Musings from Tony Fearnside

As a person that has puzzled for long enough over the extent of sentience in plants and trees, the delivery of The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate: Discoveries from a Secret World formed a bright interlude in what has been an unusually bleak Canberra winter.

The English editions of this book come with a foreword by Tim Flannery which concludes by saying “Opening this book, you are about to enter a wonderland. Enjoy it.” Foresters tend not to describe their workplaces as “wonderlands”, nevertheless they do have a feeling for forest ecosystems and their complexities, and an interest in recent scientific contributions to understanding plant signalling and behaviour.

The author, Peter Wohlleben, spent 20 years managing mixed hardwood forests in Germany, gradually becoming able to see the trees as individuals rather than as potential pieces of lumber: seeing through a forest ecologist’s eyes rather than the eyes of a commercial forest manager.

The English edition of this book (published in 2016, by Greystone Books of Canada, a part of the Random House Group) is easy to read, thanks to Jane Billinghurst’s translation skills. There are some 35 chapters which tend to describe plant processes in anthropocentric ways. Probably this will upset the “plant neurology” groups, but it is difficult to see how else it could be done in a book intended for an audience of generalists as well as technicians. In these 35 brief chapters, the writers succinctly explain forest ecosystem processes of Central European forests, which are often composed of mainly beech and oak.

Under a chapter heading, The Mysteries of Moving Water, Wohlleben briefly discusses the forces that may play a part in moving watery fluids to the top of very tall trees: capillary action, transpiration, and osmosis. He concludes that none of these give a satisfactory explanation, suggesting that while we are poorer for not having a possible explanation, we may be richer for an unexplained mystery!

Under Community Housing Projects, he discusses the shelter provided by habitats in tall, lignified plants, pointing out that “even though forest scientists haven’t fully researched the relationships yet, we do know that higher species diversity stabilizes the forest ecosystem”.

Under Tough Customers, he considers the longevity of many tree species, pointing out that there is usually more genetic variation between individual trees than there is between species in the animal kingdom. As a result, tree species are better equipped to deal with climate change, for example.

A slight note of warning seems appropriate, however: of necessity, Wohlleben draws most of his examples from Central European forests, and it is essential to allow for this in order to get the most from his otherwise very-easy-to-understand style. (Do not waste time looking for anything about eucalypts!).

Dr Suzanne Simard (Professor of Forest Ecology, University of British Columbia) has provided an end-note, pointing out that much of Wohlleben’s material parallels research findings in Pacific forests, and that these make us think more deeply about the inner workings of trees and forests.

 

Tony Fearnside, ACT Division, Institute of Foresters of Australia

13 October 2016

 

This short article is about some of the things that plants do (aspects of plant behaviour) and leads to some of the ways in which plants communicate and to how we might communicate with plants. Mostly the emphasis is on above-ground behaviour.

It is important to keep some essential features of plants in mind: they are immobile, slower to react to sudden changes than animals and humans, and have roots, stems and leaves. They can be much longer-lived than we mortals. They do not have the organs (brains, hearts and blood vessels, etc) that characterise higher animals. In fact, it would be a bad idea for plants to have these as all a predator would have to do to kill the plant is to destroy one of the vital organs; as it is a plant can lose up to 90% of its “body” and still survive.

Like all living creatures, plants have a propensity to propagate their species, but while animals and humans consume food to do this, plants make food.

One of plants’ major activities is to make “stuff” (organic sugars) by photosynthesis and they seek to do this efficiently by capturing as much light as possible: growing towards the light and having “closed canopies”. The basic chemical formula for photosynthesis is the reverse of that for respiration in both plants and animals.

This bush has a “closed canopy” so that its leaves intercept as much energy from the sun as possible.

The process of photosynthesis itself is intriguing – the temperature inside leaves is carefully controlled and is always close to the optimum for the photosynthesis process, at 21.4o+2.2oC. It has been shown in a variety of plants that this temperature did not vary over a wide range of climates and over 50o of latitude. The photo-synthesis process is the task of chloroplasts which are green (rather than the leaves themselves).

Cross-section of a leaf

The all-important chloroplasts are mainly in the cells of the palisade and spongy layers.

The stoma, by opening and closing, regulate temperature and, importantly, moisture within the whole plant.

