Can Plants Get STDs?
Happy New Year!
Just a quick little blurb I found online that was interesting. I had never given it much thoughts, but plants getting STDs....interesting! (Thank you, Popular Science!)
Can Plants Get STDs?
Just a quick little blurb I found online that was interesting. I had never given it much thoughts, but plants getting STDs....interesting! (Thank you, Popular Science!)
Can Plants Get STDs?
This is a very interesting topic. I have never thought about sexually transmitted disease affecting plants. It may be due to the lack of physical contact, mammals have, many don't think about sexually transmitted disease in plants. However, looking at the ways plants reproduce, it would be easy for plants to spread their plant STD. I would think it would be difficult to control sexually transmitted diseases in plants. Especially, since they can't be educated like humans and in most cases they don't really have a choice whom the interact with. I would be interested to see a detailed study about sexually transmitted disease in plants. I liked that the named it plant STD.
ReplyDeleteThis is an extremely interesting article. From Biology class, I learned that plants can contract viral infections and then spread those contagions to other plants. However, I never thought about plants transferring diseases sexually. In most of the US, STI’s are viewed with a high degree of religious and moral stigma. But interestingly, these plants are not “promiscuous.” Rather than obtaining an STI based upon their behavior or personal choices, these plants are “minding their own business” when they are haphazardly infected by an outside fungal source. I agree with the author in his critique of calling these plant infections “STD’s,” since transmission does not require that both plant “genders” have sex organs. In my mind, it is highly unlikely that this terminology will catch on anytime soon. It does, however, lend a unique perspective to this topic that is thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very interesting and definitely not a topic that I had ever thought possible before. My thought while reading this echos that of Rylan. Plants aren't being infected because of "promiscuous behavior", but are instead infected by fungal spores flying through the wind. The infected plants are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. I also agree with researchers that these infections should not technically be classified as "sexually transmitted", since the infection pathway does not require that the plants have sexual organs.
ReplyDeleteThis article brought forth a new light on plants associated diseases. When reflecting on the term "sexually transmitted disease" I never made the connection between cross pollination and disease. While the researchers delving into this topic have coined them reproductive diseases, I cannot help but think of asexual plants. They do not have a "partner" per say, yet they may be susceptible to random disease through natural forces. If this were to escalate it could have devastating effects on the environment. Natural food sources could be contaminated or die off as a result. If left untreated it could cause famine. That however, is the extreme. All in all I think this subject is quite interesting and worth looking into!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the scientists who say these should be called reproductive diseases as opposed to sexually transmitted diseases. Although they are similar, which I had never thought of before, calling them reproductive diseases clarifies the mechanism of transmission, and since there is no contact between the plants I think this is an appropriate term. This was a very interesting article to read since I had never thought of plants as being able to get STDs because their pollen is carried through the air or via insects, but in all actuallity what these plants get is very similar to an STD. Mariah is right, this should be looked into deeper and I'm sure research is being done, because if this got out of control there could be major famines because of it!
ReplyDeleteI found this article very interesting. I agree with everyone above that it should be called reproductive diseases rather than STD's as they do not usually have physical contact (though STD's can be caught without physical contact as well by infected blood infusions, needles, etc). Perhaps my primary concern rather than what to call it is the effect the fungus has on the intermediate hosts or on humans. Fungus can give off toxins and if these are parasitic they harm their host, though perhaps don't kill it. Yet, if any toxins are given off they may affect the intermediate host quite differently than the plant. I would like to know what, if any, effects there are on the bees or if it is consumed by humans, if there is any issue that may arise. The Salem Witch trials were partially (nothing is caused by only one factor in human history) caused by a fungus that had infected their rye grain. I would like to see more research into this topic and find out how wide-spread the problem is and besides any influence on animals (humans included) if the fungus thrives only on certain types of plants.
