“Plants are complex living beings,
extremely sensitive to environmental factors.”
it is becoming clear that cell–cell communication in plants
is similar to the situation in animal
“These breakthrough discoveries will
force a reassessment of almost all metabolic, physiological, and sensory processes from the perspective of endocytosis, endosomal compartments, and endocytic vesicle recycling,“
Frantisˇek Balusˇka, Marta Olivetti and Stefano Mancuso have presented at the university of Bonn.
These extraordinary scientific results should be honoured with the
As the scientists conclude that everything one assumed so far should to be reassessed.
In publications such as Plant Signaling & Behavior
„Emerging research document that plants sense, memorize,
and process experiences and use this information for their adaptive behavior and evolution.
As any other living and evolving systems, plants act as knowledge accumulating systems.”
“In addition, plants sense magnetic fields.”
Baluska quotes Galland and Pazur.
“Recent studies revealed that cryptochromes are behind this magnetic sensing by plants (…), similar to those discovered in birds recently.”
Ahmad, Solov’yov, Johnsen and other found out.
Especially important will be that every action taking place in plants is based on electric-electronic regulation. In case this electric-electronically steering should be effected, in case plants are harmed or tortured, the electric-electronic systems within the plants are distrubed as well and act accordingly against the attack.
In addition, the scientists observed:
“Moreover, we report the sound-induced genes rbcS and Ald, the most recent additions to the plant sensory repertoire, here. Expression of these genes is specifically induced by frequencies of 125 and 250 Hz (Jeong et al. 2007) .
Similar to the case of magnetoperception (see below), these two genes are also sensitive to light, indicating that the association of light with the sensing of other physical parameters by plants may be generally importance.
Even high-frequency low-amplitude electromagnetic fields induced by wireless devices induce rapid changes in plant cells (Vian et al. 2007) .
On top of this, plants are much more sensitive to low-amplitude electromagnetic fields than animals (Beaubois et al. 2007 ; Roux et al. 2008) .”
THESE RESULTS SHOULD BE HONOURED BY THE NOBEL PRIZE.
Plants as living beings with the ability and the will to learn and to memorize.
Plants react to electromagnetic waves,
the scientists are writing. Charles Darwin already knew this:
“Darwin witnessed early studies on electrical signaling in plants, including plant action potentials.
Nevertheless, this important and well-developed field of plant sciences was almost wiped out following the pub-lication of the controversial book The Secret Life of Plants in the 1970s. The resulting “esoteric stigma” hindered the further development of this branch of plant sciences.”
The scientists try to reverse this by their work.
They stress the long tradition of research into plants and base their work on it.
Charles Darwin wrote three books about plants in 1875.
This work is even more important than the theory of evolution, which made him famous.
Darwins results about plants as living creatures has been forgotten unjustly.
Reading the original writings of Charles Darwin seems to be wise.
The authors remind at further milestones of plant science:
Theophil Ciesielski (1871) and Julius Sachs (1873).
Sensory plant biology as well asr Electrophysiology of plants were fancy in the years 1959 (Bu¨nning) and again in 1979 (Haupt and Feinleib and 1980 Heslop-Harrison).
Though not having resulted in positive effects for plants. Science stopped. Or the reporting about their results.
Finding out the reasons for this, could lead to a fact-based political thriller about economical crime.
As electricity is the main driving factor for industry as well.
Competing against a potential higher importance for all living beings on earth in general.
“Electrical signals are induced by all known physical factors in plants, suggesting that electricity mediates physical–biological communication in plants too
(Baluška et al. 2006a , b; Wayne 1994 ; Volkov 2006 ; Fromm and Lautner 2007 ; Felle and Zimmermann 2007) .
Root gravitropism is a particularly instructive example in this respect. Sensory perception of gravity.”
With all organic life on earth depending on electricity and electromagnetic fields, how will life be harmed by humans using technology without knowing about, understanding nor caring for its importance for other creatures on the planet?
Mankind neither understanding nor respecting the main principles and mechanisms of life.
While using electronics and electricity more and more.
Which harm is done – non-reversible by this manner to use electronics and electricity? With plants producing food and oxygen by filtering radioaktive waves, transforming them into chlorophyll, but only under the premisses that their system of electromagnetic fields is not harmed, that plants electricity net functions.