(Diagram by Zephirus (own work) in Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf#/media/File:Leaf_Tissue structure.svg

 

A moment’s thought tells us that we all depend on plants at some stage in our food chains and that our very existence depends on chloroplasts and the process of photosynthesis. In fact, we are heavily dependent on plants while plants would get on very nicely if humans vanished overnight!

 

Some of the above-ground ways in which plants communicate are:The other very important process that is carried out by leaves is the regulation of moisture in the plant. This requires communication within the whole plant to ensure that there is a “goldilocks environment” (one that is “just right”) that is controlled by the opening or closing of the stomata (pores) which are mostly on the underside of the leaf.

• Within plants: plants utilise the xylem/phloem pathway linking roots and shoots; with chemical compounds or electrical signals.
• With insects: flowers have coloured petals and stamens, scents.
• With insects and animals: cherries have white flowers to attract bees and red fruits to attract humans/birds.
• With birds: attractive fruits (eg berries) are eaten whole, so seeds are dispersed (and fertilized!).
• With humans: stone fruits look good and taste good!

The third object of the Theosophical Society (“To investigate the unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in the human being”) has led to several books and many investigations (usually non-scientific) dealing with nature spirits, devas and plant or tree energies. Three recent examples of communication with plants and nature spirits are described briefly in the next paragraphs.

1. “The Great Banyan Tree at Adyar (Chennai, India) is a very distinct and majestic tree and is very close to the historic Blavatsky Bungalow so that some of its extensive branches were touching the building. While meditating with a small group at the foot of the tree, the Tree Angel gave us the solution. She put her robe over the entire tree, but didn’t cover those branches that were threatening the bungalow: the Angel showed that it was permitted to trim some of the branches.” (http://adyar-renovation.org)
2. Joy Mills (1920 to 2015) was a former international vice president and president of the US and Australian Sections of the Theosophical Society, and her experience was re-told in the Quest magazine of Spring 2012, as follows.

“One day she hiked into the Ozarks (USA) woods that are known for their white oaks and dogwood trees along with loblolly pines, which can reach over a hundred feet in height. After a while, she found herself in front of a towering tree. ‘I became aware of the power and life in that tree. Then I became one with the tree and could have slid right into it.’ In that instant, she knew that the life in the tree and the life within her were the same. ‘At some level, it changed me’.”

3. In her latest book Atala Dorothy Toy reports her widespread experiences with nature spirits and tree energies and the occurrence of orbs and other energy bodies on photographs taken by digital cameras which were not visible to the photographer. (Quest Books, 2012.)

The question of plant intelligence has been receiving more attention in scientific circles of late, after being relatively stagnant since the publication of Power of Movement in Plants by Charles Darwin in 1880. Reasons for this stagnation included the view that plants were some form of still life, a concept that seems to have been accepted from Aristotelian times, whereas plants have been shown relatively recently, to be active in many more ways than simply moving in response to stimuli such as light and gravity. This is particularly so when plants are studied in the landscape, not the laboratory as used always to be the case. The amazing below ground behaviour of plants includes:

• seeking and taking moisture and nutrients from soil.
• uniting with symbionts eg, legumes with bacteria and conifers with fungi.
• avoiding parts of the same plant or species (to prevent competition for nutrients and space).

For these, plants use processes like ours to see, touch, smell, hear and even taste (Chamovitz, 2013).

Suggested sources of information.

Brilliant Green – the surprising history and science of plant intelligence Stefano Mancuso and Alessandra Viola. (English edition) Island Press 2015 (175 pp)

You tube sessions with Stefano Mancuso, eg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIfwFLDXFyQ

Nature Spirits, Spirit Guides and Ghosts – how to talk to and photograph beings of other realms Atala Dorothy Toy, Quest Books 2012.

You tube sessions with Atala Dorothy Toy eg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DuOYjZxq0I

The Plantoid Robot Project, eg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqKRNKCmzhE

Daniel Chamovitz (Tel Aviv University) has a short account of plant behaviour, Plants Exhibit the Same Senses as Humans and See, Touch, Smell, Hear and Even Taste   At:
http://themindunleashed.org/2013/11/plants-exhibit-same-senses-as-humans.html

 

Tony Fearnside (from Theosophy in Australia March 2013)

Theosophical literature contains some notable works about devas and the angelic kingdoms by respected clairvoyants such as CW Leadbeater (The Hidden Side of Things) Geoffrey Hodson (The Kingdom of the Gods and Fairies at Work and at Play). However literature about the occult nature of trees and plants is mainly from sources outside the theosophical movement, and includes accounts of Nordic and Celtic legends and gods associated with trees and accounts of trees as symbols, merging into ethno-botanical accounts and some recent scientific studies.

