants, such as peas beans, corn, and
sunflowers, MP was universally seen to decrease stem elongation and increase stem thickness. Other
characteristics include shorter petiole length, decreased needle elongation, smaller leaves, reduced flower
number, and increased senescence (programmed tissue death). Similar responses have been demonstrated
in woody species including pine (Pinus), spruce (Picea), fir (Abies), poplar (Populus), and elm (Ulmus).
Continual rubbing or brushing of woody trees and shrubs, even that which is gentle enough not to abrade
tissue, will result in shorter heights and wider trunks. This is partially meditated through the release of
ethylene gas, a naturally produced plant growth regulator, which in turn increases the formation of lignin
in the disturbed tissues. The result of thigmomorphogenesis is a stocky, sturdy plant that is more resistant
to breakage or windthrow than one that has been untouched, and the greater the disturbance the more
pronounced the response. The short, stunted appearance of alpine forest trees is an extreme example of
wind-induced thigmomorphogenesis. Such trees are less likely to break from snowload or suffer
windthrow than thin, upright specimens.
For a research plant scientist, understanding this phenomenon is crucial in executing successful
experiments. The simple act of measuring a plant’s height, or a leaf’s length, is itself an experimental
treatment. The more a plant is handled during measuring, the greater the thigmomorphogenetic response
will be. Therefore, researchers must be extremely careful to handle all experimental plants in an identical
fashion for an identical length of time, or they will confound their experiment through differential MP
responses. Even if plants are handled in a controlled manner, in some field studies this has resulted in
increased herbivore damage from insects that hone in on the ethylene and other gases emitted by plants
under stress.
For installers and managers of landscape trees, thigmomorphogenesis is especially important to
understand. While trees in the middle of a forest do not experience buffeting from wind, urban trees are
more likely to be isolated and exposed. Allowing these isolated trees to sway in the wind will increase
their trunk girth and taper while keeping crown growth in check. Wind stress also increases root growth
and stability, especially in shallow or compacted soils (common in urban areas). The result is a more
firmly anchored tree with a reduced crown-to-root ratio. In contrast, trees that are staked too tightly or for
too long cannot sway in the breeze and therefore do not develop the girth, taper or root stability necessary
to surviving future wind stress. They are, however, taller and thinner with greater crown development.
Such trees are more likely to experience crown breakage or uprooting once the staking is removed (
The Bottom Line
• Plants exposed to continual touching by various environmental factors undergo
thigmomorphogenic changes.
• Easily seen thigmomorphogenic changes in landscape trees include increased trunk diameter and
decreased height.
• Researchers must be aware of the thigmomorphogenic changes plants will experience as a result
of being handled during experimentation.
• Improper staking of urban trees will inhibit normal, wind-induced thigmomorphogenesis and
these trees are more likely to topple or break once staking is removed.

 

[spurr]

say you have a bush do the various shoots not like each other? that would mean the plant is kind of annoyed by itself..?

Good question, I am not sure what the answer is, it seems like a very busy plant could mean increased stretch by 'annoying itself'; but that's only a guess. I will try to find some info on that topic. That question has not occurred to me before, thanks for the good point!

I've had this saved awhile got it from a member here named Secondtry..very knowledgeable fellow..

http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda%20chalker-scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/index.html

LOL, yea he's OK I guess...silly name though, secondtry, WTF!?! I did not remember reading that report by good ol' Linda, but it is sound info. Thanks for posting it, I'm glad secondtry hasn't contradicted what I have written because that would make me sad

 

[rasputin]

I have not seen that but I highly doubt they form a symbiotic relationship with humans. Maybe that movie wrongly used that term? I could possily see some type of synergistic effect, but not symbiotic.

Why the doubt? The video in question (worth watching, btw) was speaking about growers and the crops they have chosen to grow, like apples, tulips and cannabis. We have a specific relationship with these plants because they produce something we enjoy, and in some cases need. Humans are one of the best tool the plants have, we're basically here to serve them.

Granted, they don't exactly "need" us, our relationship with them is beneficial, for both of us.

 

[guest2012y]

They don't, well, at least not in general. Brushing plants is a method to induce SAR (Systematic Acquired Resistance), which is when plant goes into a type of survival mode. SAR is also induced via. application of various chemicals (like chitosan, salicylic acid, jasmonic acid, harpin protein, etc.) biotic attack, etc. Inducing SAR is a useful method to increase plant stress resistance and increasing growth rates, etc., but it's due to the plant triggering defensive measures. I don't see it as a thing that would make the plant 'happy'.



I have not seen that but I highly doubt they form a symbiotic relationship with humans. Maybe that movie wrongly used that term? I could possily see some type of synergistic effect, but not symbiotic.

Well the way I interpret the symbiotic part is that cannabis works on our senses to get to our feet...why?....to move it around as a method of reproduction in a time when it is endangered in it's natural environment due to prohibition. We take it indoors and select smells,tastes,highs,etc. that best suite us..yet the plant has these available for selection. I dunno.....

 

[spurr]

Originally Posted by spurr
I have not seen that but I highly doubt they form a symbiotic relationship with humans. Maybe that movie wrongly used that term? I could possily see some type of synergistic effect, but not symbiotic.

Why the doubt? The video in question (worth watching, btw) was speaking about growers and the crops they have chosen to grow, like apples, tulips and cannabis. We have a specific relationship with these plants because they produce something we enjoy, and in some cases need. Humans are one of the best tool the plants have, we're basically here to serve them.

Granted, they don't exactly "need" us, our relationship with them is beneficial, for both of us.

I only doubt due to the definition of the word symbiotic, which I think you seemed to agree with; that word gets overused. We don't need those plants/trees (except on a grand global scale for co2 scrubbing, etc) and they don't need us. Synergistic is something I can see, but not symbiotic.

When you wrote "our relationship with them is beneficial, for both of us" that is what is meant by synergistic.

 

[guest2012y]

Synergistic....perhaps this word could fit as well. I dunno....who does? We've had this plant with us for more than 4000 years I'm sure.