Cutting of plants of electricity
By overlay their frequency
With manmade frequencies
Could mean that we are cutting of the last tree we are sitting upon.
Survival of mankind could depend on us understanding the interdependancy.
Electric signals form and control the metabolism of plants –
Breathing and photosynthesis of plants depend on electric signals, the authors are writing and quote Shepherd 2005 ; Stahlberg 2006 ; Volkov 2006 ; Wayne 1994, Davies 2004 ; Fromm and Lautner 2007 ; Felle as well as Zimmermann 2007)) .
Plants´ growth depends on electricity.
Light, gravity, temperature, mechanics, osmose are further factors influencing plants. Physical factors lead to biological reactions, or even intentionally planned actions.
One task for scientists and interested humans is to find out the meaning of biological reactions. Directly. Without interpretations. Looked for: humans, willing and capable to talk, to communicate receprocely with plants. Urgently looked for: Eliza.
Plants as living beings such as animals, only with different shapes, so to say “aliens” on earth, who are deciding whom they like and whom they dislike, where they want to stay and what should be done – this result of the work at the university of Bonn is revolutionary and should lead to fundamental changes.
„Our point is that humans still are, and will continue to be, fully dependent on plants since they, together with unicellar photosynthetic organisms, are the only primary source of oxygen and organic matter on this planet. Our future is dependent on a full understanding of higher plants in their whole complexity. If we can gain an understanding of how plant communicate using their volatile-based “language” (Dicke et al. 2003 ; Baldwin et al. 2006) , then we should be able to access the huge amount of knowledge these fascinating organisms have gathered during their evolution.”
The authors regret that so far the scientific approach towardsplants did not lead to really understanding them.
Au contraire. Until now most of the scientists only were interested in chasing proteins and genes for marketing purposes.
In order to get a higher output of agrobusiness despite a huge surplus of agriculture being wasted, one put more and more stress on plants.
That´s the very opposite of
Whereas the authors
Frantisˇek Balusˇka, Marta Olivetti and Stefano Mancuso are interested in communicating with the plants, in order to strengthen them and the survival of humans as well as of plants. They are interested in respecting every life form. Thus they would like to publish their insight in the capability of plants to feel, sense, think, plan, memorize, communicate and think.
Plants gain important information and conclude where and how it will be possible to survive. Plants are able to gain orientation even in dark spaces and navigate more precisely than our global positioning system gps.
Plants seek contact. Plants snuggle.
How they are doing this humans still don´t know.
Dispite of this lack of knowledge they are interfering into the plants´space daily.
How do plants manage to manouvre through soil without light from sun and find those three millimeters between to stones on the paveway?
Humans wouldn´t make it.
Plants resemble a super computer combining every single factor which influences life in real time or even in advance, combining them adjustly and coming to correct results.
Plants seem to be the supercomputer one trys to develop, with the difference it is wise and has emotions. Plants are the self-assembling system, humans try to mimick. Plants are effected by electromagnetic waves, but their emp is a different one than the computers of humans; with an electromagnetic impulse shutting off every manmade electronics.
What kybernetcs and artificial intelligence scientists are trying to develop, already exists:
We call them plants.
They are sharing the information and act accordingly.
For being able to fulfill these super-capabilities, they need
The German authors are writing and quote the results of Ueda and Nakamura 2006 as well as studies “over a century ago by Wilhelm Pfeffer and Erwin Bünning (Brenner et al. 2007; Stahlberg 2006.”
Plants who are hindered from sleep, die:
“Sleep may be relevant to plants, as many plant organs perform “sleep move-ments,” a phenomenon that was studied). The chemical basis for these leaf movements has recently been discovered (Shoji et al. 2006 ; Ueda and Nakamura 2007) , allowing us to chemically manipulate these plant movements.
Interestingly, those leaves which are chemically prevented from performing sleep movements eventually die (Shoji et al. 2006) .
In its extreme form, the sleep-like state can progress into long-term dormancy, which allows some perennial plants to live for several thousands of years (Ueda and Nakamura 2007 ; Rohde and Bhalerao 2007 ; Munne-Bosch 2008 ; Flanary and Kletetschka 2005) .”