ReplyDeleteSTD is defined as a "sexually transmitted disease", therefore vegetation which contracts disease via wind blown spores or unsuspecting pollinators should not be considered victims of an STD. Furthermore, when plants become "infected" it is due to fungal spores, not bacteria or viruses. To say that plants have an STD because of spores would be equivalent to claiming that a human has an STD if there is mold growing on them or something. Also, sexually transmitted diseases are obviously those which can be spread via copulation, in this instance plants are not actually making physical contact for reproductive reasons, therefore such diseases can not accurately be called STDs. I think plant STD is just a phrase that is used to get people interested in the topic of diseased vegetation.
ReplyDeleteIt's very interesting to think that plants could get an STD, even though that is not exactly what they're talking about. The way of transmission makes me wonder if the insects could also be infected by these diseases, or even if it could infect a human. Even if it could be spread to certain types of mushroom that we eat or a mold developing in a house. It'll be interesting to see what sort of research they come up with involving these plant "STDs".
ReplyDeleteThis really is not an STD. I see it more as the human equivalent of getting lice “Don’t share the bumblebees!”, but since the pollen of the plants is transmitting it, I can see how they would consider it an STD or reproductive disease. Microbotryum violaceum is also known as anther smut fungus which sounds pretty gross. If you are a plant and get caught with this disease, you can just blame it on the wind.
ReplyDeleteI never thought of plants getting STDs. Now I wonder what other types of organisms get STDs.
I never thought of a plant having reproductive diseases. It would make sense though! If a disease forms in the reproductive structure of plants and are carried through the air by wind or rain and lands on another plant, then I would think that plant would contract that reproductive disease. This is an interesting topic and it brings me back to the latter studies of biology II.
ReplyDeleteWell I think most of us are in agreement: we never really considered plants able to receive STDs! I think we also can agree that diseases shared between plants are better referred to as reproductive diseases due to their method of transmission. I thought it was interesting to learn that the fungus can create a growth of extra flowers on the infected plant to spread infection more efficiently. I never realized how aggressive and intentional a plant disease could be in spreading itself. For this reason, I agree again that research on this topic should definitely continue and should continue vigorously. If reproductive diseases in plants continue to spread and evolve into more dangerous types, we will begin to see the effects soon.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting and something that I had not thought of. Just like most of the comments above, I don't agree with term "sexually transmitted disease" but instead "reproductive disease". I also found it interesting that the fungus can stimulate the diseased plant to spread the infection by producing more flowers. I would be interested to see if research on the topic will expand to plants that we would normally intake into our daily diet. It would interesting to see how science would be able to combat the spread in multiple plants.
ReplyDeleteThe Idea of plants having STD's is interesting to process. It would make sense that while plant fertilization is occurring that fungi would be able to infect different plants. I agree that at the end of the article that this phenomenon should be considered a reproductive disease rather than an STD since both plants don't need sexual organs. Overall I found this article interesting and would like to research this more in the future, during my free time, to see more in depth how this works.
ReplyDeleteI was extremely intrigued by the title of the article. It made complete sense that the transference of a sexual disease was through pollen since that is how plants go through sexual reproduction. What was truly surprising to me was the fact that fungi have invaded numerous ecological niches including having spores hitchhike on pollen. The fungal spores not only hitchhike using the wind that spread pollen, they also hitch a ride on the pollinators that the plant has to use resources to attract. This provides a very energy efficient mechanism for the fungus to spread to new ecosystems. The other methods that fungi use to infect other plants were innovative. Fungi burying into and infecting roots and seeds is an interesting way to propagate the infection from generation to generation.
ReplyDeleteObviously the name issue has been reasoned out and I'm in agreement with the researchers and everyone else who came to conclusion that "reproductive diseases" is a more fitting name for infected plants rather than "STD" and the reason being the way that the infection is transmitted and inhabits its host. Georgia's concern is one of more interest to me and it triggers many questions that could lead to much more research. Some questions that I wrestled with are:
ReplyDeleteHow does the infection affect the plant and/or the intermediate hosts/transporters?
-What does it do to them? Would it (the infection) cause a permanent change in a plants genetic code since it can spread to the seeds of another plant, and spread into the soil (making a permanent residence there) and infecting plant generations to come, possibly continuing the process for years/decades?