I am not aware of any similar written descriptions of Australian tree spirits but there are several contemporary Australian authors who have written extensively about nature spirits and related phenomena. Examples are: Alanna Moore’s many articles in the electronic magazine Geomantica; Geoff Campbell’s very extensive descriptions in Angels of the Botanic Gardens, Melbourne (https://chisync.com/Geo/Angels/) and Steven Guth’s many contributions to the Kheper web-site (http://kheper.net). There is also the compilation Devas and Men[i] an intriguing book which takes work from several different authors and seamlessly melds them together to form an anthology of theosophical writings on nature spirits.

Botanical science has long known that chemicals are transported within plants which can be considered to be a form of communication comparable with the transmission of pain in humans from, say, the toe to the brain. Recently there has been a distinct trend towards the study of communication in plants – Communication in Plants – the neuronal aspects of plant life (Springer) presents a collection of papers on communication within and sometimes between plants. Also, in 2012, scientists at Exeter University (UK) contributed to a BBC TV programme which showed that cabbage plants emit a volatile gas to warn other plants of danger, such as leaf-eating caterpillars or garden shears.

Communication with Trees

I cannot lay claim to any developed clairvoyant capabilities (and indeed am quite happy not to have them) while perhaps admitting to a degree of sensitivity. Several years ago, one of the senior members of a Theosophical Society lodge told me about a message that one of her much-loved trees, an oak, gave her. This was just after a devastating bushfire which left large areas near her rural home blackened and seemingly killed. The tree’s message was “do not worry I will grow new leaves in the spring” which it did. Later one of my favourite garden trees, a rare spinning gum (Eucalyptus perriniana) asked me to remove the adjacent wattle. I did not understand, and did not do so – to my sorrow the tree died not long afterwards and I assume that the wattle’s roots had grown over the eucalypt’s roots as is often the case. Too late, all I could do was use parts of its trunk to form garden beds. Later, an orange blossom shrub said a “thank you” to me after I had pruned a neighbouring tree to give it more space.

I have often worked with arborists, not all of whom are “urban lumberjacks”, and one of them told me that he once had a strong feeling (received a warning) from a tree not to step on a branch as he was about to climb it. It turned out that the branch was rotten and would not have held his weight if he had stood on it as he had planned. He probably escaped a serious fall. Others have spoken about particular feelings they have towards special trees.

In about 1999, two friends and I received a small grant from the ACT government to prepare a heritage nomination for “Blundells Arboretum[ii]” which was the most impressive in a series of arboreta that had been established by the Forest Research Institute from 1926 onwards. My task was to assess each plot of trees and I looked forward to my first day working in the arboretum. When I got there, there was a distinctly unwelcoming atmosphere – the trees did not want me and I noticed some signs of recent vandalism: labels had been removed and a fence post had been driven into a termite mound and so on. On subsequent visits the atmosphere became more welcoming as if the trees were recognising that I was not out to harm them.

Several accounts by Dora Van Gelder (later Dora Kunz) describe tree spirits and associated fairies. These are about tree spirits and associated fairies. For example in her paper Tree Spirits[iii] she told of a malevolent tree spirit associated with a remnant tree in Indonesia and of tree spirits in North American woods and forests. She said that, by and large, tree spirits are kindly disposed to people but have a lower degree of consciousness, and a slower reaction to stimuli than humans and that they are able to leave the tree which they inhabit, for short distances. This account complements Geoffrey Hodson’s description of a gnome associated with an ash tree in England which could leave the tree in which it “lived” for short distances and then return, perhaps to re-energise itself. (Note that Hodson described his nature spirits in anthropomorphic terms and sought to classify them as fairies, gnomes, mannikins, et cetera.) In The Hidden Sided of Things, Leadbeater pointed out that:

Strong influences are radiated by the vegetable kingdom also, and the different kinds of plants and trees vary greatly in their effect … trees- especially old trees – have a strong and definite individuality, well worthy [of] the name of a soul.^iv[iv]

Trees have feelings

So it seems that trees do have feelings, that they are sentient beings and in some cases are able to convey messages which we are sometimes able to interpret or understand. How can trees and plants introduce us to the “unexplained powers of nature” without calling on those with well-developed clairvoyant abilities to see and describe tree spirits and fairies?