The fairy tale of „Sleeping beauty“ bears a true core.
At the same time research in this field might lead to further devastation, to „Jurassic Park III“ in real life.
As – according to the authors – plants sleep for thousand years.
Re-animating them says revival of dinosaurs´ food.
Plants waiting for dinosaurs to return. If it takes a thousand years.
How the scientists found out that there are plants out there having slept for thousand years, waiting for return call, the abstract does not reveal.
But maybe in their complete studies.
The scientists hint at the latent potential for misuse.
They are distancing themselves from those focussed on producing insectizides, pestizides and torture – the sentence „allowing us to chemically manipulate these plant movements“ doesn´t differ from the conventional approach to harm plants by chemicals. The same is true for the following quote:
“Thus, plants are also very important objects for biologists studying senescence. As pain, sleep and senescence are still rather elusive and perplexing phenomena in animal biology and medicine.”
Melatonin was discovered on plants more than ten years ago. Until now one does not know how it works. (Kola´r and Macha´ckova´ 2005; Arnao and Hernandez-Ruiz 2006, 2007; Pandi-Perumal et al. 2006).
Lack of knowledge as well as far as the deeper meaning of the huge variety of different NADPH Oxidases in their rootsis concerned.
“Why do plants invest so much energy in transporting auxin via synaptic-like processes? Since all plant cells appear to be capable of auxin biosynthesis, the polar transport of this multipurpose signaling molecule along the whole plant body must have some crucial importance for plants.”
Is one further unsolved question.
One found out that:
„menthol, and camphor induce oxidative stress and inhibit root growth in maize
(Zunino and Zygadlo 2004), indicating that they too act as plant signaling molecules. “
“Moreover, there are examples of ‘war-like’ phenomena whereby invading plants kill other plants via the release of toxic allelochemicals from their root apices (Bais et al. 2006). That root apices of other plants can cause this hostility is a new discovery. However, roots are also well known for their ability to avoid dangerous places by actively growing away from hostile soil patches. Also in ‘war-like’ mode, the root apices of parasitic plants actively recognize the roots of their prey, grow toward them, and then, to gain control over them, send out root-hair-like processes that later develop into parasitic haustoria (Tomilov et al. 2005).
Thus, by using a vast diversity of volatiles, plants are able to attract or repel diverse insects and animals, and thereby are able to shape their biotic niche. The number of volatile compounds released and received by plants for communication is immense, requiring complex signal-release
machinery, as well as an unprecedent ‘neuronal’ decoding apparatus for correct interpretation of received signals. These aspects of plant activity have not yet been studied.”
Plants wage war.
Until now this finding only led to justifying the wars of mankind.
Plants produce toxins and use them.
People producing biological and chemical toxins justify this be hinting at plants. Nature is no different from us, they are saying. Ignoring that people trying to mimick the organic original lack the deeper understanding of the meachnism at the deeper level. Having led to catastrophes. Producing lethal boomerangs. Using organic toxins increases its lethality if used in a different environment than the original context.
“… existence of “plant immunological synapses”
(Baluška et al. 2005 a, b), which would coordinate communication
between plant cells
as well as symbionts. In accordance with our prediction,
plant immunological synapses have recently been identified (Kwon et al. 2008a , b).”
Plants lash back.
This result came late.
Or wasn´t understood.
Plants fighting back
Plants in self-defence, plants communicating and interacting with animals explain that plants and animals become immune against substances produced by men.
Plants try self-defence against insecticides and herbicides.
Plants wage war.
Against toxins and those developing and using them.
Frantisˇek Balusˇka, Marta Olivetti u1nd Stefano Mancuso
„roots can do much more:
they can avoid dangerous soil patches
even before they encounter them,
they are capable of recognizing
kin as well as discriminating self from nonself roots
(Gruntman and Novoplansky 2004) . For example,
roots can recognize
roots from the same plant or species
and can be aggressive towards roots from other species
(Bais et al. 2003 ; Rudrappa et al. 2007 ; Rudrappa and Bais 2008) .
Root apices of invasive plants can, in fact,
kill other roots (even the whole plants)
by exuding toxic allelochemicals
(Rudrappa et al. 2007 ; Rudrappa and Bais 2008) . Alternatively, root apices of parasitic plants can recognize prey root apices
perform active chemotropism to reach
them, and then generate haustoria (root hair-like protrusions), which then invade the prey roots
to steal the nutritive substances
from their vascular tissues (Keyes et al. 2001) .