If the infected plant releases toxins because of the fungus, does this affect humans and/or other animals if touched, consumed, breathed? If so, how? What does it do? Can we utilize the product of the infected plant for research else where?
Is there another natural resource in nature (maybe even specific to each infected plant) that counter acts or fights off the RD?
Can a transporting insect detect that a plant is infected and therefore not pollinate that plant?
Another...intriguing, thought that arose in mind from this article is how plant "reproductive diseases" (RD) compare to animal sexually transmitted diseases (STD). The aggressiveness of both are dominating and devastating to the one infected, however the aggressiveness of the plants RD is slightly different (in my perspective) than the aggressiveness of animals STD. The physical appearance of animal STD is not at all appealing to other possible hosts (people, animals alike). In fact the physical appearances of the infection are almost a warning or alerting "no" mark. But in plants, the RD can make the plant produce more flowers, which are an attraction for the possible hosts/transporters (insects, people). Still, the overall physical appearance of the plant, no matter how many flowers, is not very appealing, at least from a human perspective. Here are some links to some pictures of an example plant without a RD and the same plant with the RD.
Example Pictures
plant before RD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryophyllaceae
plant after infected with RD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbotryum_violaceum
Just one more interest to point out, animal STD have many different types (ex. HPV, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS, syphilis) and plants have different types as well as described in this article http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/diseases-plants.html. The descriptions found there about the physical appearance of plant diseases sound similar to the physical and biological descriptions of animal STD (ex. overgrowth of cells, canker, spot or scab, stunting or underdevelopment).
All in all, obviously I found this study to be very interesting and I agree that more research should be done.
Thank you for sharing! :)
Obviously the name issue has been reasoned out and I'm in agreement with the researchers and everyone else who came to conclusion that "reproductive diseases" is a more fitting name for infected plants rather than "STD" and the reason being the way that the infection is transmitted and inhabits its host. Georgia's concern is one of more interest to me and it triggers many questions that could lead to much more research. Some questions that I wrestled with are:
ReplyDeleteHow does the infection affect the plant and/or the intermediate hosts/transporters?
-What does it do to them? Would it (the infection) cause a permanent change in a plants genetic code since it can spread to the seeds of another plant, and spread into the soil (making a permanent residence there) and infecting plant generations to come, possibly continuing the process for years/decades?
If the infected plant releases toxins because of the fungus, does this affect humans and/or other animals if touched, consumed, breathed? If so, how? What does it do? Can we utilize the product of the infected plant for research else where?
Is there another natural resource in nature (maybe even specific to each infected plant) that counter acts or fights off the RD?
Can a transporting insect detect that a plant is infected and therefore not pollinate that plant?
Another...intriguing, thought that arose in mind from this article is how plant "reproductive diseases" (RD) compare to animal sexually transmitted diseases (STD). The aggressiveness of both are dominating and devastating to the one infected, however the aggressiveness of the plants RD is slightly different (in my perspective) than the aggressiveness of animals STD. The physical appearance of animal STD is not at all appealing to other possible hosts (people, animals alike). In fact the physical appearances of the infection are almost a warning or alerting "no" mark. But in plants, the RD can make the plant produce more flowers, which are an attraction for the possible hosts/transporters (insects, people). Still, the overall physical appearance of the plant, no matter how many flowers, is not very appealing, at least from a human perspective. Here are some links to some pictures of an example plant without a RD and the same plant with the RD.
Example Pictures
plant before RD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryophyllaceae
plant after infected with RD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbotryum_violaceum
Just one more interest to point out, animal STD have many different types (ex. HPV, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS, syphilis) and plants have different types as well as described in this article http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/diseases-plants.html. The descriptions found there about the physical appearance of plant diseases sound similar to the physical and biological descriptions of animal STD (ex. overgrowth of cells, canker, spot or scab, stunting or underdevelopment).
All in all, obviously I found this study to be very interesting and I agree that more research should be done.
Thank you for sharing! :)
This article is very interesting, and I never would have thought of plants having sexual transmitted diseases. I'm not certain that is how these diseases should be referred. Since sexual transmitted diseases are contracted by genital to genital contact and plants do not do this. I'm wondering if this would affect our ecosystem. Can this possibly harm the herbivores?