Let’s start with Kirlian photography, accounts of which can be found on the internet^v[v]. In short a Russian scientist Semyon Kirlian found, in 1939, a way of photographing leaves and human hands to show fields of energy around them. This was claimed to show that auras existed, which was (and still is) greeted with a degree of scepticism even though most of us can feel energy, often as a tingling, in our fingertips if we rub our hands together briskly, shut our eyes and hold our hands in front of us, fingers pointing to, and close to, each other. Kirlian also showed that if parts of the leaf were cut off there was still an energy field around the space previously occupied by the part that had been removed, which is reminiscent of amputees’ statements about being able to feel a foot or a hand after it has been removed (‘phantom limbs’).

Another way of demonstrating energy in plants is to hold a pendulum or a divining rod over a live plant – the pendulum will begin to rotate (if it is not held too firmly) or a divining rod will start to swing. The same thing happens if they are held over a hand or a head. This leads us to tree hugging to feel energies in trees which is best done in older clothes that are perhaps ready for the laundry. It is important to approach the tree with a feeling of sympathy or respect, in the same way that an interview with another person will be more fruitful if the conversation is empathetic or compassionate rather than unfriendly. Speak quietly to the tree if that will help, then hug gently and firmly, you should then be able to feel a similar energy to that passing between your finger tips.

These energies are not as strong as, for instance, electrical energy in our domestic power sources, nevertheless they are there, subtle though they may be. They remind us that prana (or fohat or chi) really is a fact and may begin to explain how at least some of the unexplained forces of nature are transmitted, for example the feeling of well-being that we get when gardening or walking among trees in parks and nature reserves.

Meditating when sitting with one’s back to a tree is another aid to understanding the unexplained forces of nature. The tree’s subtle energy can help the sitter’s meditation. One does not need to be a Buddha in search of enlightenment under a Bodhi tree to gain some benefit – just do it!

In conclusion, it is appropriate to consider another excerpt from The Hidden Side of Things:

…trees exercise much more influence over human beings than is commonly supposed, and … he who sets himself to cultivate sympathetic and friendly relations with all his neighbours, vegetable as well as animal and human, may both receive and give a great deal of which the average man knows nothing, and may thus make his life fuller, wider, more complete[vi].

Endnotes

[i] Devas and Men – a compilation of Theosophical studies on the Angelic Kingdom by the Southern Centre of Theosophy, The Theosophical Publishing House Adyar, Chennai, India 2000.

[ii] Arboretum: a collection of trees established for scientific or other purposes.

[iii] In Gaia’s hidden Life: The Unseen Intelligence of Nature by Shirley Nicholson and Brenda Rosen, The Theosophical Publishing House, Quest Original 1992.

[iv] The Hidden Side of Things, CW Leadbeater, The Theosophical Publishing House, Ayar, 1912, p.94.

[v] Eg, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography; and The Skeptics Dictionary at: http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html

[vi] CW Leadbeater, op. cit. pp. 96-97.

Is intelligence “what is needed to solve problems” or does it require a brain?

Tony Fearnside, M.Sc., OAM, 2015.

 

In 1973, the publication of The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Timothy Bird occasioned much controversy. Appearing at a time when New Ageism was strong, the book was a “best seller” in USA and inspired a popular documentary film of the same name (Paramount 1979). One of the book’s controversial claims was that plants may be sentient despite their lack of a nervous system and a brain.

The book opened with a report on “Cleve” Backster, a former interrogation specialist for the CIA and his experiments with plants using a polygraph or lie detector in the 1960s (Grover Cleveland “Cleve” Backster, Jr (1924 – 2013)). These were widely reported in the media but were rejected by the scientific community. His book Primary Perception — Biocommunication with Plants, Foods, and Human Cells (2003) described his work with plants, including attaching a polygraph to an indoor plant (Dracaena massangeana) in his office. Backster reported that the plant registered a reaction on the polygraph when he had thoughts of injuring it and when a live shrimp was put into boiling water in the next room. Controlled experiments that attempted to replicate Backster’s findings failed, and the “Primary Perception” theory was not accepted since it did not follow a scientific method (eg. at the 141st annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2011, the panel of biologists found the claim unsupportable).

Backster’s theory was a subject of an episode of the television show Mythbusters. After all human and environmental stimuli that could alter the results were removed, they tried to reproduce Backster’s experiments with the Dracaena massangeana plant. After obtaining negative results, they performed a final experiment using an EEG instrument (more sensitive than a polygraph) connecting it to a plant to check whether it would react to eggs being catapulted randomly into boiling water. The instrument registered no change in the plant and the myth was considered busted! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster).

