Plants are also able to make complex decisions. At least this is what scientists from the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research (UFZ) and the University of Göttingen have concluded from their investigations on Barberry (Berberis vulgaris), which is able to abort its own seeds to prevent parasite infestation. The results are the first ecological evidence of complex behaviour in plants. They indicate that this species has a structural memory, is able to differentiate between inner and outer conditions as well as anticipate future risks, scientists write in the renowned journal American Naturalist —the premier peer-reviewed American journal for theoretical ecology.
The European barberry or simply Barberry (Berberis vulgaris) is a species of shrub distributed throughout Europe. It is related to the Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium) that is native to North America and that has been spreading through Europe for years. Scientists compared both species to find a marked difference in parasite infestation: "a highly specialized species of tephritid fruit fly, whose larvae actually feed on the seeds of the native Barberry, was found to have a tenfold higher population density on its new host plant, the Oregon grape", reports Dr. Harald Auge, a biologist at the UFZ.
This led scientists to examine the seeds of the Barberry more closely. Approximately 2000 berries were collected from different regions of Germany, examined for signs of piercing and then cut open to examine any infestation by the larvae of the tephritid fruit fly (Rhagoletis meigenii). This parasite punctures the berries in order to lay its eggs inside them. If the larva is able to develop, it will often feed on all of the seeds in the berry. A special characteristic of the Barberry is that each berry usually has two seeds and that the plant is able to stop the development of its seeds in order to save its resources. This mechanism is also employed to defend it from the tephritid fruit fly. If a seed is infested with the parasite, later on the developing larva will feed on both seeds. If however the plant aborts the infested seed, then the parasite in that seed will also die and the second seed in the berry is saved.
When analysing the seeds, the scientists came across a surprising discovery: "the seeds of the infested fruits are not always aborted, but rather it depends on how many seeds there are in the berries", explains Dr. Katrin M. Meyer, who analysed the data at the UFZ and currently works at the University of Goettingen. If the infested fruit contains two seeds, then in 75 per cent of cases, the plants will abort the infested seeds, in order to save the second intact seed. If however the infested fruit only contains one seed, then the plant will only abort the infested seed in 5 per cent of cases. The data from fieldwork were put into a computer model which resulted in a conclusive picture. Using computer model calculations, scientists were able to demonstrate how those plants subjected to stress from parasite infestation reacted very differently from those without stress. "If the Barberry aborts a fruit with only one infested seed, then the entire fruit would be lost. Instead it appears to 'speculate' that the larva could die naturally, which is a possibility. Slight chances are better than none at all", explains Dr. Hans-Hermann Thulke from the UFZ. "This anticipative behaviour, whereby anticipated losses and outer conditions are weighed up, very much surprised us. The message of our study is therefore that plant intelligence is entering the realms of ecological possibility."
But how does the Barberry know what is in store for it after the tephritid fruit fly has punctured a berry? It is still unclear as to how the plant processes information and how this complex behaviour was able to develop over the course of evolution. The Oregon grape that is closely related to the Barberry has been living in Europe for some 200 years with the risk of being infested by the tephritid fruit fly and yet it has not developed any such comparable defence strategy. These new insights shed some light on the underestimated abilities of plants, while at the same time bringing up many new questions.
Explore further:
Plants compete for friendly ants
More information:
Katrin M. Meyer, Leo L. Soldaat, Harald Auge, Hans-Hermann Thulke (2014): "Adaptive and selective seed abortion reveals complex conditional decision making in plants." The American Naturalist. Vol. 183, No. 3, March 2014
zorro6204
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014Modernmystic
So can a rock when it hits it's melting point. I don't call that complex behavior.
What they're talking about isn't "anticipatory" behavior or being able to "differentiate" on any kind of level other than mechanistic. This is an interesting MECHANIC of the structure of a plant that's being described, it has nothing at all to do with intelligence any more than a piece of ferrous iron being attracted to a magnet...
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014Modernmystic
No that isn't our problem with the perception of intelligence in plants. The "problem" is that planets aren't intelligent and some people view this as a problem. It's no more a problem than the non existence of the tooth fairy...
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014krundoloss
Why would it abort the seed? It has already grown it, so its not saving any resources. The purpose of the fruit is to provide nutrients for the seed, so even if there is no seed in the fruit, there will be other seeds in the vicinity that may benefit from the nutrients of the fruit. These things are not decisions, but rather just behavioral features of the organisms. After all, we don't call the individual plant cells "intelligent" simply because they make biomechanical "decisions", do we?
javjav
RealScience
Slow down another minute, zorro6024 - humans are biological machines, too!
