Sir, You simply flood with wonderful betterment,most of which I do not even know. YM
On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 12:06 PM Rajaram Krishnamurthy < [email protected]> wrote: > Jagadish Chandra Bose (1858 - 1937) was an Indian physicist, botanist, and > pioneer in radio science who conducted groundbreaking research on plant > physiology: > > Plant nervous system > > Bose's research on plant nervous systems was pioneering and revolutionary. He > discovered that plants can move in response to stimuli, such as light, > fertilizers, or poisons. He also hypothesized that impulse transmission in > plants is similar to that in animals. > > Crescograph > > Bose invented a device called a crescograph to measure very small motions > in plants. In one famous experiment, he placed a plant in a vessel > containing a poisonous bromide solution and used the crescograph to show > how the plant responded on a screen. > > Radio science > > Bose's experiments on the quasi-optical properties of radio waves led to > improvements on the coherer, an early form of radio detector. > > Books > > Bose wrote several books on plant physiology, including: > > The Nervous Mechanism of Plants (1926) > > Plant Autographs and Their Revelations (1927) > > Growth and tropic movements of plants (1929) > > Bose was a member of the Unitarian Brahmo fraternity, along with > Rabindranath Tagore and Raja Rammohan Roy. He was a staunch nationalist who > believed that India and the West should work together. > > WORLD NEVER RECOGNISED HIM YET CALLED THEMSELVES A SCIENCE WORLD. > SRINIVASA RAMUJAM ALSO MET WITH THE SAME FATE. SIR C V RAMAN IS FORGOTTEN. > > Between 1900 and 1935, Jagdish Chandra Bose working in Calcutta > (now Kolkata), India, initially at the Presidency College (now Presidency > University) and later at the Bose Institute, established by him after his > retirement from the former institution, dedicated himself to research > solely in the field of plant physiology. This, no doubt, was something > unexpected and unusual for a distinguished physicist who had already > attained international recognition for his work on the optical properties > of radio waves and wireless transmission ahead of Guglielmo Marconi. Owing > to his philosophical and overall scientific belief in ‘Unity of Life’ and > evolution, he initially studied the effect of such waves on inorganic > matter. Finding the response similar to animal muscle, he initiated his > studies on plants. His observations and findings transformed him into a > plant physiologist (an explorer of the plant nervous system). In this > quest, he devised a number of ingenious instruments enabling him to record > the plant responses to a variety of stimuli. Notwithstanding some > opposition, ridicule, disbelief and criticism initially, his observations > in the early 1900s ultimately found general acceptance by eminent > biologists and plant physiologists globally. He forcefully presented his > claim through lecture-demonstrations across the UK and Europe that the > nerve impulses in all types of plants were similar to those in animals. > > Plant neurobiology > > The advances in this field have led to the introduction of the term ‘Plant > Neurobiology’ as a distinct discipline 11,12. Plant neurobiology attempts > to elaborate “of what structural elements is the plant nervous system > constituted and what is the form of the information which this system is > supposed to convey? Further, how is this information initially gained from > external signs, and then encoded and imported into a plant nervous system, > where it is transmitted and finally decoded so that a response can be > brought about?”11 Stahlberg11 provided a ‘Historical Overview on Plant > Neurobiology’. Two recent books, ‘Communication in Plants 16, and ‘Plant > Electrophysiology 17, as well as a host of other papers, describe various > ways in which cell-to-cell propagation of the nerve impulse takes place and > the manner in which the AP is transmitted to long distances. > > Plant roots: Role in sensing the environment > > In his book, ‘The Power of Movement in Plants’, Darwin23 proposed, “It is > hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed > (with sensitivity) and having the power of directing the movement of the > adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain > being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions > from the sense organs and directing the several movements”. Bose24 also > pointed out the sensory functions of the roots as, ‘Fine rootlets in > contact with the soil are stimulated by friction and the presence of > chemical substances. The cells thus undergo contraction forcing their > liquid contents into others higher up’. Bose attributed the ascent of sap > to this sensory-motor activity of the rootlets. > > It is difficult to understand the implications of the use of the term > ‘root brain’ by one of the most outstanding scientists of his era, Charles > Darwin. It is no surprise that neither Bose, nor any other plant > physiologist, referred to it until recently when Baluska et al14 tried to > revive and justify this concept. According to them, “In 1990, we reported > upon a unique zone within the root apex of maize which is interpolated > between the apical meristem and the elongation region. Recently, the term > ‘basal meristem’ has been used for this same zone. In future, terms > ‘command centre’ or ‘cognitive centre’ might prove even better”14. They > further added, “Growing root apices are well known to screen the numerous > abiotic and biotic parameters of their environment and to respond to them > with either positive or negative tropisms. Sensory areas are typically at > the apices of organs whereas the responsive motoric areas are located > basally which implicates long-distance transmission of sensory signals. > This, in effect, is an animal-like sensory-motor circuit which allows > adaptive behavior, and it was remarked upon for the first time by Charles > and Francis