Scientists Film Genetically-Altered Plants 'Talking' to Neighboring Plants With Biochemicals (sciencealert.com) 33
ScienceAlert reminds us that plants exude "a fine mist of airborne compounds that they use to communicate and protect themselves." And while they've been detected in over 80 plant species, now researchers have applied real-time imaging techniques "to reveal how plants receive and respond to these aerial alarms."
Yuri Aratani and Takuya Uemura, molecular biologists at Saitama University in Japan, and colleagues rigged up a pump to transfer compounds emitted by injured and insect-riddled plants onto their undamaged neighbors, and a fluorescence microscope to watch what happened. Caterpillars (Spodoptera litura) were set upon leaves cut from tomato plants and Arabidopsis thaliana, a common weed in the mustard family, and the researchers imaged the responses of a second, intact, insect-free Arabidopsis plant to those danger cues.
These plants weren't any ordinary weeds: they had been genetically altered so their cells contained a biosensor that fluoresced green when an influx of calcium ions was detected... [T]he team visualized how plants responded to being bathed in volatile compounds, which plants release within seconds of wounding. It wasn't a natural set-up; the compounds were concentrated in a plastic bottle and pumped onto the recipient plant at a constant rate, but this allowed the researchers to analyze what compounds were in the pungent mix...
[T]he undamaged plants received the messages of their injured neighbors loud and clear, responding with bursts of calcium signaling that rippled across their outstretched leaves... [G]uard cells generated calcium signals within a minute or so, after which mesophyll cells picked up the message... "We have finally unveiled the intricate story of when, where, and how plants respond to airborne 'warning messages' from their threatened neighbors," says Masatsugu Toyota, a molecular biologist at Saitama University in Japan and senior author of the study.
These plants weren't any ordinary weeds: they had been genetically altered so their cells contained a biosensor that fluoresced green when an influx of calcium ions was detected... [T]he team visualized how plants responded to being bathed in volatile compounds, which plants release within seconds of wounding. It wasn't a natural set-up; the compounds were concentrated in a plastic bottle and pumped onto the recipient plant at a constant rate, but this allowed the researchers to analyze what compounds were in the pungent mix...
[T]he undamaged plants received the messages of their injured neighbors loud and clear, responding with bursts of calcium signaling that rippled across their outstretched leaves... [G]uard cells generated calcium signals within a minute or so, after which mesophyll cells picked up the message... "We have finally unveiled the intricate story of when, where, and how plants respond to airborne 'warning messages' from their threatened neighbors," says Masatsugu Toyota, a molecular biologist at Saitama University in Japan and senior author of the study.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Rump doesn't talk, he just accepts money. But I guess CNN is fake ne... oh wait... it wasn't CNN. Cheque. M8.
https://www.newsweek.com/donal... [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said Orange Man Bad smelled good.
What can a plant do? (Score:1)
Re:What can a plant do? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of defence mechanisms (mostly chemical), but making yourself less tasty is absolutely one of them. The cyanogenic glycosides that are in clover (and lots of other stuff, including apple pips), are there for that reason. When the leaves are damaged they release small amounts of cyanide, which feeding animals (slugs and other molluscs, for example) don't like and they go feed elsewhere - unless they have no other food source, then they put up with stomach ache (it's not enough to kill them).
You don't want to invest too much of your hard earned energy from photosynthesis in these defence mechanisms unless you really need to (optimisation problem), so getting a signal that your neighbours are under attack allows you to upregulate all that stuff and make more of it before you get attacked.
The Happening? (Score:1)
Isn't this the plot?
Re: (Score:2)
What? No! [youtu.be]
So is veganism a form of plant cruelty? (Score:5, Funny)
If eating or "attacking" plants causes them to react to "pain", can we surmise that veganism is a form of plant cruelty? (Grabs bucket of sustainably raised popcorn)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, though this comes up every time someone posts anything about "things plants do."
Plants clearly lack a nervous system, including those aspects of one that process the experience of pain. All available evidence indicates that such a nervous system is necessary in order to "suffer." Furthermore, the ability to react to injury can exist in an absence of suffering, as has been proven by this simple example: some humans are born with defective nerves that do not feel pain. They can get stabbed in the leg
Re: (Score:1)
Source links? Many plants are still alive when you eat them. They react. Who are you to define pain?
Re: (Score:3)
Source links to what? The condition that removes the ability to feel pain? [wikipedia.org] Something you could have searched for on google with less effort than it took you to type the post demanding a link?
Or are you looking for a source link that proves a negative? Proving a negative is a logical impossibility and it is moot, since the responsibility to provide proof is on the one making a positive claim (in this case the claim that plants feel pain).