However, critics had overlooked a characteristic of plants which was reported in chapter two of The Secret Life of Plants. Marcel Vogel, a researcher at IBM who could be described as empathetic to plants, was asked to give a course to IBM staff members on creativity. He set out to demonstrate a machine with similar capabilities to Bachster’s polygraph and divided the class into three groups; none of the students got results but Vogel did. He concluded that plants could respond to a person’s intentions if there was some sort of a bond between the person and the plant.

A deliberate attempt to see if Backster’s results could be replicated using the equivalent of a galvanic skin response[1] was made by theosophist Steven Guth and David Beale in 2007 and 2011.   David, an electronics inventor developed a ‘materials analyzer’ that sends out and receives modulating patterned waves. It was adapted to present results similar to the GSR machines. Antenna and receiver plates were placed near plants and results were recorded as Steven meditated and sent feelings of love and appreciation to the plants. Garden trees responded slowly. Potted geraniums cuttings tended to give good results. A further experiment was conducted by moving a geranium over a dowsing water line – the plant responded to the line. Steven observed that plants appear to react much like cats, “One needs to get and hold their attention. Responses are not always what one expects.” Steven and David have placed their work, with photographs on the following web site: http://westernau.com/PlantResponse/index.html .

Controversy re-awakened in 2007 as a result of an article by six plant scientists in Trends in Plant Science (2006) that proposed a new field of inquiry “plant neurobiology”. They argued that this name was justified by the sophisticated nature of plant responses to environmental variables which could not be explained using accepted genetic and biochemical definitions. Systems of signalling in plants had been found that are analogous to systems in animals – plants exhibited intelligence. The Society for Plant Neurobiology had held its first meeting in 2005. After criticism from other plant scientists, the society was re-named the Society for Plant Signalling and Behaviour and its journal became Plant Signalling and Behaviour.

Associate professor Monica Gagliano, from the Centre for Evolutionary Biology, University of Western Australia, working at the International Laboratory of Plant Neurobiology near Florence experimented with seedlings of the sensitive plant (Mimosa pudica). She used protocols for testing habituation in animals by repeatedly dropping containers with the seedlings from a height of 15 centimetres every five seconds. At first, the seedlings responded as they do to touch, by “folding up” but after a while they had “learned” that this was unnecessary. 28 days later the plants “remembered” what they had learned. She said “Brains and neurons are a sophisticated solution, but are not a necessary requirement for learning.” Her paper was rejected by 10 scientific journals, not because they doubted the results or the methodology, but they could not agree to use her terminology, to which she replied that it was necessary to use similar terminology so that plant and animal behaviour could be compared (the paper was eventually published in Oecologia).

It is not surprising that the “plant neurobiologists” have turned to information science for definitions and terminology which are broader and concepts that are easier to apply than those of physiology.

So, are we getting closer to finally refuting or accepting the existence of sentience in plants as propounded by eastern sages, and by CW Leadbeater and others who possessed a degree of clairvoyance? Probably not, but much more is now known of what was previously the “secret” life of plants and therefore of the claims to their having some sort of intelligence or “sentience”.

Some things that plants do (plant behaviour)

The following describes some aspects of above-ground plant movements or “behaviour” in vascular or higher plants (land plants that have lignified tissues (xylem) for conducting water and minerals through the plant and a specialised non-lignified tissue (phloem) to conduct products of photosynthesis). Vascular plants include gymnosperms (conifers and cycads) and angiosperms (flowering plants). Mosses, yeasts (and other single-celled organisms) are not considered here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular_plant.)

Firstly, let’s consider the oft repeated anonymous observation, “We live in a definition based reality, held in place by peer review.” In the case of plant studies much of the discussion and controversy centres on the terminology and definitions. Thus “behaviour” can be taken to be reactions to stimuli. In animals, reactions are usually characterised by movement that is readily observed while most reactions to stimuli in plants are much, much slower. If we remember that plants are unable to move we begin see that this greatly influences and helps to explain their slower responses, and their different ways of signalling, etc. Arising from this we can also argue that plants have advantages over animals in many respects (eg, a plant can lose 90% of its structure and still survive, while having a brain as in higher animals would be a disadvantage as foragers could easily destroy the plants ability to defend itself). Perhaps we humans should be more humble and abandon our feeling of superiority brought about by our (apparent) ability to out-think species in the animal and plant kingdoms. Meanwhile remembering that living entities take steps to pass on their genetic material and consume materials to provide the necessary energy. (In so doing, animals generally consume materials to provide energy and plants generally generate their own energy sources.)

