How should the term “intelligence” be defined in scientific research? Would an accurate definition include a capacity for learning, reasoning or problem-solving? What of a definition for the term “behavior’? Would such a definition simply be observable activity in response to stimuli? There’s an interesting article in the current Science News Magazine that explains how botanists on the cutting edge of research are now struggling with these questions. The current distinction between the study of animals and plants results in two differing means of research, each with its own unique methods and perspectives. Could borrowing some of the language and techniques of animal researchers be appropriate in research done by plant scientists, and benefit future understanding in plant research? After all, much of plants’ activity (behavior?), carried out via chemical secretions, would sound very familiar to an animal behaviorist. And the key neurotransmitters occuring in animals are also present in plants.
Of course, plants can be said to hunt, in a sense, simply by sending roots out, as they strategically focus on root growth in more rich soil, to the detriment of other root growth in poorer soil. If a plant is in a medium that does not contain sufficient levels of phosphorus, they do chemically cause the pH of the surrounding medium to drop in order to increase their phosphorus intake. Neighboring plants will also struggle over limited resources.
If a plant is attacked, it releases a highly-specialized mixture of chemicals. With some plants, this mixture even differs depending upon the nature of the attacker. These chemicals serve to specifically attract those insects that eat other insects, and they respond by approaching and eating the insect that is attacking the plant. These chemicals are quite detailed, as it has been found that any of these insect-eating insects will only respond to those chemical messages sent out regarding the insect prey that they prefer to eat, while they will ignore other chemical messages. It has also been shown that neighboring leaves and plants that have sensed these airborne chemical messages respond more quickly to an attack on them than they would have otherwise. Could this not be defined as communication?
Also, plants that have been through this scenario once have been shown to respond more quickly to a subsequent attack. Would this reaction constitute evidence of some rudimentary form of memory?
There is even evidence that plants have some ability to be aware of self. Plant leaves will react differently to airborne chemical signals from other leaves on the same plant than they will to airborne chemical signals from different plants.
Perhaps the rigid boundary between plant and animal study is ultimately unnecessary, only serving to hinder a better understanding of each, and only a (to use a rather tired but accurate term) more holistic mindset is what would best gain a more complete understanding of them both. It is somehow reminiscent of the struggle to discover a unified field theory in physics. Perhaps scientists can begin to find more of their answers with a simple change in perspective?
