Slashdot Mirror
Plants 'Recognize' Their Siblings
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that according to a recent study, Biologists have found that plants are able to recognize their own relatives. "Researchers at McMaster University have found that plants get fiercely competitive when forced to share their pot with strangers of the same species, but they're accommodating when potted with their siblings. [...] Though they lack cognition and memory, the study shows plants are capable of complex social behaviours such as altruism towards relatives, says Dudley. Like humans, the most interesting behaviours occur beneath the surface."
Maybe they can't recognize siblings at all. Maybe the genetics are close enough so that the plant can not distinguish its own root from that of its siblings.
Just a thought.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I too become fiercely competitive when forced to share my pot with strangers
See? I was right! Plants have feelings, too! Eating plants is MURDER!
I'm a nilegan for life! I won't harm another thing in this world, just to advance myself!
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
They *hate* it when you do that!
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
The article quotes Susan Dudley, associate professor of biology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, as saying plants lack cognition and memory. Has this been definitively demonstrated? I seem to remember experiments 20, 30 years ago that suggested this might be untrue.
Why should anyone believe your statement that they lack cognition and memory?
Well they asked the plants if they had cognition and memory, and the plants said "no". Then they asked if they meant they didn't have either or just didn't have both, and the plant said "both of what?" So there ya go.
The enemies of Democracy are
This is certainly consistent with the selfish-gene explanation for selfless behaviour: there is an evolutionary advantage, from the perspective of the genes, to co-operating with your siblings because your siblings also bear some of your genes.
This is the same reason hy such "nepotism" exists elsewhere in biology; there's no reason why one would expect plants to be any different, though I imagine the problem of recognizing your siblings is somewhat harder.
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/biology_lette rs/RSBL20070232.pdf
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/biology_lett
Complex? I'm pretty sure that could be defined as the most simple social behavor possible.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Now I'll have to start fooling the plants to think I'm related to them whenever I want my apples to grow larger.
*ducks from the apple thrown at me by my apple tree that read this comment*
So, does this mean PETA will fuck off and die now?
Great, now we'll have the extreme left nut jobs chaining themselves to plants and committing vegetable rights terrorism in their war to save plants from the evils of corporations, America and that most loathsome enemy of all, worthy of destruction for the good of plants and animals alike, humanity!!!
Though they lack cognition and memory, the study shows plants are capable of complex social behaviours such as altruism towards relatives, says Dudley.
Nonsense, the study showed that plants grow aggressively when they encounter foreign root systems. It is probably to the plant's advantage to increase its root growth rate in an environment when it might be crowded out by other plants. Identifying a mechanism which allows plants to respond to their environment is interesting but it is in no way a "social behaviour."
My white blood cell count increases when I'm exposed to disease. I suppose that means my cells are capable of complex social behavior such as territorial aggression?
That, or we're all reading way too much into this :-)
Depends on your definition of cognition, I guess. Plants do respond to stimuli, and in order to do so, they have to detect it somehow. But, it's not a mental faculty, which cognition implies. It's more like, cell mechanism detects this, tells other mechanisms to do that to respond.
Plants don't, at least I believe they don't, have cells specialized to serve the purpose of nerves and neurons. There's no nervous system that leads to a brain, which then decides what to do, and tells the plant to start an action. This also excludes plants from having any sort of "memory" or they type of memory that we have. I'm sure plants have cellular mechanisms that allow plants to respond to repeated stimuli as if they had memory, but it certainly wouldn't be the kind of memory WE have.
Regarding the article; I wonder if plants are able to recognize kin via a method resembling the self incompatibility mechanism (where mechanisms in certain plants species prevent self fertilization). Perhaps the plant roots of related plants secrete the same signal molecule, and it doesn't elicit any sort of response from the plants. But, when unrelated plants secrete different signal molecules, a competitive response is elicited.
"Researchers at McMaster University have found that plants get fiercely competitive when forced to share their pot with strangers of the same species, but they're accommodating when potted with their siblings"
Ya right. I suggest they stop smoking the plants they are studying.
I for one hail our new botanical overlords. Long live Emperor Ficus!...(and his mother and siblings too)
This peyote cactus, man, it's talkin' to me.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"I trusted him like a brother. That is, not at all"
--From somewhere in the original Amber Series
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Seems to me this is the same as how one is more likely to achieve compatibility or lower rejection-rates with closer relatives in terms of organ-transplants, etc
They don't recognise "relatives," they just see material that is close enough to not be considered an intruder.
