Do we underestimate trees' intelligence sometimes? Overwintering and breaking-buds season

[Woocash]

I would wonder whether it is actually known how they do that. Needs to be something about sugar production that triggers rotation through osmosis or something!

I highly doubt it is a premeditated contious action, and suspect it is purely fysiological

No, perhaps I was not clear. I was talking about cause and effect. I don’t believe plants are at all capable of premeditation. I was just replying to Soretooth’s attempt at fancy words to hide misunderstanding.

 

[luvinthemountains]

Not a scientific comment, but for philosophical discussion's sake...

Can we define "consciousness" as an organism's relative ability to perceive itself and the world around it? In other words, the ability to gather, comprehend and store data about the organism's own physical status and that of the surrounding environment? And can we define "intelligence" as an organism's relative ability to take the stored data (short- or long-term), including that programmed in its genetic material, derive conclusions from that data, and formulate an appropriate response?

If so, then the evidence leads me to believe that trees possess highly evolved levels of consciousness and intelligence. Observation reveals temperate species of trees are able to gather and interpret meteorological data with surprisingly high complexity and accuracy. Under natural conditions, while yes they sometimes get it wrong, trees break dormancy annually with great precision. There is often noise in the data - variations in available moisture and light, instability in ambient air and soil temperatures, etc. - but somehow they parse that all out most of the time. So there is some long-term data storage and processing going on, which is a bit surprising considering the simplicity that we usually ascribe to trees. And we can conclude that a central nervous system is not the only mechanism that evolution has worked out to handle those tasks. Is there an understanding of how that happens in plants? I am sure there is, and I am just as sure that the understanding is quite incomplete.

Back to the original point, I think it was that take trees out of the ground where they belong, put them in pots and transport them hundreds or thousands of miles from their natural habitats, you would think a lot of human intervention would be necessary to help them through breaking dormancy. And yet that is not always the case. This adaptability is something that trees share with humans, and mammals in general for that matter. Many other complex lifeforms, plant and animal, wither and die with relocation without tightly controlled mimicry of their natural environment. But somehow humans made it into the arctic, tigers survive in North American zoos and nature parks, and trees proliferate all over the world. I think that is pretty cool.

 

[Deleted member 32750]

What I have found interesting the past few weeks is that my trees which I purchased 2 hours south of me near Charlotte, NC all started bud break around the end of February/Very beginning of March, Whereas my trees that I purchased from Julian Adams, who is about 2 hours north of me in a slightly colder climate, are just now at the very beginning stages of bud break. Same species of trees just from different places. It's like the trees have a memory of when they should become active based on previous environmental conditions.

I'll be interest to see if these trees behave similarly next spring after having spent a full year in my microclimate.

 

[Deleted member 32750]

Yes, trees are remarkably intelligent.

They have a 'built in' diurnal clock, even when kept under 24 hour light. I did an experiment in school where I kept oaks under 24 hour artificial light, and they continued to show a daily pattern in their photosynthesis, transpiration, and isoprene emissions. Do they 'remember' that the sun is supposed to rise and set every day? Maybe so...

On winter dormancy, for the hardcore nerds in the chat:

'A Conceptual Framework for Winter Dormancy in Deciduous Trees'
View attachment 361654

Figure 3. Conceptual framework of winter dormancy in deciduous trees. The dormancy framework (gray background) indicates three main phases: (a) dormancy
establishment (light gray), (b) endo-dormancy (dark gray), and (c) eco-dormancy (medium gray). For each phase (a–c), the dormancy-related physiological processes
are represented by colored shapes and numbers (0 to 4). These processes are (0) the regulatory module CONSTANS (CO) /FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) (green
square), (1) the transport at both whole-plant (phloem and xylem) and meristematic/cellular (plasmodesmata—PD) level (red squares), (2) phytohormone dynamics
(cytokinins—CK, auxins—IAA, gibberellins—GAs, and abscisic acid—ABA) (orange squares), (3) genetic and epigenetic regulation of the DORMANCY-ASSOCIATED
MADS-box (DAM) genes and the SHORT VEGETATIVE PHASE (SVP) genes (purple squares), and (4) carbohydrate dynamics (gray squares). Within each colored
square, the light squares indicate the concrete substance or process (plain text) and where it occurs (italics). % indicates rising levels, & decreasing levels, and Ø
indicates absence. The shaded sun refers to declining photoperiod whereas the black thermometer stands for declining temperatures. The blue and red thermometers
indicate that cold or warm temperatures, respectively, are directly associated with a given process. Black arrows establish a causal relationship between processes.

