---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > McNeely and Forum: > > Seems reasonable to me . . . > > However, since a recent rather active discussion took place on "how science > should be communicated to the public," part of my enquiry is motivated by the > deja vu moment I suffered when I heard the narrator of the TV program say > that "roots seek water" rather than "develop where available water is and > where there is insufficient resistance to said growth," as I was taught > decades ago, and since which field experience has not indicated otherwise. > While I do not want to beg the philosophical question about "what is is" or > what "seek" means, I will go so far as to suggest that "the public," tends to > believe that plant roots "seek" water by growing through a considerable layer > of soil or similar medium that does not contain available water "in SEARCH > of water." Does "the average person" believe that plant roots grow in search > of water, and is that considered sufficient and sufficiently accurate (and > not misleading) by most scientists? Are there any scientists who > substantially! differ? > > With respect to communicating science, especially ecology and plant > physiology to the public in a way that is not misleading, I suggest that it > is important to explain phenomena in terms that the audience can understand, > explaining phenomena more patiently without patronizing them (or each other) > or requiring the public to acquire an understanding of jargon or terminology > used for scientists to communicate among themselves. This may mean saying > plainly, for example, that plant roots do "grow in search of water" or that > plants do not grow in search of water. > > I'm sure that subscribers to this forum will be able to state this more > clearly than I, and that they will be able to correct my misconceptions. > > I look forward to any responses that add clarity and conciseness to the > statement, or, for that matter, revise and extend my remarks (I, too, reserve > the privilege of adding detail as necessary). Much more might be said, but I > am looking for the best possible statement that can be readily understood by > anyone (or at least not mislead by it). > > WT
Wayne, Would the general public then believe that if a sealed container were buried underground, and a tree seedling planted in dry soil some distance away, the seedlings roots would search for water, and thus find the sealed container? If that is what your explanation says these folks believe, then they are simply wrong. there must be a water gradient. If they understand that there must be a water gradient, and that only if the container is leaking would the roots "find" the water, then ok, and no more explanation is needed. mcneely > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:22 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plant roots matter Re: [ECOLOG-L] Communication > Science to Public Plant Roots > > > > Wayne, I think the notions that have been expressed on the list represent > > semantic differences rather than differences in understanding how roots > > function. I think that those who have written accept the following: > > > > Roots are hydrotropic, but the hydrotropism acts along a gradient, and acts > > over a very small distance. Rather than individual roots turning or > > growing toward water at some distant location, they grow differentially in > > different moisture fields. Whether one calls this behavior "seeking" or > > simply differential growth is dependent on one's application of the term to > > inanimate behavior or not. > > > > I can no longer speak for what is being taught, but I always taught that > > roots exhibit positive gravitropism but negative phototropism, while the > > shoot exhibits the opposite, and described classic experiments (and in > > elementary courses had students carry out such experiments) that > > demonstrate such behavior. Those tropisms do result in roots 'moving' > > toward moisture in soil. So far as hydrotropism, I did not teach it, > > because I did not recognize that the enhanced growth under higher moisture > > conditions compared to lower moisture conditions was a tropism. I now know > > that hydrotropism is involved, though it is minor compared to the > > differential growth along a gradient. I would teach that, were I still > > teaching. > > > > mcneely > > > > ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Honorable Ecolog Forum: > >> > >> What does it matter, for the advancement of science and ecology in > >> particular, whether or not the root of the matter is resolved such that > >> the > >> state of knowledge in this matter is articulated with clarity to the > >> public > >> and those who inform the public (such as science writers, TV and movie > >> producers, reporters, etc.)? > >> > >> There seems to be at least two schools of thought (or at least opinion) > >> concerning whether or not roots are genetically programmed to seek water. > >> > >> What is actually being taught in the schools with respect to this issue? > >> What have you, as an ecologist, been taught and what do you teach (if you > >> teach)? > >> > >> WT > > > > -- > > David McNeely > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3655 - Release Date: 05/23/11 > > -- David McNeely