But the most important question is your last one: Who are you to def
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, proving a negative is an impossibility. Exactly. That's my point.
You know about *your* pain. You have no way to know anything at all about whether or not plants feel pain. It's purely conjecture.
And we can clearly see that pain serves a purpose that benefits animals but offers no benefit to plants. The suffering is a strong motivator of behavior like running away vigorously or fighting back aggressively and so on. Plants can't do these things.
We can see no such thing. Can we run way vigorously from or fight back aggressively against the pain of cancer? Does that mean we don't feel it?
The article is literally about plants reacting to perceived harm. Sure, they don't react the way we do. So? They're doing what they can. Looks like a pain reaction to m
Re: (Score:2)
Your position is logically inconsistent.
The moment you say "Looks like a pain reaction to me." you are say something about something else's pain. You are, at that moment, saying something about a plant's pain. But you previously stated "You have no way to know anything at all about whether or not plants feel pain. It's purely conjecture."
So you cannot both assert that plants feel pain, and then defend against counter arguments by saying that you have no way to know whether or not plants feel pain.
So which
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not asserting anything with that statement. I'm stating my impression, my opinion. You are doing the same, but claiming it as fact.
The evidence provided only supports the conclusion that plants detect injury and react to it.,
And what do we call it when *we* detect injury? Why assume that plants don't have some version of that? Of course it's not the same pain as yours. So?
It's only very recently that we've shown they can react at all. But they can, even without what we perceive as a nervous system. We have a lot to learn yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Aha, now I see the problem: you seem to be a bit confused about the difference between opinion and fact, and how they are used.
A statement about objective reality does not qualify as an opinion. Like, if you say "in my opinion water flows up hill" you have not actually stated an opinion. You have stated a fact which is false. We can objectively observe that what you have stated is false, and saying "well that's just, like, my opinion man" does not render the statement immune from argument.
Your opinion th
Re: (Score:1)
So, how do we settle the issue of whether or not plants feel pain? We gather evidence. But in the case of plants, they do not scream (no vocal chords), they do not run away (no muscles), they do not state that they are in pain (again with the no vocal chords), and furthermore they do not have a nervous system. Everything lines up to "no."
No, everything lines up to "No data we have collected slots into our preselected criteria." Might as well say "Octopi cannot speak to us or type a message, and therefore they do not think.", despite large amounts of evidence that they are very intelligent.
I'm done here. Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
Well ok, but "no data" means "we cannot conclude that plants feel pain."
It does not mean "we have proven that plants do not feel pain." I am not asserting that we have proven a negative. I am just asserting that we have failed to prove the positive, since this data does not meet the burden of proof, so we cannot conclude that plants feel pain.
Maybe they DO feel pain. We haven't proven that though. We have no good reason to believe that from the data provided, because we don't have data that they feel pa
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Vegans will have to move further down the food chain. But not to fear, yeast is quite nutritious. Or they can eat Advanced Food Substitute derived entirely from petroleum or maybe even coal tar.
It's pretty obvious how badly we treat plants. Consider a radish growing quietly in the garden when it's ripped from the ground, its top and tap root cut off and left to rot, the it gets washed, sliced, salt is put on the open wounds, then it is crushed to death. Any cells surviving that end up in an acid bath.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Vegans will have to move further down the food chain. But not to fear, yeast is quite nutritious. Or they can eat Advanced Food Substitute derived entirely from petroleum or maybe even coal tar.
Petroleum = dead plant material = same as veganism today. Uh oh.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's dead plant material. You didn't kill it, some natural event did that long ago. That should be an acceptable food source, at least ethically. It would contribute to CO2 emissions though.
Ethically you could also eat fruit. The plant produced that fruit to encourage the distribution of its seeds, so eating it would be fine provided that you uphold your half of the bargain and plant the seed as the plant intended. So no more sewage treatment systems, those raspberry seeds need to be properly planted.
Those Arrogant Worms... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider Voltaire on the ethical difference between eating cabbages and people.
Maybe? (Score:2)
Cornell Article [cornell.edu]
not surprising (Score:2)
plants can breath, bleed, breed, eat, get sick, grow old, die. Studies have shown they can show emotions and think. So, Why not talk? Just because they do not do things the same way humans do, does not mean they are not living creatures.
Re: (Score:3)
plants can breath, bleed, breed, eat, get sick, grow old, die. Studies have shown they can show emotions and think. So, Why not talk? Just because they do not do things the same way humans do, does not mean they are not living creatures.
Links? I could use some good sci-fi reading today.
I, for one (Score:2)
Oh, dear.. (Score:2)
Um, Vegans? I think you have a problem.