In plants, vegetative growth is the period of growth between germination and flowering and the following table indicates the different forms of growth that are recognised in vascular plants. source: http://plantsinmotion.bio.indiana.edu/.

Seeds absorb moisture sufficient to generate energy for growth to begin (germination).

Plants move in response to environmental stimuli where movement is related to the direction of the stimulus (tropisms eg, geotropism in roots, movements caused by wind).

Plant movements in response to light which are not tropic: photomorphogenesis eg the diurnal movement of sunflowers.

Movements by plants in response to environmental stimuli where movement is not related to the direction of the stimulus (nastic movements eg, the Venus fly trap, and Mimosa pudica [sensitive plant]).

Time dependent movements eg, closing of flowers, or leaves at night (Circadian responses).

Processes that occur during vegetative growth, ie, between germination and flowering are referred to as general growth.

Growth associated with reproduction, including pollination and pollination aids, flowering, fertilisation, fruiting and seed disposal. Eg, Rafflesia is a genus of parasitic plants[2] that attracts insects at night by emitting (to us) an unattractive stink.

In the case of the insectivorous plant, the Venus Fly Trap (Dionaea spp) an insect crawling on the plant’s leaf will bend a single hair but nothing happens … until a second hair is bent by the insect, whereupon the leaf closes quickly and catches it. Is this a form of intelligence, since the plant knows the difference between a single bend and a second bend? (A single bend could be caused in many ways but potential prey will cause two bends.) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_flytrap).

In the parasitic plant, dodder (Cuscuta spp) seeds sprout at or near the surface of the soil. Although germination can occur without a host, it has to reach a green plant quickly and is adapted to grow towards the nearby plants by following chemosensory clues. If a host plant is not reached within 5 to 10 days, the seedling will die. Before a host plant is reached, the dodder relies on its food reserves. It has been demonstrated that dodder plants “hunt” their preferred victims (eg, tomato plants) by responding selectively to different volatile airborne compounds emitted by their potential hosts. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuscuta.)

Another fascinating case is that of the parasitic pitcher plant, Nepenthes hemsleyana. The large pitcher that this plant possesses has been shown to attract bats by reflecting sounds that enable bats to more easily locate the pitcher plant amongst other plants through echolocation. When the bats roost above the pitcher plant in considerable numbers, their droppings provide nutrients for the plant. (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/07/10/4271372.htm)

So far in this section, we have considered above-ground movements which are far easier to observe than below-ground movements. Moreover, plant scientists have begun to move from studying single plants or even parts of a plant to groups of plants and thence to plants in the landscape, no doubt benefiting from advances in technology. (In contrast to clairvoyants who tend to move from landscapes to groups of plants to individual plants or trees.)

The below-ground behaviour of plants can be even more intriguing than their above-ground behaviour. Recent work has shown that roots somehow avoid overcrowding with their own species, take action to avoid other species that may be competitors and to seek out organisms that may be helpful, such as symbiotic fungi or bacteria.

The growing tip of a root (or radicle) is generally regarded as comprising a protective but sensitive growing tip, followed by a region of rapidly dividing cells (meristem), then a transition zone and an elongation zone. Plant neurobiologists have now proposed that the transition zone is in fact a “nerve centre” that controls or directs growth and that this is a form of intelligence (Ananthaswamy, 2014). In addition to tropic movements (in response to gravity, lack of light, moisture, and penetrability) plant roots can respond to chemicals (nitrogen, salt, phosphorus, toxins, microbes and chemical signals from neighbouring plants. (Pollan, 2013.)

Are plants sentient, showing intelligence?

The question of whether plants are sentient entities with intelligence (perhaps how plants decide what, and how, to do things) has long been controversial, and events in the past 40 years have been no exception. Before closing, let us consider a few definitions of “sentience” which in general usage is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

The on-line psychology dictionary defines sentience as: 1. The most primitive and simple form of cognition. 2. The state of being sentient. And “Sentience consists of being aware of stimuli without interpreting them. (http://psychologydictionary.org/sentience.)

In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things, and calls for care and respect. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience.)