So that's pretty funny coming from a biological machine like you presumably are ... did you mean it humorously?
Rimino
Mar 05, 2014Rimino
Mar 05, 2014zorro6204
A plant lacks any system that could express intelligence, no neurons, no brain cells. A plant acts and reacts purely through coding in its DNA, much like a machine would. Stimulus A happens, subprogram B is invoked, no reason, no judgement, no thought. Indeed, most of the animal kingdom is no better, just a collection of cells and programs until you reach the level of mammals and birds. Intelligence is not just a set of complex instructions.
RealScience
A neuron reacts to molecules transmitted from other neurons, purely through molecular interactions, much like a machine would. So if you think that biological machines aren't intelligent do to being mechanistic, speak for yourself,
The intelligence arises from the number of neurons and the complexity of the interactions between neurons, not from the mechanics of the interaction.
As for DNA, DNA is the disk drive of the cell, the RNAs are the processing power.
Several hundred to several thousand copies of each of hundreds of thousands of RNAs and proteins interact in a complex web, with a given RNA often interacting with hundreds or even thousands of other RNAs and proteins, and with DNA regulation regions.
-continued-
RealScience
Where the brain beats RNA is on speed and on number of units closely interacting.
The brain interactions are in milliseconds to seconds rather than seconds to hours, or very roughly three orders of magnitude faster.
However that is not intelligence - current computers are more than twice that many orders of magnitude faster than our neurons, and that doesn't make computers intelligent.
So the brain's intelligence wins because we have ~10^11 neurons, each interacting tightly with ~100 to 10,000 others.
In contrast, while each cell's RNA interactions are more complex than a neuron's electrical activity, the cells only interact closely with dozens of neighbors and have global, rather than individual, actions with billions of other cells.
So our brains are MORE intelligent than plants, but that DOESN'T mean that plants have no intelligence.
Rimino
Mar 06, 2014jahbless
Bonia
Mar 08, 2014Bonia
Mar 08, 2014mitchslagghorn
but not in the fashion that animals and humans do. It is incredibly hard to explain,
because we consider our own physical properties and mechanisms to be
the only accepted measure of cellular construction that has the ability. Just as
we can only visualize a life form as a carbon based creature. This planet is a mixed
bag of many types of life, to assume you know all and every frequency that exists,
is truly an example of how simple we are. Trees are perhaps the most intelligent.
Just because they don't speak your language, or communicate on a frequency that
you can understand, doesn't mean they aren't listening. It's quite possible,
they record everything.
"Think and wonder, wonder and think." ― Dr. Seuss
Bonia
Mar 09, 2014Bonia
Mar 09, 2014Captain Stumpy
@Zephir
I am not sure I can agree with that
from the wiki page
that would mean it is not intellectual, but mechanical
take your hand: it can be stimulated to contract (without intelligence) via electrode which is the mechanical response due to stimulation
you would not assume the hand is intelligent in itself should this happen (against your wishes) and try as hard as you want, you cant fight against direct stimulation either
Rimino
Mar 10, 2014edward_ponderer
Should such wondrous communities in the plant and animal kingdoms really be just scientific curiosities for us, or something from which we hope to induce some snake oil elixir? Should they not be signposts for us of where we should use our special gift of intelligence to travel, and of the ego that we must work around to get there?
Captain Stumpy
@zeph
I guess you misunderstood my post?
it does NOT "comprehends a decission"
I said it was primarily a mechanical reaction to a situation.
again, it is a matter of stimulus and response
as to the the viability of intelligence behind it, there is no guarantee based upon the trap closing (because there was a mechanism triggered due to its evolution of it over time) that there is an intelligence in the reaction
IF there was an intelligence to the reaction, then modern researchers would NOT be able to trigger the trap to close themselves, wasting the energy. It would ONLY close when it had digestible prey in the trap. this kills it as it can only close/open a finite amount of times
read the link:
http://www.botany...trap.php
Bonia
Mar 11, 2014Captain Stumpy
@zeph
like I said, it is primarily a mechanical reaction to a situation
proof?
