In article , DaveDay34
writes
There seems to be much confusion about ivy. I'm not sure that I want to go
into all the details and explain it all to those who don't understand, but I
think it's enough to point out that to be a scavenger you have to be able to
recognise that something's dead, and that it can therefore be 'scavenged'.
Plants (including ivy) are unable to make this distinction. Put simply, plants
don't 'think' in the way we recognise that animals can.

Some years ago urg had a long and contentious, though mostly good
natured, discussion in a thread called 'A philosophical approach'.
That discussion centred mostly on how plants were believed to act and
react. It revealed some deep seated unease among urg contributors about
the matter. It emerged that little proper research has been done in the
area, though there is quite a lot of literature available to 'prove' all
viewpoints held. I would appreciate details which show that plants
cannot distinguish between something living and dead though, that is a
new theory to me.

I agree that plants don't think. That is because they do not have a
brain. They also don't see or hear because they don't have eyes or ears
etc. etc. As living beings though, they carry out all the functions of
animals (including humans) other than moving about, but they do it by
different means. For example, though plants do not see with eyes, they
are able to detect direction of light, and they are able to work out how
to react to light. They have their own ways, different from animals, of
eating, drinking, creating a habitat, procreating, protecting themselves
and their species, adapting to their environments and evolving. All that
requires some very sophisticated form of intelligence, equivalent to
though different from that used by animals.

Plants are entirely independent of animals for their survival, they were
around on this planet long before animals developed. Animals however,
including humans, are totally dependent upon plants directly or
indirectly for their food and for almost all other things they do. In a
world of food shortage, a better understanding of plants and how they
operate could be of great benefit to us all.
--
Alan Gould

I have a vague idea I saw it suggested once that you can take a cutting
from the adult flowering part and grow this into a shrubby fruiting plant
that doesn't put out climbing shoots. Is that correct, and if so could I
grow a few like this to add in an existing hedge? I'd like to include some
ivy somewhere for its food/shelter value and this seems an ideal solution.

Sue

Yes you can grow the fruiting part of the ivy (I call it tree ivy, I don't
know if this is correct). I have one, the blackbirds love it but so do wasps
and flies in late summer. I think I have seen it several times in the
background when gardening progs visit gardens. Beware though it does
sometimes send out juvenile growth from the base.

On the subject of harming the natural world i was somewhat suprised when I
received my first "Chilterns seed catalogue and saw that some of the seeds
are collected from the wild.

--
Art

Garden Web http://www.gardenweb.com
My Garden Web exchange page http://www.gardenweb.com/members/exch/art1952

In article , Alan Gould
writes

I agree that plants don't think. That is because they do not have a
brain. They also don't see or hear because they don't have eyes or ears
etc. etc.

Don't have ears? I have just been reading an article where music was
played to Tomato Plants and they cropped better!!

OK so I have ears and I work better with the right music, but what about
plants?

Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O ruddier than the cherry, O sweeter than the berry,
O nymph more bright, than moonshine night,
like kidlings blithe and merry.
John Gay 1685 - 1732

Some of what you say is true, but see interspersed comments


viewpoints held. I would appreciate details which show that plants
cannot distinguish between something living and dead though, that is a
new theory to me.

Do you also need evidence to show that a stone or any other non living
object cannot distinguish between something living and dead .

though plants do not see with eyes, they
are able to detect direction of light, and they are able to work out how
to react to light.

Are photo sensetive chemicals sentient because they react to light? Do they
work out how to react?
Does water work out to flow downhill?


Plants are entirely independent of animals for their survival, they were
around on this planet long before animals developed.

Plants are almost entirely dependent on animals for the oxygen-carbon cycle.

Art

In article , Mike
writes
I agree that plants don't think. That is because they do not have a
brain. They also don't see or hear because they don't have eyes or ears
etc. etc.

Don't have ears? I have just been reading an article where music was
played to Tomato Plants and they cropped better!!

OK so I have ears and I work better with the right music, but what about
plants?

They have an ability to receive and respond to sound, but not by means
of ears as animals have.

--
Alan Gould

In article , Carol Russell Russells@q
ueenborough42.freeserve.co.uk writes
Some of what you say is true, but see interspersed comments


viewpoints held. I would appreciate details which show that plants
cannot distinguish between something living and dead though, that is a
new theory to me.

Do you also need evidence to show that a stone or any other non living
object cannot distinguish between something living and dead .
No, stones are inanimate objects, they cannot distinguish anything.

though plants do not see with eyes, they
are able to detect direction of light, and they are able to work out how
to react to light.

Are photo sensetive chemicals sentient because they react to light? Do they
work out how to react?
They work by photo-chemical reaction.

Does water work out to flow downhill?
Gravitational force does that.


Plants are entirely independent of animals for their survival, they were
around on this planet long before animals developed.

Plants are almost entirely dependent on animals for the oxygen-carbon cycle.
Please explain that. Plants thrived quite well before animals existed.
--
Alan Gould

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Carol Russell
Russells@q
ueenborough42.freeserve.co.uk writes

snip

Plants are entirely independent of animals for their survival,
they were
around on this planet long before animals developed.