Darwin”. While this function of the plant roots reflects the > existence of a sensory-motor circuit capable of serving a reflex action, > the present author considers it nowhere near the complex function the brain > performs in animals. Of course, Bose never used the term brain for any part > of the plant nervous system. > > Synapses - neurotransmitters > > In a paper published in January 192825, Bose pointed out, “The nerve > tissue_ _ _ _ _ _ consists of elongated tubular cells, the dividing > membrane of which acts alike a synapse in the animal nerve; the membrane > functions as a valve and allows the impulse to travel with greater facility > in one direction than the opposite”. While in the broadest sense this > function of the synapse is correct, it appears that Bose used the term > nerve for nerve cell (or neuron) because the nerves do not have synapses. > It may be pointed out that the term ‘neuron’ had not yet been coined, and > the synaptic hypothesis was announced by Sherrington only in 189826. > > With advances in molecular biology and electron microscopy, the > existence of synapses in the plant cells was unequivocally established. > Cell-cell propagation of impulses makes use of or is the result of > structures akin to synapses similar to those in animal nervous system16. > Barlow13 further elaborated this as, “Plant ‘synapses’ share certain > characteristics with animal synapses, in particular, presence of a > calcium-sensitive vesicle trafficking apparatus”. The role of molecules > such as auxin, actin, myosin and acetyl choline in the process of impulse > transmission has been investigated 13,27. It is now established that > plants synthesize and presumably utilize a wide range of chemicals which > have known neuronal attributes in animals. These include synaptic > neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, glutamate and γ-aminobutyric acid > (GABA)13,28. Lam et al22 claimed to have discovered the gene encoding > putative ionotropic glutamate receptors (GluRs) in plants and presented > preliminary evidence for their involvement in light signal transduction. > The membrane topology was found to be analogous to animal ionotropic GluRs > and their role in rapid synaptic transmission. The existence of other > neurotransmitter receptors is surmised. However, a lot more research is > necessary to ascertain the existence and precise role of the > neurotransmitters and their receptors. > > Plant memory, learning and intelligence > > In a review of Bose's lifelong research contributions, Shepherd10 > observed, “His overall conclusion that plants have an electromechanical > pulse, a nervous system, a form of intelligence, and are capable of > remembering and learning, was not well received in its time. A century > later, some of these concepts have entered mainstream literature”. > Trewavas28 in his commentary on, ‘How plants learn’ described a large > number of protein kinases involved in signal transduction discovered in > plants. On the basis of these molecular studies, he concluded that the > signal transduction network (in plants) shared properties with neural > networks (in animals). Neural network learns by increasing the number of > connections. “The increased information flow that results represents a kind > of cellular learning. This cellular learning coupled with the memory built > into signal transduction systems suggests an unexpected form of cellular > intelligence”28. > > In his detailed review on the ‘Aspects of Plant Intelligence’, > Trewavas20 considered ‘various aspects of plant intelligence’ and also > reviewed ‘other aspects of plant learning, memory, individuality and > plasticity’. Attributing these functions to signal transduction is entirely > similar between nerve cells and plant cells. In this regard, he quoted > Bose's continuous recording of the behaviour of petioles, roots, styles and > leaflets of Mimosa to thermal, mechanical and light stimuli5,29. > According to Trewavas20, the concept of intelligence in animals and plants > was not identical because plants are sessile and the time scale of > behaviour in most plants differs from animals. The importance of time scale > photography for this purpose, as first used by Bose, was highlighted. In > yet another publication, ‘Green Plants as Intelligent Organisms’, > Trewavas30 referred to intelligence as the “...............capacity for > problem solving”. He pointed out, “plant intelligence starts with cell > molecular networks. Enormous number of molecular connections integrate into > an emergent, organized order that is characterized as living”. Quoting the > work of several authors, he indicated, “There are ~1000 protein kinases in > both animals and plants, providing the capability for numerous complex > elements of control, switching mechanisms and interacting positive and > negative feedback controls”. Plant cell signal transduction is performed by > this network which constitutes the basis of intelligence. The author > mentioned several behaviours of plants such as competing for resources, > foraging for food and protection against environmental and physical > impediments by changing their architecture, physiology and phenotype30. > Based on an extensive review of the literature, Trewavas30 concluded, > “....that plants exhibit the simple forms of behavior that neuroscientists > describe as basic intelligence”, and remarked, “It is obvious that at > present we should regard primate intelligence as much more advanced than > that exhibited by plants”, but future investigations on plant behaviour > might need to reassess this conclusion. Barlow13 provided another detailed > account of ‘Modern beginning of plant neurobiology’ as concerned with > exploring how plants “perceive signs within their environment and convert > them into internal electro-chemical signals (which) in turn, permit rapid > modifications of physiology and development that help plants to adjust to > changes in their environment”. The author discussed ‘Living