ReplyDeleteAlthough this topic has never even came through my mind, it is interesting. I would have never considered plants to have STD's. I think labeling their disease as an STD is a little bit of a stretch with what is really happening, but the information is still something to consider.
ReplyDeleteIt is really interesting to know that plants have STD too! I am not very surprised that this reproductive disease it spread by fungi because they remain the main cause of plant disease worldwide. Recently, it was reported in a research study that they use and abuse pollinators, which will have a great effect in floral evolution, pollination ecology, plant life history traits, as well as disease-transmission dynamics in future.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169534794901546
At first glance, the title of this article caught my attention and I clicked on the link anticipating a scientific discovery of promiscuous plants contacting STDs because they mated with the wrong plant. The article's findings however, were a little disappointing. In fact, it isn't news that fungi are pesky neighbors to plants whenever they coexist in the same environment, so it makes sense that they would not only discolor the host plant's leaves, flowers and roots, but also mar their reproductive instruments as well. With that in mind, I agree with everyone else who said that these infections shouldn't be called STDs, but reproductive diseases. In fact, the article suggests that the fungi instigators of these infections could cause damage even in asexual plants. I honestly feel a level of sympathy for these plants because they are helpless victims who didn't consciously ask for these infections, but they were dealt a bad hand either by sprouting roots in the wrong soil, or allowing contaminated pollinators to make nests in their branches. In conclusion, I think this research should be explored further because a better understanding of the plights that plague the plant kingdom will be beneficial to all the other kingdoms (especially ours) which depend on plants for sustenance.
ReplyDeleteThis is a unique topic to wonder if plants can get STDs. But I wouldn't say they are STDs because its not like the act is being performed. So it really doesn't fall under that. But the Fungi being a problem makes since I remember as a kid that we had a plant that got some fungi infection and we had to buy some special chemical to save the plant. But spores being a Transportering these doesn't surprise me there a lot of things out there that catch a ride until they get to a host.
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess we need to start spreading awareness for "safe sex" throughout the plant kingdom. Regardless, this is interesting information and a good conversation piece. I wonder if by researching these reproductive diseases, we could gain insight on how they could affect the human population, especially if this "STD" affected crop yielding plants. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very thought provoking. I find myself trying to see the connection of the plants and the STD's that humans get. Of course the same act is not being performed but it is still an interesting correlation. I think its fascinating that there is a similarity in the reproductive acts of humans and the reproductive acts of plants can cause diseases. I would like to see research done where the fungus is monitored in both sexual and asexual speicies of plants. I think this would help to open the idea of it is an interaction disease of just a reproductive disease. All in all though the article was a very good read.
ReplyDeleteThis topic was very interesting! However, I believe the title was slightly misleading. As the article noted, instead of calling these diseases sexually transmitted diseases, it would probably be more appropriate to call them reproductive diseases. Although the reproductive track in humans and plants are often effected through contact, for plants it is indirect contact. The way plants contract these fungal diseases are a million times different than in humans. Because of this fact I think it's a bit of a stretch to consider them STDs, but nonetheless it was an interesting read. Thanks for the share!
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting. I would definitely like to see more research on this. It does make sense though, that these diseases can spread through pollen exchange.
ReplyDeleteThis is a pretty interesting article. It'll be cool to see a potential niche develop in research for this. To be honest though I was not too surprised to hear that this happened in plans. In my mind I always associate physical contact physic or other whose as a may of disease transfer. I wonder how those who only eat plants would feel about this article.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic. I can honestly say I have never thought about plants having STDs. Of course, as it is mentioned, a better name for these diseases would be reproductive diseases because it is spread indirectly through pollen exchange instead of actual sexual contact. I wonder what further research can find out about this topic?
ReplyDeleteIt's such an interesting thought that a non-human object, like a plant, can have a disease that is associated with a sexually active human. Of course, STDs are viruses and viruses can spread through the pollen. However, it has never crosses my mind that is would be possible since I relate STD to sexual interactions. It would be fascinating to see further research on this topic.
ReplyDelete