It doesn't quite work the same with people, as "relatives" or "siblings" can in fact be imported (re-marriage) or separated (divorce, adoption) and thus unrecognized.
if plants have a mechanism which allows them to simulate memory, then isn't that memory? It doesn't have to be our kind of memory, it just has to mean they respond to similar circumstances in the same way due to past experience. Learning behaviour. At least, I can't readily think of another good definition for things which can't communicate.
A. Six thought and again three much disorder for too deficiency zinc.
If you read the Alternative Coagulants section in the Rennet article, you'll see there are quite a few options open to vegetarians. If you are a vegetarian, just check the label. If it doesn't mention how the rennet was harvested, you should assume it came from a calf stomach. However, there are many options available that are vegetarian. Just Google "vegetarian cheese" for several useful sites.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Disclaimer : I'm not a plant biologist. I'm a physical biochemist.
The process of biochemically detecting neighboring organisms is not new. Bacteria use quorum sensing biochemical pathways to "communicate" various things about environment such as population density -- molecules are exchanged and recognized in the extracellular environment.
What is interesting here is that presummably there are different signals for siblings and non-siblings. A more interesting result, in my opinion, would be to find the biochemical connection to this selective quorum sensing. The answer could be complicated : it could include libraries of biochemicals (in varying concentrations) and differences in bacterial flora between plants.
I had the same thought (reading way too much into this). Perhaps roots of related plants are toxic to each other and that's why the roots don't spread. Roots of unrelated plants are not toxic to each other. This could be an evolutionary adaptation that encourages cross-breeding of unrelated plants.
Regardless, there are a number of possible reasons for the effect.
Best regards.
This is perfect. Soon the vegans will realize that plant lives have just as much value as their own. They will have to quit eating plants and die of starvation.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
You bring up a good point, and as I said before, I definitely believe cognition is a mental process. And, I'm pretty sure a plant doesn't have a central command center like our brain, so I don't believe their capable of mental processes.
I have to disagree with you on memory though. With human memory, we can recall one memory multiple times, and our response to that memory can be different. For example, hate your dad's imposing rules and vow you'll never do the same to your kid? Get older, you realize your dad was just trying to raise you to be a good kid, and you use the same rules on YOUR kids. This is essentially learning behavior, but it relies on having our sort of memory. Plants can't do this, and their sort of memory is probably more analogous to that of our adaptive immune system; sees a pattern it doesn't like, builds a response to that pattern, and always responds the same way. There may be an initial learning/imprinting process, but new responses to that stimuli can't be developed.
As a result, I think using the single term memory for all types is misleading, and one needs to make differentiation between types.
Vegans are starving in droves after learning that plants have human altruism.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
P226
I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals.
I'm not a vegetarian because I love hate vegetables.
More deeply rooted plants are more resistant to drought. I wonder if it would make sense to do a sacrificial second sowing with a different batch of seeds to encourage root development as a hedge against drought?s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power with no maintenance fee: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
br - c > 0
It works, bitches.
sic transit gloria mundi
Isnt sentient.. Its all about light and heat and food/water use..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You know how to link to actual paper from the web? That's a pretty good trick.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
So what do they do when sharing a pot with their mother-in-law?
...get fiercely competitive when forced to share their pot with strangers of the same species, but they're accommodating when potted with their siblings. [...]
So they don't mind sharing their pot with siblings, but get hostile when they have to share thier pot with strangers of the same species?
I know how they feel.
Wait..what are we talking about? Plants? OH..That kind of pot...I thought you meant....nevermind.
WTF? Over?
The family that par-tays together, is paranoid of the neighbors together.
--
make install -not war
Do a google before you post next time so you don't look so ignorant.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
When pollen from another plant arrives to stigma, some plants can find out whether the pollen grain is their own or belongs to another genetically distinct plant (of the same species). The pollen grain carries a certain protein on its coat, the type of which is determined by the parent ("father") of the pollen grain. Now, if the protein on the pollen is the same as the one the "mother" plant produces (it means that they are close relatives), it does not allow the pollen grain to fertilize the egg.
Basically, it proves that there is a way for a plant to distinguish between self (maybe close relative?) and more distantly related ones.
I'd guess that the symbiotic bacteria and fungi in and around the roots are similar or dissimilar, and that's the basis upon which the plants appear to discriminate.
TFA sez : "Though they lack cognition and memory,"
Yet they go on to use many terms in the article that refer to behaviors (including that word itself) that imply intention, something plants are not capable of. Sort of turns the quoted sentence fragment into a contradicted disclaimer.
There are perfectly good terms from ecological and genetic biology that can be used. There's no need to try to dress it up with inapplicable psychological terms. It doesn't clarify anything, and it looks goofy.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
That's... just, wow! Just when you think you've seen everything.
sic transit gloria mundi
Maybe plants have good family values?