Link to paper: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1QNuooJR1uxij05EaE2-KF&cshid=1616022093218

As someone who studied Biochemistry in school, I freaking love this

 

[Oleg]

Can we define "consciousness" as an organism's relative ability to perceive itself and the world around it? In other words, the ability to gather, comprehend and store data about the organism's own physical status and that of the surrounding environment? And can we define "intelligence" as an organism's relative ability to take the stored data (short- or long-term), including that programmed in its genetic material, derive conclusions from that data, and formulate an appropriate response?

I like this, it avoids a comparison to ourselves. I was amazed to find how simple and obvious it was that a plant can regulate it's top to bottom growth through the production of two hormones. This leads me to ask (off topic I'm afraid) is there any evidence to suggest that any of the "training" done to a single tree results in an improved response over time by the tree?

 

[Mikecheck123]

It amazes me how some climbing plants will actively grow towards a support.

I have seen wisteria do this. My theory: they sense the shadow that passes over them each day.

 

[luvinthemountains]

'A Conceptual Framework for Winter Dormancy in Deciduous Trees'

Funny, I was researching some background on this graphic and came up with the actual article: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/10/2/241/htm. I highly recommend it for anybody wanting to understand the graphic. Good stuff!

 

[Forsoothe!]

...They can certainly touch and teach some of us.
Sadly, some are beyond redemption.
They get grabby

 

[Adair M]

...They can certainly touch and teach some of us.
Sadly, some are beyond redemption.
They get grabby

Now THERE’S the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[Forsoothe!]

derive conclusions from that data, and formulate an appropriate response?

If so, then the evidence leads me to believe that trees possess highly evolved levels of consciousness and intelligence. Observation reveals temperate species of trees are able to gather and interpret meteorological data with surprisingly high complexity and accuracy.

Hogwash. Trees do what they are genetically programed to do. Period.

 

[penumbra]

Hogwash. Trees do what they are genetically programed to do. Period.

I am sure that someone somewhere feels the same about you.

 

[Enfield Snapper]

Also from The Hidden Life of Trees, with some extraneous detail removed:

In winter, there’s more than enough rain, and the tree is not consuming water, because almost all plants take a break from growing at that time of year. Together with below ground accumulation of spring showers, the stockpiled water usually lasts until the onset of summer. But in many years, water then gets scarce. After a couple of weeks of high temperatures and no rain, forests usually begin to suffer. The most severely affected trees are those that grow in soils where moisture is usually particularly abundant. These trees don’t know the meaning of restraint and are lavish in their water use, and it is usually the largest and most vigorous trees that pay the price for this behavior.
In the forest I manage, the stricken trees are usually spruce, which burst not at every seam but certainly along their trunks. If the ground has dried out and the needles high up in the crown are still demanding water, at some point, the tension in the drying wood simply becomes too much for the tree to bear. It crackles and pops, and a tear about 3 feet long opens in its bark. This tear penetrates deep into the tissue and severely injures the tree. . . . In the years to come, the spruce will try to repair the wound, but the tear keeps reopening.
. . . It has to react, and it does this not only by attempting to seal the wound. From then on, it will also do a better job of rationing water instead of pumping whatever is available out of the ground as soon as spring hits without giving a second thought to waste. The tree takes the lesson to heart, and from then on it will stick with this new, thrifty behavior, even when the ground has plenty of moisture—after all, you never know!

