Ex.
- Grow plant A. Expose it to stimuli to make it form a 'memory'
- Take a cutting from plant A and root it, making plant B.
- Test plant B for response to the stimulus.
Does plant B have the memory? If so, how many cutting-generations does it take for the memory to decay?
I'm more intrigued by what would happen with grafts.
Does rootstock transmit memories ("memories") to a scion, does a scion transmit memories to rootstock, does it work with interspecific grafts, does it work with intergeneric grafts? Do multiple scions transmit memories between each other?
Its uncommon, but it happens sometimes... and there can be in fact a fundamental difference: different hormone gradient. A well known case is with ivy. If you take cuttings on flowered stems of common ivy, the new plants retain the rombic leaf shape typical of reproductive stems and the effect last for the life of this first leaves. The ivy born from seeds do not have this rombic leaves until many years later, when they mature.
> Does rootstock transmit "memories" to a scion
Not, because memories are stored in neurons and plants do not have this, but is a well known fact also that rootstock can change the scion behaviour (for example improving the sugar in fruits and advancing the age of first maturation). If you change 'memories' by 'chemicals', the answer could be yes, of course. It depends on the definition of what could be loosely called as 'memory' in a plant.
But it should be obvious that even if plants were proven to be sentient, vegans would continue to eat them. Our primary directive on this planet is to survive, just like every other organism. Once that's settled we can focus on doing so with as little suffering as possible, to the best of our ability.
The unsaid assumption in your comment, that I disagree with, is that harvesting animals causes anymore suffering than caring for and harvesting plants (in a humane manner, which admittedly, many facotry farms fail at on either side.)
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=chicken+trucks&source=lnms&t...
And the meat-man with a vengeance shows up. I kid you not, this stereotype holds true all too often. And, may I add, puzzles me absolutely no end. What is it about some people's restrictive dietary choices that regularly sets off these spasms of all too vocal disapproval in the minds of certain people?
I do not, as a general rule, eat meat. The predictable uninvited spluttering opinions on that quite unremarkable situation are beginning to get really old. Please!
Couldn't you argue that since in order to harvest animals you must harvest plants for the animals to eat. So definitely more suffering is produced by harvesting animals. This is amplified even more so when you consider that you have to harvest more plants for producing meat than you would if you just ate the plants.
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/it...
Note well: I have no idea how restrictive a subset "the right varieties" is, nor how hard it is to obtain plankton that are only from that subset.
Temperature variability is integrated by a spatially embedded decision-making center to break dormancy in Arabidopsis seeds
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1704745114
In short, it shows a seed having binary decision-making areas that communicate with each other to determine the best outcome for survival.
From the paper:
"Both plants and animals make decisions in response to the environment to maximize their fitness. Plants use dormancy in seeds to move through time and space, and timing of the transition to germination is influenced by external cues, including temperature. Here, we report the presence of a decision-making center within the root tip of dormant seeds and demonstrate that it shares a similar configuration as some systems within the human brain. Unlike in humans, where this spatial structure is used to filter out noisy inputs from the environment, seeds use this arrangement to harness fluctuating temperatures and stimulate the termination of dormancy. Variable inputs therefore act as an instructive signal for seeds, enhancing the accuracy with which plants are established in ecosystems."
Considering she still calls plants 'he' & dedicated her life to study them, I wonder what's her current perspective on the above statement. The article does mention abusing plants as part of the study, does this mean the scientists themselves feel it's less violent. Since it's proven that the plants react to stimulus, how do they convince themselves that they aren't hurting the plants.
Interestingly along with Venus fly traps, their movement response can also be triggered with electricity.
As far as I know though, you can't force the venus fly trap or mimosa to open it's leaves again via electricity.
I think with the mimosa iirc, strong bright light can open it's leaves though.