Don't even mention that plants can feel pain. What are the vegans going to eat?
I have read the articles written making this claim, and examined the evidence presented. It is not even remotely compelling.
The whole of the argument was this:
1) Things that respond to injury feel pain.
2) Plants respond to injury.
3) Therefore plants feel pain.
Premise 1 has been experimentally disproven. There are many tissues in the body which humans do not feel and that heal when injured. There are cases of humans born with malformed nervous systems such that they cannot feel pain, and yet their limbs heal. Surgical removal of parts of the nervous system was performed on some animals, and their tissues healed just fine afterwords. The ability to respond to injury is not a sufficient condition of the ability to feel pain.
Furthermore, "feeling pain" is defined in terms of a chain of events within a central nervous system. Plants don't have one.
The whole concept seems to have came around just to piss off a bunch of vegetarians and try to provide some weird moral justification for eating meat (as if a moral justification was needed). The implied argument was to the effect of: if plants feel pain, and it is okay to eat them, then it is okay to eat anything that feels pain (ever heard of a "dicto simplicter" fallacy?).
So, in sum, the best biological information we have to date clearly indicates that plants do not feel pain (but they do respond to injury).
Vampires. They can eat vampires, right?
Damned ents with their NAND operator...
Sig cannot be found.
This is a perfect example of the difference between psychological altruism (what we normally think of as "altruism", as describes a sort behavior) and evolutionary altruism (which is a precise technical term in biology which describes a property of heritable traits, not behavior).
Psychological altruism is performing behavior which requires for motivation only the benefit (however broadly you are to construe benefit) of a person other than the one performing the action. So, if I'm inclined to do something nice for you, even if I don't get anything out of it, then I am an altruistic person, and such nice things are altruistic behavior.
Evolutionary altruism is having heritable traits which increase the reproductive fitness of others without increasing the reproductive fitness of the individual who has that trait. Sterility is evolutionarily altruistic (in social animals at least), and yet clearly not psychologically altruistic (you don't choose what genes you're born with).
These plants are evolutionarily altruistic. They are not psychologically altruistic, because they have no psychological traits at all.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
it was funnier to see the people correct me. fucking nerds.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants ...because plants have feelings too.
This article doesn't make the distinction between plant growth and plant reproduction. The article makes it sound like plants almost always grow and reproduce around genetically similar specimens, when in nature this doesn't always happen. Many plant species have chemical blocks which prevent pollen from fertilizing ovules within plants which are too genetically alike. When you think about it, it makes sense because genetic diversity would be devastated if genetically similar plants always reproduced with one another.
So my personal spiritual goal is to be a (strict) vaginatarian.
Semore, Feed me!
Table-ized A.I.
Using cruciferous catkin bearing plants in a pot they make several claims:
1) Siblings tend to not compete as strongly as similar non-related but same species.
Comment:How non-related? From plants from a different sand dune area? Or plants nearby but evidently not related? How did they decide that the plants are competing less against non- siblings?
2)"but they're accommodating when potted with their siblings." How did they determine that the plants were accommodating? Did it mean that most of the plants in the same pot were all sturdy and strong?
So as several controls they have plant family A all in one pot, family B All in one pot and in the third pot a mixture of both family A and B together.
Exactly.
Have a read of the absolutely brilliant book, 'Autopoieses and Cognition', by Humberto Maturana and Francesca Varella. They argue that cognition is a fundamental operation of all life, and they make their case extremely well. It's a hard book to track down, and a yet harder book to read, but it's well worthwhile.
sibling = some shared genetic material
clone/twin = (more or less) exact genetic material
Simply proof that vegetarians are not human
That was a Joke if you didn't get it
You aren't fit because you are a vegetarian you are fit because you maintained an active lifestyle and a steady diet. You may be quiet surprised to find that non vegetarians who have remained active have achieved the same result, probably with a greater degree of ease with a varied diet. Remember its just as easy to become unhealthy eating only vegetables if you only eat the wrong ones. The key to what you have done is not, not eating meat but it is not eating too much meat. Consult a dietician or other such qualified medical professional if you need this explained.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
First at all the hybrid 50/50 and 90/10 are STRAWMEN. There is not such a things existing. Inventing scenario like that does not help your argument AT ALL. Constructing strawmen always show that you have a weak basis and try to artificially increase it. This should not be modded insightful for this reason. Now if you had limited yourself to the lsit below this would have been insightful.
So now your list is :
1* Would you eat husbandery animals ?
2* Would you eat pet ?