In the same chapter he also relates the results of the study mentioned here about Mimosa Pudica.

 

[Forsoothe!]

....." Mimosa plants were able to acquire the learnt behaviour in a matter of seconds and as in animals, learning was faster in less favourable environment (i.e. low light). Most remarkably, these plants were able to remember what had been learned for several weeks, even after environmental conditions had changed. "....

Bizarro science replacing astrology for the credulous. The Dark Ages, redux...

 

[BonsaiMatt]

....." Mimosa plants were able to acquire the learnt behaviour in a matter of seconds and as in animals, learning was faster in less favourable environment (i.e. low light). Most remarkably, these plants were able to remember what had been learned for several weeks, even after environmental conditions had changed. "....

Bizarro science replacing astrology for the credulous. The Dark Ages, redux...

I don't blame you for being incredulous, it is truly amazing that plants can communicate with each other and 'learn' from past experiences. But your ignorance does not mean it isn't real science.

Plants can communicate with each other by emitting certain gasses into the air, and other plants can receive (and react to) those messages. These messages can 'prime' surrounding plants to prepare for the attacking herbivore. Below is a summary of a Li et al. study investigating these mechanisms in aspen trees, I bolded a couple key points.

Summary
1. Many plant species have two inducible indirect defences against herbivores, emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and secretion of extrafloral nectar (EFN). Moreover, herbivore‐induced VOCs can serve as airborne signals in plant–plant communication, inducing and/or priming defences in undamaged neighbouring plants. However, it remains largely unknown, particularly in woody plants, whether herbivore‐induced VOCs induce and/or prime these two indirect defences simultaneously.

2. We investigated the VOC‐mediated induction and priming of VOC emission and EFN secretion in the woody plant hybrid aspen (Populus tremula × Populus tremuloides) in the context of plant–plant communication. Hybrid aspen saplings were exposed to VOCs released either from herbivore‐infested or uninfested conspecifics and subsequently challenged by herbivores. VOCs and EFN from exposed plants were collected throughout experiments. Additionally, local and systemic EFN induction was investigated.

3. Exposure to VOCs from infested plants directly induced secretion of EFN sugars but not emission of volatile terpenes. Upon subsequent herbivore attack, however, plants previously exposed to herbivore‐induced VOCs released significantly more terpenes than unexposed plants, whereas EFN secretion was not increased, indicating that herbivore‐induced VOCs prime VOC emission but not EFN secretion. This switching in the indirect defence priority from induced EFN secretion to primed VOC emission may reflect the potential fitness disadvantages of VOC emission and EFN secretion on their own. In addition, feeding by Epirrita autumnata larvae reduced EFN sugar production both locally and systemically, which disagrees with previous findings and suggests that EFN secretion varies depending on plant and herbivore species.

4. Thereby, our work has parallels and divergences from the most significant previous studies. Nevertheless, it suggests that plants can respond differently to early warning signals and ensuing herbivory and in doing so fine‐tune their different indirect defences timely to achieve optimal use of resources.

Link to paper: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2012.01984.x

T. Li, J.K. Holopainen, H. Kokko, A.I. Tervahauta, J.D. Blande
Herbivore-induced aspen volatiles temporally regulate two different indirect defences in neighbouring plants
Funct. Ecol., 26 (2012), pp. 1176-1185, 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2012.01984.x

 

[Rivian]

That plants can react to environments doesnt make them any more conscious or intelligent than a computer program that reacts to certain inputs.
You are quoting (some) real science and then draw conclusions that dont follow. The complexity of their response is no argument. It can be explained by natural selection just as easily as simple responses.

 

[luvinthemountains]

That plants can react to environments doesnt make them any more conscious or intelligent than a computer program that reacts to certain inputs.

