Even if your claims were true, which they aren't, you're cherry picking (the horror!), if you do really believe that, then you should be even more against animal agriculture as many more precious plants must be killed to feed the animals. It's not like you can grow a creature to the size to eat it's flesh without feeding it far more than it's weight. Conservation of mass etc.
But let's get back to your bolder, more out there, claims.
"Neuroscientists have positively confirmed the areas of human neurology (brain stem, limbic system, etc) that serve to provide sentience and complex emotion. All vertebrates, and at least some non-vertebrate animals, have these nervous system components, providing strong positive, empirical evidence that such beings are sentient, and that most of them have highly subjective, emotional lives. Plants do not have any of these neurological components. Importantly, a necessary condition of consciousness is sentient experience—there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that plants possess sentient experience.
As unconscious entities, plants have no subjective conscious interest that would be morally relevant to whether we kill them for food or other sufficient reasons. We should respect plants in the same sense in which we respect the beauty, complexity, and wonder of insentient nature and natural phenomena in general, which entails reducing our impact on them as much as is reasonable, and not destroying them gratuitously. However, our moral obligations regarding plants do not compare in kind to our direct moral obligations to vertebrates, whose sentience and conscious, intentional striving for life and survival is obvious to us."
Now, if you want to start arguing they have a soul which is separate from their body and interprets this complex emotions, that'd be a different discussion. But as it stands all we have proved is that they combine sensory input to make reasonable evolved responses. Just like how a light switch responds to a flip by turning on a light. It's how the system's built, it doesn't prove the system is capable of understanding and interpreting your actions.
You just mistook one example plant for ALL plants. The mimosa plant is a very fascinating and interesting plant which can learn to respond to touch. Saying that is intelligence or memory for everyone else in the kingdom is one extraordinary claim. It's like all animals can create civilization because humans did!
Not to mention, this is how the scientists described that remembering, “Plants may lack brains and neural tissues but they do possess a sophisticated calcium-based signaling network in their cells similar to animals’ memory processes,” Which is tissue of the leave learning how it was touched and not responding by closing. This isn't anything near as complex as remembering a location or place, and is probably just localized to the leaves.
This gained media coverage around the world because of how it was phrased "plants are intelligent!" Of course "intelligence" is nebulous word. If we made similar claims about pigs and dolphins no one would really care because we know they are "intelligent." What they are in truth saying is plants are more intelligent than we give them credit for.
From the original New Yorker article that sparked this all,
“intelligent behavior” as “the ability to adapt to changing circumstances” and noted that it “must always be measured relative to a particular environment.
Which makes sense, many plants can respond well in their environment because that's where they underwent natural selection to become effective. If intelligence is just being able to adequately and smartly respond in your own environment then they are as smart as us potentially, they claim.
But, that's not what we laymen usually mean when we use the world intelligence. We mean far more, ability to solve problems, experience pain, feel companionship with kindred of our species. Things which are larger then simple responses to our environment. It's really a abuse of the term for the sake of your argument here.
This is still basically a complicated light switch. Beans send signals to other beans that they should release a chemical to thwart an invader.
Most animals can do all this and far more. Maybe this does collectively mean we should give plants more moral consideration, but that doesn't take away from other moral considerations. In any case, the only moral choice is vegetarianism or veganism since we would in turn hurt far less plants, it takes 16 pounds of plants to generate one pound of meat.
Lastly, Vertebrates and many invertebrates are definitively further up the intelligence scale in terms of how we normally consider it. Also unquestionable sentient. Every article you posted just claims we should consider them smarter, not that they're more sentient than the animals we eat or more worthy of moral consideration.