It is appaling that our NSF funds are going to fund this new age _____ <--Your pejorative word here. Claiming that they "Communicate" is an anthropomorphization ( if that wasn't a word it is now) of what are physical supply and demand feedbacks in every given eco-system). These were long known before this study tried to make rocks talk to trees and vice versa about whom was responsible for soiling up the place.
The entire article is focused on making the reader "believe" that there is a basis of "proof" in the hypothesis of this paper as to plant and rocks carrying on a conversation about who is going to grow where. It is something of a bait and switch headline and the entire summary is a "stump" speech to justify their waste of taxpayer money and hoping to get the NSF to fund their next new-age faery-tale.
Yes, there is some evidence that some plants do communicate (via chemical messenger re: synchronized blooming) but nothing in this abstract proves that the soil and plants have a "chat" about how the adjacent "plot" is going to be planted. We know that far more seeds get scattered than ever germinate. If they germinate in scant soil then they are less-likely to grow to maturity depending on drought/freeze cycles in meager soil and how well that species is adapted for life on the edge. This is NOT communication it is competition over scarce resources. The tree nor the soil have a team building faculty nor could they have a say about it. This is California not Middle Earth althought sometimes it is "Hobbit's Choice" for the difference.
As always I am happy with anything Lynn posts and for the opportunity to chime in when I think their is an defect in the content.
Eman
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=130991&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click
--
__._,_.___
The entire article is focused on making the reader "believe" that there is a basis of "proof" in the hypothesis of this paper as to plant and rocks carrying on a conversation about who is going to grow where. It is something of a bait and switch headline and the entire summary is a "stump" speech to justify their waste of taxpayer money and hoping to get the NSF to fund their next new-age faery-tale.
Yes, there is some evidence that some plants do communicate (via chemical messenger re: synchronized blooming) but nothing in this abstract proves that the soil and plants have a "chat" about how the adjacent "plot" is going to be planted. We know that far more seeds get scattered than ever germinate. If they germinate in scant soil then they are less-likely to grow to maturity depending on drought/freeze cycles in meager soil and how well that species is adapted for life on the edge. This is NOT communication it is competition over scarce resources. The tree nor the soil have a team building faculty nor could they have a say about it. This is California not Middle Earth althought sometimes it is "Hobbit's Choice" for the difference.
As always I am happy with anything Lynn posts and for the opportunity to chime in when I think their is an defect in the content.
Eman
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:32 AM, Lin Kerns <linkerns@gmail.com> wrote:
| |||||||||
--
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment