ArticleeLife2020
Response to comment on 'Lack of evidence for associative learning in pea plants'.
Article in eLife, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term transcriptional memory and association-forming ability of tomato plants in response to ultrasound and drought stress stimuli.Plant signaling & behavior · 2025Article
- Short-term transcriptional memory and association-forming ability of tomato plants in response to ultrasound and drought stress stimuli.Plant signaling & behavior · 2025Article
- Vegetal memory through the lens of transcriptomic changes - recent progress and future practical prospects for exploiting plant transcriptional memory.Plant signaling & behavior · 2024Review
- Vegetal memory through the lens of transcriptomic changes - recent progress and future practical prospects for exploiting plant transcriptional memory.Plant signaling & behavior · 2024Review
- Understanding interdisciplinary perspectives of plant intelligence: Is it a matter of science, language, or subjectivity?Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2022Article
- Identification of intelligence-related proteins through a robust two-layer predictor.Communicative & integrative biology · 2022Article
- Our sisters the plants? notes from phylogenetics and botany on plant kinship blindness.Plant signaling & behavior · 2021Article
- Debunking a myth: plant consciousness.Protoplasma · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2016 Gagliano et al. reported evidence for associative learning in plants (Gagliano et al., 2016). A subsequent attempt to replicate this finding by the present author was not successful (Markel, 2020). Gagliano et al. attribute this lack of replication to differences in the experimental set-ups used in the original work and the replication attempt (Gagliano et al., 2020). Here, based on a comparison of the two set-ups, I argue that these differences are unable to explain the lack of replication in Markel, 2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.