ReviewCommunicative & integrative biology2021
Cracking the code: a comparative approach to plant communication.
Review in Communicative & integrative biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing Proton Transfer Reaction (PTR) and Adduct Ionization Mechanism (AIM) for the Study of Volatile Organic Compounds.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Volatile organic compounds in pea plants: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Artificial and biological supports are different for pea plants.Plant signaling & behavior · 2024Article
- How (not) to Talk to a Plant: An Application of Automata Theory to Plant Communication.Acta biotheoretica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The linguistic behavior of humans is usually considered the point of reference for studying the origin and evolution of language. As commonly defined, language is a form of communication between human beings; many have argued that it is unique to humans as there is no apparent equivalent for it in non-human organisms. How language is used as a means of communication is examined in this essay from a biological perspective positing that it is effectively and meaningfully used by non-human organisms and, more specifically, by plants. We set out to draw parallels between some aspects characterizing human language and the chemical communication that occurs between plants. The essay examines the similarities in ways of communicating linked to three properties of language: its combinatorial structure, meaning-making activities and the existence of dialects. In accordance with the findings of researchers who have demonstrated that plants do indeed communicate with one another and with organisms in their environment, the essay concludes with the appeal for an interdisciplinary approach conceptualizing a broader ecological definition of language and a constructive dialogue between the biological sciences and the humanities.
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.