It seems certain that those who want to believe that science is getting closer to demonstrating sentience in plants because scientists are becoming more able to demonstrate forms of plant intelligence, will readily accept that science is indeed closing in on proving that plants are intelligent, sentient beings. While the naysayers will remain unconvinced.

References

Anil Ananthaswamy New Scientist 6 December 2014.

Gagliano, M., Renton, M.S., Depczynski, M.R., Mancuso, S. 2014, ‘Experience teaches plants to learn faster and forget slower in environments where it matters’, Oecologia, 175, 1, pp. 63-72.

Michael Pollan The New Yorker 23 December 2013.

 

The quoted web sites were accessed in early July 2015.

 

[1] A measure of changes in emotional arousal recorded by attaching electrodes to any part of the skin and recording changes in moment-to-moment perspiration and related autonomic nervous system activity

. http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=77695

[2]   Including Rafflesia arnoldii, said to be the largest flower in the world.

This article was written for the Theosophical Society newsletter in March 2016

This article is about some of the remarkable things that plants do and how they communicate – in a word, their sentience.

It is important to keep some essential features of plants in mind: they are immobile, slower to react to sudden changes than animals and have roots, stems and leaves. They can be much longer-lived than we mortals. They do not have the organs (brains, hearts and blood vessels, etc) that characterise higher animals. In fact, it would be nonsensical for plants to have these as all an attacker would have to do to kill the plant is to destroy one of the vital organs; as it is a plant can lose up to 90% of its “body” and still survive.

Like all living creatures, plants strive to propagate their species, but while animals and humans consume food to do this, plants make food. Indeed, making food is one of plants’ major activities in which carbohydrates (organic sugars) are made by photosynthesis, which is the role of chloroplasts that are usually found in leaves. It is the chloroplasts that are green, rather than the leaves themselves. Plants seek to do this efficiently by capturing as much light as possible, eg, growing towards sunlight and having “closed canopies”.

The process of photosynthesis itself is intriguing – the temperature inside leaves is carefully controlled and is always close to the optimum for the photosynthesis process (1.4^o+2.2^oC). It has been shown in a range of plant species that this temperature did not vary over a variety of climates and over 50^o of latitude. Also a moment’s thought tells us that we all depend on plants at some stage in our diets and that our very existence depends on the chloroplasts and the process of photosynthesis. In fact, we are heavily dependent on plants while plants would get on very nicely if humans vanished overnight!

Communication within the plant is required to ensure that there is a “goldilocks environment” (one that is “just right”) that is controlled by the opening or closing of the stomata (pores) which are mostly on the underside of the leaves.

The question of plant behaviour and intelligence has been receiving more attention in scientific circles of late, after being relatively stagnant since the publication of Power of Movement in Plants by Charles Darwin in 1880. Reasons for this stagnation included the view that plants were some form of still life, a concept that seems to have been widely accepted from Aristotelian times. Whereas plants have now been shown to be active in many more ways than simply moving in response to stimuli such as light and gravity. For these activities plants use processes like ours to see, touch, smell, hear and even taste. (See Chamovitz[i] for a useful short account). This is particularly evident when plants are studied in their natural environments, not the laboratory as used always to be the case. Fairly recent advances in botanical science confirm the view that plants are indeed sentient although this is not accepted by mainstream science.

Turning now to communication in plants, here are three recent examples that demonstrate ways in which we can communicate with plants and plants with us.

1. “The Great Banyan Tree at Adyar is a very distinct and majestic tree and is so close to the historic Blavatsky Bungalow that some of its extensive branches were touching the building. While meditating with a small group at the foot of the tree, the Tree Angel gave us the solution. She put her robe over the entire tree, but didn’t cover those branches that were threatening the bungalow. In this way, the Angel showed that it was permitted to trim some of the branches.”[1]

2. Joy Mills (1920 – 2015) was a former international vice president and president of the US and Australian Sections of the Theosophical Society; her experience was re-told by Cynthia Overweg[2] as follows.

“One day she hiked into the Ozarks (USA) woods that are known for their white oaks and dogwood trees along with loblolly pines, which can reach over a hundred feet in height. After a while, she found herself in front of a towering tree. ‘I became aware of the power and life in that tree. Then I became one with the tree and could have slid right into it.’ In that instant, she knew that the life in the tree and the life within her were the same. ‘At some level, it changed me’.”