Recently, dramatic salinity-induced modifications of the root growth direction were been observed (Sun et al. 2007) , which represent a new
tropism of root apices (Li and Zhang 2008) . This salinity-avoidance behavior of growing root apices represents an active adaptive mechanism for plants grown under saline conditions. Importantly, root apices turn away from a dangerous salt-stress-inducing.”
„root apices can recognize dangerous substrate (soil) patches with high aluminum levels in advance, and can then avoid them using a similar active avoidance root tropism (Hawes et al. 2000)”
The authors´ summary does not say how they came to know this.
Ammunition left overs can be the cause of vegetation being destroyed.
At locations of ammunition production of the last world war neither the orignal wild plants nor agriculture sprouts.
Converting this observation can lead to the logical conclusion to develop lving sensors – using plants for the detection of explosives.
Plants as “sniffer dogs”.
Plants sensing explosives, chemicals and toxins and communicating this in a manner that humans understand. The authors´ abstract doesn´t say so, but it is the logical consequence of their finding.
Demonstrating at the same time: this is far from esoterics.
This is purely based on facts and logics.
Frantisˇek Balusˇka, Marta Olivetti and Stefano Mancuso
Distance themselves as well from every esoteric approach. They underline how adversary esoterics has been for plants and every sincere scientist.
By the willing or unwilling help of esoteric writers those acted without being approached by sincere criticism, who produced herbizides and pesticides and biological and chemical weapons. Esoterics made it easy to discredit scientists who respected life.
Plants were not protected.
Frantisˇek Balusˇka´s studies and those from Marta Olivetti and Stefano Mancuso
Could change this. They are valid, based on facts and by this do have an enormous importance.
They can be compared to Albert Einstein.
An Albert Einstein for plants.
Atom for atom
Plants are assembled and produce light and energy.
Plants as a nuclear reactor on an ecological basis.
The Buddhist concept of “tummo”
As a way to produce heat within living beings
Triggered off by mere will.
A means of survival and at the same time a perpetuum mobile as a living cycle.
In order to prove this heating principle based on meditation and visualization, his Holyness the Dalai Lama agreed to let monchs practicing this technique by conventional scientists, e.g. in Boulder Colorado as well as in the Himalaya. Again, in order to show the concept and its effects is far from “esoteric” non-existence, but can be described in other, different, conventional, Western scientific words as well.
Many people should have the chance to get to know that they should regard plants as a fellow living being. Therefor the language used at university has been simplyfied without simplyfying the overall concept.
The summary of the authors´findings is:
Plants are living beings.
They have a sould, accumulate knowledge, act wise, sensible and correct.
Who suspects this should read the scientific original:
Plants are complex. Scientists have to study cell biology, molecular biology and sensory ecology. So far this hasn´t brought any advantage for the plants, let alone protection for/of the plants.
Thus the authors try to play the card of neuro-sciences. This branch is regarded as the “new” thing. Peer leaders and venture capital and business angels could become interested in financing this approach.
Bearing the risk, that only those will invest, who act on catch phrases, buzz words, in order to gain more profit, without any interest or respect for plants. Those longing for producing more hercides, insectizides and genetic technology could misuse the authors´ work for their purposes.
A cover up for more harm. Green wash.
And at the same time disguising torture of human beings.
Plants would still be regarded as a trading commodity and humans being regarded as artichokes on a larger scale than the journalist Egmont R. Koch already has documented in television and his book on “Operation Artichoke” about humans being tortured by drugs out of plant-substances, carried out by secret service and so called intelligence personal in the US and in Germany /Frankfurt am Main).
Frantisˇek Balusˇka, Marta Olivetti and Stefano Mancuso want to be different. They care about plants fundamentally. They want to understand plants in order to co-exist and live together with plants for mutual benefit.
A great number of people should get to know about the enormous potentials plants have.
To learn how to communicate with plants can be compared to learn English. It is accepted as world language.
Imagine bright humans as Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein or Steven Hawking – without the ability to speak – this has been the situation of plants. According to the authors.