Systems Theory’ > in relation to plant neurobiology and plant structure. In this connection, > the author deals with memory. According to him, “Memory has not been > mentioned in relation to plant neurobiology, but would evidently have a > place there”13. As an example, he quotes the memory system that operates in > the insect-trapping organ of Dionaea muscipula. Discussing decision-making > in plants, Barlow13 pointed out that certain decisions in plants may depend > on the ability to construct a ‘memory’. In this connection, he refers to a > study by Thellier et al31 who described a logical (discrete) formulation > for the storage and recall of environmental signals in plants. Discussing > decision-making in plants, Barlow13 referred to the phenomenon of > hydrotropism and gravitropism manifested by the roots and suggested “that > the root cap could sense at least four tropic stimuli simultaneously > (touch, gravity, humidity and light), and it should be possible to uncover > more about how decisions or choices are taken in order to implement one > type of tropism in preference to other”. It may be mentioned that Darwin23 > and Bose5 had already described these functions of roots. > > Cognition, consciousness and self- and non-self in plants > > In an address before the British Association in Dublin in 1908, Charles > Darwin proposed, “It is consistent with the doctrine of continuity that in > all living things there is something psychic, and if we accept this point > of view we must believe that in plants there exists a faint copy of what we > know as consciousness in ourselves”32. Bose in several of his talks > referred to human-like emotions and behaviour in plants. Baluska et al14 in > a discussion on Darwin's ‘Root-Brain’ hypothesis remarked, “The numerous > data and results which we review here are clearly not compatible with the > classical concept of plants which places them outside the realm of > cognitive, animated, animal living systems”. They further added, ‘Recent > advances in chemical ecology reveal the astonishing communicative > complexity of higher plants as exemplified by the battery of volatile > substances which they produce and sense in order to share with other > organisms information about their physiological state”. They quoted a > number of papers in support of this postulation. Already, in 2004, Gruntman > and Novoplansky33 from Israel have made an astonishing claim that plants > recognize self from non-self. They provided evidence, “B. dactyloides > plants are able to differentiate between self and non-self-neighbors and > develop fewer and shorter roots in the presence of other roots of the same > individual”. Quoting a number of publications, Baluska et al14 pointed out, > “Recent advances in plant molecular biology, cellular biology, > electrophysiology and ecology that have unmasked plants as sensory and > communicative organisms, characterized by active problem solving > behaviour”. “They possess a sensory-based cognition which leads to > behavior, decisions and even displays of prototype intelligence”. They went > on to postulate a possible cognitive centre in the root apex of maize. It > was hypothesized, “The physiological specificity of plants is mediated by > internal oscillations of hormones such as auxin and cytokines and/or > electricity that is perceived by the roots through the soil. Such signals > are known to be highly dynamic in nature and thus individually unique. Such > signals can be potentially perceived and monitored both within the plants > and outside roots. Accordingly, the perception of ‘self’ is based on > resonant amplification of oscillatory signals in the vicinity of other > roots of the same plant”33. > > Conclusions > > It is now universally accepted that all plants have a nervous system > responsible for gathering information from their environment responsible > for their survival and growth. This nervous system functions like that in > animals. The nerve impulse (AP) responsible for information transmission in > plants from one region to the other, often for long distances, is found to > be associated with most of the vital functions of the plant - respiration, > photosynthesis, light and gravitropism, transport through phloem and plant > defence. The molecular basis of these functions has now been elucidated in > some details 11,12,13,14,16,27. Thus, the seeds sown by Bose have blossomed > into an interesting new field of ‘Plant Neurobiology’, so named by Brenner > et al12, and Stahlberg11. The idea of designating this field of scientific > endeavour with a new name which has resulted in the establishment of an > international society has already developed its opponents. Thus, Amedo Alpi > from the Department of Plant Sciences, University of Pisa, Italy, along > with 32 other botanists, plant scientists and molecular biologists from > Europe, the UK and the USA (8 from Germany, 7 from the USA, 6 each from the > UK and Italy, 3 from France and 1 each from Switzerland, the Netherlands > and Canada) have published a brief but well-argued paper entitled, ‘Plant > neurobiology: no brain, no gain’, in 200734 questioning the necessity for > dignifying it with a title. However, they did not challenge any of the > findings of Bose. Hence, their observation in this regard is quoted here, > “Plant cells do share features in common with all biological cells > including neurons. To name just a few: plant cells show action potentials, > their membranes harbor voltage-gated ion channels, and there is evidence of > neurotransmitter-like substances. Equally, in a broader sense, signal > transduction and transmission over distance is a property of plants and > animals. Although at the molecular level the same general principles apply > and some important parallels can be drawn between the two major organismal > groups, this does not imply a priori that comparable structures for signal > propagation exist at the cellular, tissue and organ levels”34. It must be > reiterated that what