3* Would you eat cousin-animal related to human
4* would you eat human ?
1,2,3 is for me a no brainer. Those are animals. I am omnivore. Conclusion : bring me the salt, this meat need a bit more taste. Now with a bit more honesty there is also a cultural and taste effect. Rabbit are pet to some people same for horse. I consider both being food. Same for dog. I would have far more difficulty to eat cat, but for the rest.... Please also realize that you thougth to be clever with the dog/cat mention, but you have to understand that even if in some culture those are called pet, in some other culture they might be called food. Same for chimpanzee , and other human cousin : they are in some culture food.
So in reality we can even ab-absurdo reduce your lsit to * animals which are human
* human.
But since I think you took it from the western cultural Point of view I kept it as above.
Now for the sheep-on-two-leg, or thinking meat. Yes if I am hungry enough (read : starving on the verge of death) then I would eat human meat. I would rather become cannibal than die. Cannibalism might be only for a short period up to the point where I am not in such dire situation anymore. DEATH is for ever. But your mileage may vary.
But culturaly we do not eat two legged sheep meat for various reason. So this would be an answer no for various reason.
But as you read this is more a cultural reason than any other moral reason of violence against animal or what not. Food is food. Fine for you to have a high moral ground and decide not to eat what is mobile on its own and can walk/run/swim/crawl/fly. But the moment you start judging other because of their perfectly NORMAL food choice (read : we are omnivore for pity's sake) is the moment you make yourself "religious".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Point 1 up to 3 are OK, point 4 I will not judge I do not know if it is possible or not after all this is a form of veganism, and if the amino acid, carbonhydrate, fat is ok then why not. But point 5 and 6 are complet woo , nutty. NOBODY can live on water or light alone. I am even surprised you did not mention breatharian which are complete utter stupidity. Pure woo. In case you did not know all breatharian which were tested (by randi for example), either the medical team had to break off the test due to organ failure (read : starvation) or they were caught sneaking out for a nighty burger. NOBODY can live very long without protein and carbonhydrate input.
But then again you mention spirituality in conjunction with food intake, which is definitively not related. You can be very spiritual/philosophical and eat meat every day, and be a down the earth idiot vega.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
So like... if I eat baby tomato in front of papa tomato, it's gonna get angry?
When harvesting, keep the seeds from individual plants isolated from one another. Then when you replant, be sure to minimize genetic variability within each container by only planting seeds from one parent plant. When your sibling plants recognize their sisters they'll put less energy into competitive behavior intended to screw neighbors out of water and light, such as excessive rooting, excessive leaf production, and rapid vertical growth. Instead you'll get these short, stubby mellow plants with big buds.
I see what you mean, and I suppose that is a form of memory I hadn't considered. Still, for most purposes the term memory suffices. When getting technical I believe scientists actually do have diffrent words for type of memory, but probabaly in relation to human or animal memory.
Back in the seventies there was an experiment whereby a plant was attached to a lie detector type device to measure various parameters. In another room, a researcher dropped live prawns in to boiling water. Each time a prawn died, the plant's readings showed a blip. They concluded that the plant could somehow detect the pain even though the even occurred in a different room. I read about this is the book Supernature by Lyall Watson if anyone wants to know more.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
...just time for another bath then.
I don't eat what I wouldn't feel comfortable killing myself. This excludes my pets (but possibly not yours), humans, and lots of endangered species (I don't eat cod and eel anymore for instance). Pigs, cows, horses, sheep, chicken, mussels, the occasional dolphin, small primates: all fair game.
May Kip Addotta forgive me...
It was Cucumber the first; summer was over.
I had just spinached a long day and I was busheled.
I'm the kinda guy that works hard for his celery and I don't mind telling you I was feeling a bit wilted.
But I didn't carrot all. 'Cause, otherwise, things were vine.
I try never to disparagus and I don't sweat the truffles.
I'm outstanding in my field and I know something good will turnip eventually.
A bunch of things were going grape, and soon, I'd be top banana.
At least, that's my peeling.
But that's enough corn; lend me your ear and lettuce continue:
After dressing, I stalked on over to the grain station.
I got there just in lime to catch the nine-elemon as it plowed toward the core of Appleton,
a lentil more than a melon-and-a-half Yeast of Cloveland.
CHORUS
Life in the slaw lane.
They say plants can't feel no pain.
Life in the slaw lane.
I've got news for you:
They're just as frail as you.
No one got off at Zucchini, so we continued on a rutaBaga.
Passing my usual stop, I got avoCado.
I hailed a passing Yellow Cabbage and told the driver to cart me off to Broccolyn.