That´s the extraordinary finding of Frantisˇek Balusˇka, Marta Olivetti and Stefano Mancuso and should be rewarded with the Nobel prize.
„Often, plants make important decisions,
such as onset or breakage of dormancy and onset of flowering, which implicate some central or decentralized command center. Moreover, roots and shoots act in an integrated manner allowing dynamic balance of above-ground and below-ground organs.
transition zone of root apices acts as some
kind of ‘command center’
(Balusˇka et al. 2004). In accord
with the original proposal of Darwin (1875), this root apex zone
resemble brains of animals,
as its cells are very active in the sensory integration, via synaptic vesicle-recycling
(Balusˇka et al. 2003, 2004, 2005)”
„Yet recent studies indicate that even prokaryotic bacteria exhibit cognitive behavior26,27 and posses linguistic communication and rudimentary intelligence.28-30
Therefore, it should not be too surprising that plants also show features of communication and even plant-specific cogni-tion.19,20,31,32-35
As any other living systems, plants act as ‘knowledge accumulating systems’.”
“communication via volatile and allelochemical chemical messengers, have placed all of these so-called oddities into a new perspective (Bais et al. 2003 ; Dicke et al. 2003 ; Baldwin et al. 2006) . Moreover, advances in plant cell biology have revealed that plant endocytosis, despite negative mechanistic predictions based on high turgor pressure of plant cells, is a cellular process that affects almost all biological processes (Šamaj et al. 2005, 2006)”
The authors´ studies have to have the consequence to regard plants as living beings such as animals. Plants bear the potential to be ecological supercomputers, acting more wise than humans. The scientists´ studies are a mile stone of science and of mankind in general. They are comparable to Albert Einstein´s results.
Einsteins findings were misused for building the atom bomb. Whereas the plants scientists should lead to banning herbicides, insectizides and other forms of harming.
Planning, thinking, sensing, communicating plants shall not be harmed with toxins, or other forms of insults such as interfering with their electromagnetic spectrum. If plants were harmed, humans will be victims as well. Humans remember, plants do remember as well.
Summary by the authors:
Plants are able to store information and use it later to achieve adaptive behavior (Trewavas 2003, 2005a , b, 2007) .
These plant memories allow them to make fairly good predictions about their future circumstances (Trewavas 2005a , b; Tafforeau et al. 2006 ; Bruce et al. 2007 ; Ruuhola et al. 2007 ; Ripoll et al. 2009) .
Similar to animal memories, these plant memories are based on electricity, chemicals and calcium (Verdus et al. 2007 ; Volkov et al. 2008) .
Plants are known to use touch genes to mechanically sense their environment.”
F. Balusˇka (&)
IZMB, University of Bonn, Kirschallee 1, 53115 Bonn, Germany
Who would like to know more in detail, may read:
Ahmad M, Galland P, Ritz T, Wiltschko R, Wiltschko W (2007) Magnetic intensity affects cryp-tochrome-dependent responses in Arabidopsis thaliana. Planta 225:615–624Alpi A, Amrhein N, Bertl A, et al. (2007) Plant neurobiology: no brain, no gain?
Baldwin IT , Halitschke R , Paschold A , von Dahl CC , Preston CA (2006) Volatile signaling in plant–plant interactions: “talking trees” in the genomics era . Science 311 : 812 – 815 Baluška F , Mancuso S (2006) Plant neurobiology as a paradigm shift not only in the plants
Beaubois E , Girard S , Lallechere S , Davies E , Paladian F , Bonnet P , Ledoigt G , Vian A (2007) Intercellular communication in plants: evidence for two rapidly transmitted systemic signals gener-ated in response to electromagnetic field stimulation in tomato . Plant Cell Environ
Bruce TJA , Matthes MC , Napier JA , Pickett JA (2007) Stressful “memories” of plants: evidence and possible mechanisms . Plant Sci 173 : 604 – 608
Davies E (2004) New functions for electric signals in plants . New Phytol 161 : 607 – 610
Dicke M , Agrawal AA , Bruin J (2003) Plants talk, but are they deaf? Trends Plant Sci 8 : 403 – 405
Felle H , Peters W , Palme K (1991) The electrical response of maize to auxins . Biochim Biophys Acta 1064 : 199 – 204
Fromm J , Lautner S (2007) Electrical signals and their physiological significance in plants . Plant Cell Environ 30 : 249 – 257 Galland P , Pazur A (2005) Magnetoreception in plants . J Plant Res 118 : 371 – 389
7 – 627 Ingensiep HW (2001) Geschichte der Pflanzenseele: Philosophische und biologische Entwürfe von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart . Kröner , Stuttgart Jenal U , Silversmith RE , Sogaard-Andersen L , Sockett L (2005)
Sense and sensibility in bacteria . EMBO Rep 6 : 615 – 619 Jeong MJ , Shim CK , Lee JO , Kwon HB , Kim YH , Lee SK , Byun MO , Park SC (2007)
Plant gene responses to frequency-specific sound signals . Mol Breed 21 : 217 – 226 Johnsen S , Mattern E , Ritz Th (2007)
Light-dependent magnetoreception: quantum catches and opponency mechanisms of possible photosensitive molecules . J Exp Biol 210 : 3171 – 3178 Kandel ER (2006) In search of memory .