From MY LINK ABOVE
IOW – even YOU could STIMULATE the trap to close without prey, and it would eventually kill the leaves over too many stimulations, meaning that it is NOT an intelligence based decision
if it were INTELLIGENCE based, it would NOT allow leaves to close without prey to save energy/life of leaves
Bonia
Mar 11, 2014Captain Stumpy
@Zeph
personal conjecture without evidence
there is nothing wrong with having a stimulus response mechanism within an organism for mechanical actions. Your arm/hand is a perfect example of it, like I showed above
the intelligence is NOT in the arm/hand which makes the movement, but in the brain which gives the order (and you CAN override this mechanism with electrodes) just like the Flytrap
I am not saying that I understand plant intelligence, nor am I saying that plants dont have it (I dont care)
I was pointing out that the mechanism of the Flytrap is primarily a mechanical reaction to a situation, much like your arm/hand
Bonia
Mar 11, 2014Captain Stumpy
@zeph
no, more like REALITY
no, you are posting conjecture not supported by evidence
I guess you missed the part above where I said
again, I am actually trying to be open to new ideas, however, there is NO supporting evidence that the closing leaves of the flytrap are anything other than mechanical in nature (as shown in my link)
IOW – not intelligence based
nor am I being anthropocentric. I believe intelligence is VERY subjective
I am trying to get you to focus on what IS important as the closing leaves are not what you are inferring
your flatworm example is much better, and FAR more interesting
Bonia
Mar 11, 2014Captain Stumpy
@Zeph
the above is a perfect example of your difficulty of comprehension, and perhaps this is a language issue?
Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)
IOW – I was agreeing with you (in regard to intelligence)
given that the definition of intelligence must be considered in the aspect of the object taken, it is difficult to define intelligence of animals/AI with any clarity
this would also be true with plants or ET's
as for your "mainstream" crack... like I said before and will continue to do: PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DATA to support your argument and I will be more amenable to the inferences of your alternative points of view
Bonia
Mar 11, 2014Bonia
Mar 11, 2014Captain Stumpy
@Zeph
so you are here to TROLL then?
This is personal conjecture without evidence
conjecture without evidence
they seek to classify, which INCLUDES boundaries AS WELL AS CONNECTIONS
NOT
and I ADDED a BIOLOGY site link
and WE are aware that pseudoscience crackpots are so fanatical they cant see REALITY before them
given your LACK of empirical support, you prove ONLY that you are:
making conjecture
STUPIDLY refuting KNOWN SCIENCE with conjured supposition
APPLYING attributes to a system which does NOT prove your speculations
you are TROLLING and applying personal hallucinations
I am not responding to more of your STUPIDITY
Bonia
Mar 11, 2014Bonia
Mar 11, 2014Bonia
Mar 11, 2014Captain Stumpy
@Zeph
you should read that paper... there is a LOT of YOU in it...
http://www.prince...20BW.pdf
especially given that you cant tell the difference between MECHANICAL ACTION and an INTELLIGENT THOUGHT (I will give you a hint... the first involves the leaves of the Venus Flytrap, as proven by me earlier, because if it were driven by INTELLIGENCE then it would NEVER close upon an empty trap which would then waste energy and shorten its life further... in fact... if it had INTELLIGENCE, it would be able to tell the difference between PREY and STIMULATION WITH A BRUSH BY SCIENTISTS!)
IOW – you are a TROLL
and ignorant, to boot
Bonia
Mar 12, 2014Captain Stumpy
@Z
no.
wrong. There IS other stimulus in nature that can trigger the leaves, from animal hide/hair to blowing particles
differs? Yes
is it better? Not necessarily
it differs because out intelligence allows us to manipulate the environment in ways that the Flytrap cannot even fathom
that is all I will state, however, because there is no clear definition for intelligence and it tends to be subjective and malleable (our dogs are intelligent in their own way, as well as Dolphins, birds, etc etc)
anywallsocket
To explain how a plant reacts, you need to see the environmental half of the picture.
The plant reacts WITH the environment. They are a "complex system" when viewed together. So if the plant is to be called a "machine" one should point out its function as well, which if anything, would be something like 'Mutual recursion' in mathematics.
The alleged "intelligence" likely comes from this intimate "stimuli - reaction", "cause and effect", "the earth is one organism", or whatever RELATIONSHIP these organism's share with the environment. Sorry to yell.
It's harder to believe in the case of the dropping of the plant, where we measure an active reaction to its change in environment; as it does. Whatever the total plant reaction to being dropped was -- it was what it did last time, or what its lineage did -- but done with less resistance this time.
dedereu
It is well known, and typical of any living organisms which are more intelligent trough evolution.