I was going to meet my brother across from the eggplant where he had a job at the Saffron station pumpkin gas.
As soon as I saw his face, I knew he was in a yam.
He told me his wife had been raisin cane. Her name was Peaches:
a soiled but radishing beauty with HUGE goards.
My brother had always been a chestnut, but I could neve figured out why she picked him.
He was a skinny little string bean who had always suffered from cerebral parsley.
It was in our roots.
Sure, we had tried to weed it out, but the problem still romained.
He was used to having a tough row to how, but it irrigated me to see Artichoke,
and it bothered my brother to see his marriage going to seed.
CHORUS
Like most mapled couples, they had a lot of grilling to do.
Sure, they'd sown their wild oats, but just barley if you peas.
Finally, Peaches had given him an ultomato. She said, "I'm hip to your chive,
and you don't stop smoking that herb, I'm gonna leaf ya for Basil, ya fruit!"
He said he didn't realize it had kumquat so far.
Onion other hand, even though Peaches could be the pits, I knew she'd never call the fuzz.
CHORUS
So I said, "Hay, we're not farm from the Mushroom! Let's walk over."
He said, "That's a very rice place. That's the same little bar where alfalfa my wife!"
When we got there, I pulled up a cherry and tried to produce small talk.
I told him I haven't seen Olive; not since I shelled off for a trip to Macadamia when I told her, "We cantaloupe."
The time just wasn't ripe.
She knew what I mint.
When we left the Mushroom, we were pretty well-juiced.
I told Arti to say hello to the boysenBerry and that I'd orange to see him another thyme.
Well, it all came out in the morning peppers:
Arti caught Peaches that night with Basil, and Arti beat Basil bad,
leaving him with two beautiful acres.
Peaches? She was found in the garden; she'd been pruned.
CHORUS
Well, my little story is okra now.
Maybe it's small potatoes. Me? Idaho.
My name? Wheat. My friends call me "Kernel".
And that's life in the slaw lane.
Thank you so mulch.
CHORUS
It's a garden out there!
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
That was my first thought, but these scientists have surely thought of the possibility. Looking at the abstract of the article, I think the interesting part is that the plants can differentiate kin from strangers at all, whatever the mechanism. What I mean is, even if what's happening is that they can't differentiate kin from themselves, it's still interesting that they can differentiate kin from strangers.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I Was A Botanist.
My guess is that any botanist worth their salt is going to look at this and shrug. Truth is it really isn't news. It was known 25 years ago that you could inject a plant with a substance and it would show up in its neighbors in time, even if they were different species.
Botany Lessson:
I willl try to keep this short. If you take a seed and plant it in perfectly sterile soil, say after autoclaving it, and take another of the same seed and plant it in the same unautoclaved soil the plant in the autoclaved soil does worse. As far as the common perception goes that makes no sense, same seed, same nutrients, same conditions - but different growth. So what gives? The difference is this - Mycorrhiza In short, most plant roots aren't that great at pulling minerals out so they have a symbiotic fungus do it for them, then hand back complex sugars and other stuff to the fungus. Some plants are so adapted that by themselves they *cant* live without the symbiote. It it said that up to 95% of ALL plants have this relationship.
So?
Well, if you are the fungus you are indiscriminate with who you work with (last I knew there weren't that many species of mycorrhiza fungi - but it has been a long time since I worked in Dr Charvat's lab) so bonding with all your neighbors wouldnt be a bad idea. So now there is a pathway, we understand what it is, all we have to do is figure out the signal process. That I have no clue about - but if I had to guess - I would say that as a symbiote the fungus knows not to try to take too much from the plant, and if they are siblings it may not be able to discriminate between them there by giving less and taking less, and consequently helping less. From the outside it would look like less growth (because they weren't getting what they need). While the other situation might just be normal growth, though in comparison it would look aggressive. Or if it *is* more growth compared to a lone plant, it might be that the bigger fungi is able to provide more nutrients to both hosts, making them grow more then they would alone.
Meh - my two cents
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
My daughter is 28. You will find, if you are lucky, that women, who care, learn all kinds of interesting things about men and the ones who have been around a bit ate often the most fun. YMMV ... puppy.
True enough, although I have no residual build up from hormone tainted meat and almost no bad cholesterol. There are a couple of other benefits as well but I do have to eat very carefully to bulk.
I just got tired of the undoubtedly fat and ugly posters babbling about their carnivorousness. I don't eat animals because as a Buddhist I will not take a viewpoint into this universe for food.
Eh heh, you'd think so, and I'd hope so =P Scientist are silly people.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
That comment deserves a since fiction story.
~= scwizard =~