Bose described functionally has not been faulted with, > and what these authors objected to was never claimed by Bose. > K RAJARAM IRS 311224 > > On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 at 07:06, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> -- >> *Mar*The Silent Communication with Plants >> >> >> >> Every life form responds to your loving communication. If you pay >> attention to a cat, dog, cow, horse, in fact any life form and communicate >> in the language of nature it responds in the language of nature, which is >> love. Every blade of grass, plants, trees, bees, insects etc have mainly >> the language of smells and sounds, the sounds of pleasant and approving >> music from nature. In free and healthy nature, you sit among hundreds of >> grasses, plants, trees, and the various life forms with them. If only you >> pay attention to them and feel positively you enter into silent >> conversation with them. >> >> Life in nature is emotional interaction and conversation with diverse >> life forms. If you accept that they are what they are, persons with >> emotions and feelings and pay attention to them, they enter into silent >> conversation with you. >> >> In a park or garden, the life forms develop the language of the garden, >> the mixture of symbiotic feelings as communications in smells and sounds. >> Those feelings and emotions as conversations among the diverse life forms >> cannot be languaged in our present languages as they do not have the >> visible 3D shapes. It is like wording the vast abstract Microcosm. >> >> However small the garden you grow and tend to may be, first realize that >> the plants are persons conversing with you in feelings and you can actually >> sense the feelings and also respond provided you realize that they are >> conversing with you in feelings with smells and sounds vocabulary. Every >> garden develops a language of feelings. In that language the conversation >> is continuous but mainly silent. With that basic realization, you gradually >> enter the parallel life you are now living along with the day today >> stresses and routines that actually tax your real life. It is mainly the >> economic life which converts the silent language of nature or say of your >> small garden into distress signals. >> >> To escape from the brutality called economic life, where everything is >> changed into the artificial and unreal packaged unnatural deviation, >> converting life into unreality, into the packaged pollutions and >> suffocations, you need to develop and tend to your personal garden, which >> helps you live the macro life, which rejuvenates you. >> >> But thanks to economics, plants are just timber for marketing. And that >> is what the students are taught in the schools, colleges and universities, >> that forests are potential furnitures. >> >> Today 78% of the people of Japan live in terrible stress. In many of the >> economically advanced countries marriages are vanishing and child births >> are becoming rare. Economic advancement actually creates continuous tension >> as we just cannot converse in the language of nature, the language of love >> and approval. Economics has cut off our communications with nature >> directly. Have you ever ‘smell and song conversed’ with any plant? What is >> worse we pluck the flowers, the children of plants to decorate, creating >> terrible distress in your small garden or in the vast green cover of nature. >> >> Every course in every university increases the emotional distance of the >> students to nature. The universities are creating new generations of >> mentally stressed and tension ridden. >> >> Every University must create a ‘Free Nature Park without ‘Human >> Tampering’so that the park develops its language of smells and music. The >> park gradually will develop the faculty of sensing the feelings of the >> flora and the fauna. They create the fountains of Theism. As it is, the God >> content of nature is removed by economics. >> >> Try to converse with plants in your garden, in the language of the garden. >> >> YM Sarma >> >> Chat GPT >> >> The passage you shared emphasizes the importance of silent, emotional >> communication with nature, particularly with plants. It suggests that every >> life form—whether it’s a pet, a plant, or an insect—responds to human >> attention and affection, especially when approached with love and >> positivity. The core idea is that nature communicates with us through >> smells, sounds, and feelings, creating a language that transcends words. >> This silent conversation is a deeper connection that can be fostered if we >> choose to observe and engage with it attentively. >> >> The author critiques the way modern society, particularly through >> economic systems, has distanced humans from nature. Economic advancement, >> in this view, is linked to stress and disconnection from the natural world, >> as it converts life into something artificial and transactional. The author >> laments that plants are treated merely as commodities for human use, devoid >> of their intrinsic value and emotional presence. >> >> A strong call is made for universities and society to recognize the >> emotional, sentient nature of plants and life forms, and to create spaces >> where humans can reconnect with nature in a more holistic, nurturing way. >> The idea of a “Free Nature Park” is proposed as a place where nature is >> allowed to develop its own “language of smells and music” without human >> interference, allowing people to experience and learn from it in a way that >> restores the connection with the divine or the natural spirit. >> >> The passage ultimately encourages readers to reconnect with nature, to >> converse with plants in a silent language of feelings, and to embrace the >> healing and rejuvenating qualities that such a connection can offer. >> >> >> > -- *Mar* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BM64Q-_zJxJx0%2BDvOZ0XTfca5ZNnGmbXdBvGQAGC6u%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
