Špela petrič: confronting vegetal otherness

33
Confronting Vegetal Otherness Špela Petrič Slovenia

Upload: spela-petric

Post on 14-Apr-2017

424 views

Category:

Art & Photos


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

Confronting Vegetal

Otherness

Špela Petrič

Slovenia

Page 2: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness
Page 3: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

HOW DO HUMANS RELATE TO PLANTS?

UTILITYagriculture/food

medicine

materials

fuel

nature conservation

(“lungs of planet”, habitat

conservation)

EMPATHY (?)nature conservation

(pity)

antropomorphism (plant neurobiology)

gardening (aesthetic pleasure)

WHERE LIES AT THE ROOT OF TOTAL OBJECTIFICATION?

Page 4: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION UNDERSTANDS PLANTS AS

LACKING

autonomy

individualization

self-identity

originality

and essentiality

Page 5: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

TIME-SCALE AND ASSIMILATION

Page 6: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

SEDENTARY

Page 7: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

PLURIPOTENCY AND VEGETATIVE REPRODUCTION (“body without organs”)

Page 8: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

PLANT NEUROBIOLOGY

Page 9: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

GROWTH IS THE MAIN MODALITY OF MOVEMENT

the crescograph, Sir Jagadis Chunder Bose, 1919

Page 10: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

PLANT COMMUNITES FORM A CONTINUUM

Page 11: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

THEY ALSO FORM (NATURAL) GRAFTS

Page 12: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

SEXUAL REPRODUCTION

Page 13: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

PUTTING THEORY INTO PRACTICE: WHAT OF THE ‘NEW’ SUBJECTIVITY?

Page 14: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

14

Page 15: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness
Page 16: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

16

BIOSEMIOSIS

Page 17: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

no responseor inhibition responsePr Pfr

darkness

red light670nm

730nmfar-red light

Page 18: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

18

Page 19: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

19

Page 20: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

20

Page 21: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

21

Page 22: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

22

Page 23: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

23

Page 24: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness
Page 25: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness
Page 26: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness
Page 27: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness
Page 28: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

28

Page 29: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

29

BRASSINOLIDE ESTRADIOL

Page 30: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

pick up vibrations from its environment. Noteworthy is thefact that in dense environments, such as water and soil, thecoupling of such structures is more efficient than in air,obviating the need for complex mechanisms providingimpedance matching.

The existing evidence: plants detect and react todifferent soundsThe proximate and ultimate mechanisms used by animalsto sense their environment and communicate with eachother have long been the subject of intense scientific inter-est. In plants, sensory and communication research exists,yet is not as advanced and recognised. Existing evidence isenticing and calls for further investigation on the proxi-mate, mechanistic question of how plants acquire andrespond to acoustic information and further, demandsthe examination of ultimate, functional questions as to

why such information bears adaptive value. In plants, bothemission and detection of sound may be adaptive, aspreliminary investigations of both processes (in particularreception) suggest (Figure 1a and b). Whilst receptormechanisms in plants are still to be identified, there isearly, yet tantalising, evidence about plants’ ability ofdetecting vibrations and exhibiting a frequency-selectivesensitivity that generate behavioural modifications(Figure 1b and c). At both proximate and ultimate levels,sound production in plants is only rarely documentedand still poorly understood. We are growing increasinglydoubtful of the idea that all acoustic emissions by plantsare the mere result of the abrupt release of tension in thewater-transport system [5]. We anticipate that plantacoustic radiation is not simply an incidental mechanicalby-product attributable to cavitation alone; recent evi-dence illustrates that the young roots of corn generate

(c)

(a)

(b)

Water

Air

Sound

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Frequency (Hz)

Roo

ts b

endi

ng to

war

ds th

eso

urce

of t

he s

ound

(%

)

0.04

0.02

0

−0.02

Velo

city

(m

/s)

−0.04

−0.060 0.2 0.4 0.6

Time (s)

0.8 1 1.2

TRENDS in Plant Science

Figure 1. Root bioacoustics. Behavioural response to incident sound, frequency selective response and acoustic emissions by roots in Zea mays. (a) Behavioural responseof young roots to a continuous 220 Hz sound coming from left field (white arrow). Root tip clearly bend towards sound source. (b) Phonotropic assay assessing the responseof young roots to water-borne vibrations (ca. 10 mm/s sound velocity level) at different frequencies. Best response is measured between 200 and 300 Hz. (c) Acousticemissions of young roots measured optically with microscanning laser Doppler vibrometer. Vibrations were measured at the elongation zone of root tip (red star in panel a).Roots generate structured acoustic emissions in the form of loud (ca. 2 cm/s) and frequent clicks, which can also be measured at some distance into the fluid medium. (M.Pagano, PhD thesis, University of Firenze, in press).

Spotlight Trends in Plant Science xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x

TRPLSC-954; No. of Pages 3

2

Page 31: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

31

Page 32: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness

32

Page 33: Špela Petrič: Confronting Vegetal Otherness