3. In her latest book Atala Dorothy Toy reports her widespread experiences with nature spirits and tree energies and the occurrence of orbs and other energy bodies on photographs taken by digital cameras which were not visible to the photographer[3].

No doubt there are many other examples in the social media, but mainstream science still does not accept the premise that plants have senses (are sentient) and communicate and display intelligence.

Are we waiting for an eminent and well regarded scientist to put his or her reputation on the line by speaking out in the same way that Ervin Laszlo considered paranormal experiences reported by various people (near death experiences, after death communications, messages transmitted by mediums instrumental transcommunications, past life recollections and reincarnation) and postulated that human consciousness persists beyond the body?[4] After all, plants have been evolving for much much longer than humans and it would seem logical that they behave in an intelligent way.

Tony Fearnside

[i] Chamovitz, Daniel (Tel Aviv University) Plants Exhibit the Same Senses as Humans and See, Touch, Smell, Hear and Even Taste, at
http://themindunleashed.org/2013/11/plants-exhibit-same-senses-as-humans.html

[1] http://adyar-renovation.org

[2] Cynthia Overweg JoyMills: an Evolutionary Journey Quest Magazine, Spring 2012

[3] Atala Dorothy Toy Nature Spirits, Spirit Guides and Ghosts – how to talk to and photograph beings of other realms Quest Books 2012,
and You tube sessions eg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DuOYjZxq0I

[4] Laszlo, Ervin and Peake, Anthony The Immortal Mind – Science and the Continuity of Consciousness Beyond the Brain Inner Traditions, 2014.

Also see:

Mancuso, Stefano and Viola, Alessandra Brilliant Green – the surprising history and science of plant intelligence. (English edition) Island Press 2015 (175 pp), and You tube sessions with Professor Stefano Mancuso, eg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIfwFLDXFyQ

Information about the plantoid robot project, eg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqKRNKCmzhE

Acacia caerulescens, otherwise known as Buchan Blue or Limestone Blue Wattle is endemic to a small area in East Gippsland, Victoria.  It has been listed as a vulnerable species with fewer than 2,000 mature specimens in the wild, and is the subject of a National Recovery Plan.  It is associated with heavy soils on limestone country in its natural environment.  It was described as a separate species in 1989.

When we moved to our present house (in Stirling, ACT) in 2010, most of the front garden was quite barren, with its soil covered in wood chips and dominated by a vigorous blue gum (19 metres tall) with three or four smaller, non-descript trees to keep it company.

I planted a few native plants in 2011, among them were two Buchan Blue seedlings.  At the time I did not know much about growing this very intriguing species.  Anyway, the two seedlings grew very quickly, faster than almost any other tree seedling that I had ever grown.  2012 was wetter than average in autumn and spring, and when we went to Adelaide for a few days, they both looked healthy and vigorous.

On our return, the first surprise awaited:  one of the seedlings was dead, as dead as a doornail.  I pulled it and it came out of the ground easily.  The roots were losing their “bark” (epidermis) and there were no finer roots.  It seemed to have succumbed to a root rotting fungus.  On reflection, this was not surprising since the soils over limestone on which it typically grows would be relatively free draining, so that susceptibility to root pathogens might be suspected, as is the case with Wollemi Pine which comes from sandstone country, also free-draining.  In contrast, this part of the ACT is quite flat with undulating topography, probably quite a suitable habitat for root rotting fungi.

The remaining plant continued to grow rapidly until 2014 when it was about 1.5 metres tall and then one windy night, following a rainy day, disaster struck again – the tree was blown over.  Its roots seemed to be concentrated near the surface, taking the easy path along the decomposing layer under the woodchips.  Nothing daunted, I got a friend to prop it up and to cut off the upper third of the stem, thereby lowering its centre of gravity.  Since then the sapling has grown into a vigorous, handsome young tree with attractive blue green phyllodes, apparently without problems, apart perhaps from loneliness.  It has pale yellow flowers which appear in spring.  So far at least, the flowering has not been prolific nor long-lived.  Also, there has been only a little evidence of a leaf destroying organism as reported from the National Arboretum, Canberra (Forest 13/99).

Our tree is now about 7.5 metres tall (April 2016).  What can we conclude from our experiences?  Firstly, when growing rare and endangered plants, remember that there are reasons for their rarity which will probably make them hard to grow.  Secondly, Buchan Blue is a beautiful, fast growing tree that may well have a place in landscaping – if you can overcome unexpected difficulties.

Tony Fearnside