Plants are almost entirely dependent on animals for the
oxygen-carbon cycle.
Please explain that. Plants thrived quite well before animals
existed.


I don't think that many of today's plant species were around before
animals. Horsetails (no pun intended) maybe.
But todays plants have developed and are acclimatised to the animal
world. Many rely on their seeds passing through animal gut in order to
germinate. Many have developed burrs to aid their animal
transportation to new parts. Many rely on specific insects and birds
to complete their pollination process. Nearly all thrive on animal
waste products - solid and gaseous.

It is an interdependent homogenous world that we live in.

--
ned

The message
from Alan Gould contains these words:

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
We have lots of ivy growing as ground cover, mostly in shaded areas.
It flowers and seeds there in the same way as when it is climbing.

Very surprising; I have never seen that either. Ivy is dimorphic.It's
usually only the juvenile stage (3 or 5 lobed leaves, adventitious
roots)which grows as ground cover in shaded areas. The adult
stage,(distinguishable by the leaf shape changing from lobed to ovate,
and shrubbier, non-climbing branches) that produces flowers and fruit,
requires much more light, which is why it usually occurs at the tops of
walls, upper branches of trees etc.

These are in semi-light amongst a group of well developed and very tall
blackthorns. When I cleared away some of the blackthorns, the ivy
receded and gave way to a variety of other self-set plants, but it
remains as vigorous as ever under the blackthorns.

The surprising thing was that your ivy is producing flowers and seeds
at ground-cover level and in shade.

Janet.

The message
from Alan Gould contains these words:

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
This is nonsense. Ivy is not a parasitic plant, and does not obtain
its food or water from trees, any more than it does from walls; it gets
those through its own below-ground root system. If you sever climbing
ivy stems at the base of a tree trunk, the entire section of ivy *above*
the cut will die; proving that the living tree is not its means of
sustenance. It is not a "scavenger".

You are confusing the definitions of parasite and scavenger.

Not at all. A parasite derives its subsistence from another living
organism and a scavenger from a dead one. I was pointing out the reasons
why your two claims, first that ivy attacks living trees, sets about to
harm and kill them, and second that it scavenges their dead remains, are
both wrong.

Note to the confused; that's "wrong" as in "false, inaccurate, incorrect."

Janet.

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
These are in semi-light amongst a group of well developed and very tall
blackthorns. When I cleared away some of the blackthorns, the ivy
receded and gave way to a variety of other self-set plants, but it
remains as vigorous as ever under the blackthorns.

The surprising thing was that your ivy is producing flowers and seeds
at ground-cover level and in shade.

They are not doing that at the present moment, the flowers appear in
summer and they remain on the plants for quite a long time. Some of the
ivy has been there for many years, but flowering also happens on newer
growth. I can't be certain if it happens on first year growth though.
The ivy is self-set, i.e. it is natural or 'wild' ivy, possibly that may
have some bearing on it.

We have some varieties of variegated ivy growing in our conservatory and
polytunnel. They are very prolific and they propagate easily from
cuttings, but I've never seen them flower. We've found that they don't
do very well at all outside, whether in light or shade - maybe they are
more tender than the natural ivies?
--
Alan & Joan Gould, North Lincs.

Don't have ears? I have just been reading an article where music was
played to Tomato Plants and they cropped better!!

OK so I have ears and I work better with the right music, but what about
plants?

Mike

Cats purr, and in doing so any breaks in their bones heal more readily, and
more rapidly. This doesn't mean that cat's bones have ears.

If tomatoes crop better when they've been played music, it's almost definitely
something to do with a change in the plant on a microscopic level due to
vibrations set up by sound waves. The plant isn't 'listening' to the music.

I hope that this is clear and I've explained it in a way that's understandable.

Dave.

P.S.

The bark of trees is made up of dead cells. To Ivy, the outside surface of a
tree that's dead, and one that's alive, is indistinguishable.

"ned" wrote in message
...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in
message ...

snip

_ANY_ gardening activity is destructive to what would have been
there
without human interference.


Indeed. Every weed is simply a natural plant which the 'arrogant'
gardener decides is spoiling the look of his/her grand plan.

Except that Ivy can be dangerous, there is a pine tree in my niegbours
garden which is covered in Ivy, the Ivy is so heavy it is pulling the tree
over, and if something isn't done about it, it will fall into my garden!

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

Alan Holmes wrote:
"ned" wrote in message
...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in
message ...

snip

_ANY_ gardening activity is destructive to what would have been
there
without human interference.


Indeed. Every weed is simply a natural plant which the 'arrogant'
gardener decides is spoiling the look of his/her grand plan.

Except that Ivy can be dangerous, there is a pine tree in my
niegbours
garden which is covered in Ivy, the Ivy is so heavy it is pulling
the
tree over, and if something isn't done about it, it will fall into
my
garden!


Yes, 'close encounters' do tend to heighten awareness. :-))

--
ned

Just an update.
I have now removed the ivy, there was one small birds nest but thousands of
woodlice and I would think that they may damage the tree.