Alguns autores questionam se a área de fisiologia das plantas ganharia algo novo com a "nova área" da neurobiologia das plantas. Mas podemos inverter a pergunta: dado que observamos potenciais de ação, bursting, sincronização, oscilações coletivas, backspikes etc nas plantas, por que haveriamos que querer dar grande importância a esses fenômenos (alguns deles epifenômenos?) relacionando-os com neural coding em animais superiores etc? A tal oscilação de 40 Hz, que no passado tentaram relacionar com a consciência, não acontece também nas plantas?
Mission Statement
The Society of Plant Neurobiology will serve the community of scientists interested in sensory plant biology, plant electrophysiology and communicative plant ecology. It will foster trans-disciplinary interactions among plant molecular biologists, cell biologists, plant physiologists and plant ecologists.
What is Plant Neurobiology
Plant Neurobiology describes a newly named, but also old and fascinating field in plant biology addressing the physiological basis of adaptive behavior in plants. Perhaps this field could be called "Sensory Biology in Plants" or something similar. However, these names don't quite cover topics like plant cytology and anatomy, adaptive plant behavior, signaling and communication in symbiosis and pathogenesis, or newly emerging topics like for instance plant immunity, plant memory and learning, plant-plant communication, as well as plant intelligence.
Our choice of the term Plant Neurobiology is described in Brenner et al. (2006) where we note some obvious analogies between classical neurobiology and some aspects of the physiology of plants. For example, plants have long been known to respond sensitively to environmental stimuli by movement and changes in morphology, to be electrically excitable, to display rapid electrical responses (action potentials) to environmental stimuli, to synthesize numerous organic molecules that act as neurochemicals in other organisms, and to use hormonal signaling pathways to coordinate development, morphology and thus, accomplish behavioral responses to environmental, communicative, and ecological contexts.
One important goal of establishing a community for Plant Neurobiology is to provide a venue for all interested biologists to explore complex plant behavior utilizing all levels of experimental approach. Among our symposia participants have been molecular geneticists, biochemists, electrophysiologists, physiological ecologists, community ecologists, mathematical modelers, plant designers, and even philosophers. Plant Neurobiology will use the lens of integrated signaling, communication, and behavior to integrate data obtained at the genetic, molecular, biochemical and cellular levels with physiology, development and behavior of individual organisms, plant ecosystems and evolution.
For a better understanding of the world around us, it is important that we develop and share the growing understanding of plants as dynamic and highly sensitive organisms. No longer can plants be viewed and portrayed as passive entities merely subject to environmental forces, as 'automata'-like organisms based only on reflexes and optimised solely for accumulation of photosynthate. With a fuller understanding of signaling and communication within and among plants, it becomes clear that these sensitive biological organisms actively and competitively forage for limited resources, both above and below ground. In addition, plants accurately compute their circumstances, use sophisticated cost benefit analysis, and they take tightly controlled actions to mitigate and control diverse environmental stressors. Plants also emerge as capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences, and 'learning' from their past experiences. Plants use this cognitively acquired information to update their behavior in order to survive present and future challenges of their environment. Moreover, plants are also capable of refined recognition of self and non-self, and are territorial in behavior.
This Plant Neurobiological view sees plants as information-processing organisms with complex communications of various types occurring throughout the individual plant. What we need to find out is how their information is gathered and processed, what routes do data take (if not via 'nerves' sensu strictu), and how are adaptive responses integrated and coordinated, how are these events 'remembered' in order to allow realistic predictions of future using past experiences.Last but not least, plants are as sophisticated in behavior as animals but this potential has been masked effectively because it operates on time scales many orders of magnitude slower than in animals. At the very least, this quality should make it easier for experimental plant scientists to uncover the mysteries of their neurobiological function and behavioral responses.
Reference
Brenner E, Stahlberg R, Mancuso S, Vivanco J, Baluška F, Van Volkenburgh E (2006) Plant neurobiology: an integrated view of plant signaling. Trends Plant Sci 11: 413-419
Postagens
By Osame Kinouchi on Mar 14, 2008 Reply
Hi, it is interesting that Mark Buchanan asked us with the same question this week. Here is our reply to him (and thanks for the comment about our work, anyway…):
Dear Mark,
We thank you for your interest in our paper and are available to give you any needed information for you to write your article.
Answering your question, we are aware of the “ubiquity” of power laws (we have enjoyed very much reading your book). However, we think that our finding is not directly related with Zipf’s law as you seem to be suggesting.
This is because there is a clear “physical” interpretation of f(r): it is the percentage of recipes where ingredient with rank r occurs, for example, thyme has rank 13 in the New Penguin Cookery Book not because it is a common word in English or in cookery books but because it is well used in the recipes of this particular book.
We also would like to emphasize that we did not count how many times an ingredient name appears in a book but how many recipes use that ingredient.
Of course, perhaps, there is a lexical Zipf’s law for ingredient names — as well as for adjectives, nouns, etc –, probably with a different exponent (the classic lexical exponent is about 1 and our exponent is about 1.4).
We think that our law is not lexical but reflects the relative popularity of ingredients in each culture. As another example, the frequency of given names in the population probably follows a power law, which is not a Zipfian lexical law but reflects the copy-mutation mechanisms underlying name transmission within society.
Best regards,
Osame and Antonio