The emergence of new theory of mind. Norton , New York Keyes WJ , Taylor JV , Apkarian RP , Lynn DG (2001)
Dancing together . Social controls in parasitic plant development. Plant Physiol 127 : 1508 – 1512 Kim DS , Kim SY , Jeong YM , Jeon SE , Kim MK , Kwon SB , Na JI , Park KC (2006)
Meinhardt H (2002) The radial-symmetric hydra and the evolution of the bilateral body plan: an old body became a young brain. Bioessays 24:185–191Meyerowitz EM (2000) The plant plan: multicellular life in the other Kingdom. Harvey Lect 96:51–72
Radl E (1909) Die Geschichte der biologischen Theorien . Wilhelm Engelmann , Leipzig Ripoll C , Le Sceller L , Verdus MC , Norris V , Tafforeau M , Thellier M (2009)
Memorization of abiotic stimuli in plants . A complex role for calcium. In: Baluška F (ed) Plant–environment interactions. Springer , Berlin Rohde A , Bhalerao RP (2007)
Plant dormancy in the perennial context . Trends Plant Sci 12 : 217 – 223 Rotem R , Heyfets A , Fingrut O , Blickstein D , Shaklai M , Flescher E (2005)
Jasmonates: novel anticancer agents acting d
A possible role for extra-cellular ATP in plant responses to high frequency, low ampli-tude electromagnetic field . Plant Signal Behav 3 : 383 – 385 Rubin LL , Staddon JM (1999)
The cell biology of the blood–brain barrier . Annu Rev Neurosci 22 : 11 – 28 Rudrappa T , Bais HP (2008)
Genetics, novel weapons and rhizospheric microcosmal signaling in the invasion of Phragmites australis . Plant Signal Behav 3 : 1 – 5 Rudrappa T , Bonsall J , Gallagar J , Seliskar DM , Bais HP (2007) Root secreted allelochemical
Solov’yov IA , Chandler DE , Schulten K (2007) Magnetic field effects in Arabidopsis thaliana cryptochrome-1 . Biophys J 92 : 2711 – 2726
tock J , Levit M (2000) Signal transduction: hair brains in bacterial chemotaxis . Curr Biol 10 : R11 – R14 Svistoonoff S , Creff
Verdus MC , Norris V , Ripoll C , Thellier M (2006) Memory processes in the response of plants to environmental signals . Plant Signal Behav 1 : 9 – 14 Tompkins P , Bird CO (1973)
The secret life of plants . Avon , New York Trewavas A (2002)
Mindless mastery . Nature 415 : 841 Trewavas A (2003)
Aspects of plant intelligence . Ann Bot 92 : 1 – 20 Trewavas A (2005a) Plant intelligence . Naturwissenschaften 92 : 401 – 413 Trewavas A (2005b)
Green plants as intelligent organisms . Trends Plant Sci 10 : 413 – 419 Trewavas A (2007) Response to Alpi et al.: plant neurobiology—all metaphors have value . Tr
Volkov AG , Carrell H , Adesina T , Markin VS , Jovanov E (2008) Plant electrical memory . Plant Signal Behav 3 : 490 – 492