Plant Intelligence from a Comparative Psychology Perspective

A library of electrophysiological responses in plants - a model of transversal education and open science

Electrophysiology in plants is understudied, and, moreover, an ideal model for student inclusion at all levels of education. Here, we report on an investigation in open science, whereby scientists worked with high school students, faculty, and undergraduates from Chile, Germany, Serbia, South Korea, and the USA. The students recorded the electrophysiological signals of >15 plant species in response to a flame or tactile stimulus applied to the leaves. We observed that approximately 60% of the plants studied showed an electrophysiological response, with a delay of ~ 3-6 s after stimulus presentation. In preliminary conduction velocity experiments, we verified that observed signals are indeed biological in origin, with information transmission speeds of ~ 2-9 mm/s. Such easily replicable experiments can serve to include more investigators and students in contributing to our understanding of plant electrophysiology.

Artificial and biological supports are different for pea plants

Previous studies on the kinematics of pea plants' ascent and attach behavior have demonstrated that the signature of their movement varies depending on the kind of support. So far, these studies have been confined to artificial supports (e.g. wooden sticks). Little is known regarding the conditions under which pea plants could rely on biological supports (e.g. neighboring plants) for climbing toward the light. In this study, we capitalize on the 3D kinematic analysis of movement to ascertain whether pea plants scale their kinematics differently depending on whether they aim for artificial or biological support. Results suggest that biological support determines a smoother and more accurate behavior than that elicited by the artificial one. These results shed light on pea plants' ability to detect and classify the properties of objects and implement a movement plan attuned to the very nature of the support. We contend that such differences depend on the augmented multisensory experience elicited by the biological support.