Sorry, not laughing at you, @Rivian. It is just that your argument made me think of determinism and its deceptive simplicity. I say deceptive because it is actually an incredibly complicated thing to accurately predict human behavior. And yet we have all sorts of behavioral sciences that do it fairly well on a large scale. On the individual level, if one could build a deterministic model of human behavior and had enough computing power, they could tell you more or less how your life will go before it happens. Or at least that is the idea. But we love Kantian free will in part because it makes us feel special as a species.

I do not want to go too far down the rabbit hole here, but isn't that why we keep and study small trees anyhow? To imagine ourselves as masters of nature?

 

[BonsaiMatt]

That plants can react to environments doesnt make them any more conscious or intelligent than a computer program that reacts to certain inputs.
You are quoting (some) real science and then draw conclusions that dont follow. The complexity of their response is no argument. It can be explained by natural selection just as easily as simple responses.

I never mentioned consciousness. I'm just trying to open stubborn minds about intelligent systems. How are their systems any different than ours? We are programmed by our genetics, and react to stimuli, same as a forest, similar to a neutral network in machine learning.

 

[Forsoothe!]

Yes, plants have defenses that they deploy. I maintain that they do it because their genetic line that did it survived better than lines that did not do it, or didn't do it as effectively. What's missing from all these assumptions about why plants have defenses is the fact that evolution is on-going and over the course of thousands of years, millions of a genetic variations occur, some bad which pass out of the gene pool, and some good which change the gene pool for the better. It's survival of the species happenstance. Plants do not have the ability to choose to do something. They do not choose to grow leaves, it happens in a cycle that dovetails with climate. All biological units accumulate chemicals from the feed stocks they use, that's why carrots don't taste like radishes which don't taste like chicken. Crops must be rotated because intensely grow crops deplete some elements and/or leave concentrated elements in the soil. Blueberries won't grow in chalky soil, but Cabbage and Beets will. The people who live on chalky soils eat Beets and Cabbage and that's a response that reflects intelligent choice. The beets don't choose it, they are merely adapted to it. The seeds they cast will grow there and not in the acidic soils elsewhere where the birds take them. The chemicals which they accumulate make Radishes repel some kinds of pests but are attractive to others, like humans. Can we assume that Radishes want to eaten by people rather than bugs? Or is it happenstance? There are always going to be people looking for a "reason" why something is one way or not another. Researchers seeking a given outcome often find it. Even when it's not there.

 

[luvinthemountains]

@Forsoothe! , over your many posts on this thread, I am having trouble discerning what the point of view is you're defending. I think the hypothesis you keep questioning is, "Trees have the ability to recognize and adapt to unexpected environmental conditions outside the normal range expected in their natural habitat, including erratic weather conditions." Agree or disagree, and why?

 

[BonsaiMatt]

Yes, plants have defenses that they deploy. I maintain that they do it because their genetic line that did it survived better than lines that did not do it, or didn't do it as effectively. What's missing from all these assumptions about why plants have defenses is the fact that evolution is on-going and over the course of thousands of years, millions of a genetic variations occur, some bad which pass out of the gene pool, and some good which change the gene pool for the better. It's survival of the species happenstance. Plants do not have the ability to choose to do something. They do not choose to grow leaves, it happens in a cycle that dovetails with climate. All biological units accumulate chemicals from the feed stocks they use, that's why carrots don't taste like radishes which don't taste like chicken. Crops must be rotated because intensely grow crops deplete some elements and/or leave concentrated elements in the soil. Blueberries won't grow in chalky soil, but Cabbage and Beets will. The people who live on chalky soils eat Beets and Cabbage and that's a response that reflects intelligent choice. The beets don't choose it, they are merely adapted to it. The seeds they cast will grow there and not in the acidic soils elsewhere where the birds take them. The chemicals which they accumulate make Radishes repel some kinds of pests but are attractive to others, like humans. Can we assume that Radishes want to eaten by people rather than bugs? Or is it happenstance? There are always going to be people looking for a "reason" why something is one way or not another. Researchers seeking a given outcome often find it. Even when it's not there.

So, the ability to choose is how you define intelligence?