Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38949721›Full record

ArticleActa biotheoretica2024

How (not) to Talk to a Plant: An Application of Automata Theory to Plant Communication.

Lorenzo Baravalle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta biotheoretica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Lorenzo BaravalleCentro de Filosofia das Ciências, Departamento de História e Filosofia das Ciências, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa Campo Grande, Edifício C4, 3º Piso, Sala 4.3.24, 1749-016, Lisbon, Portugal. lbaravalle@fc.ul.pt.

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia DL57/2016/CP1479/CT0064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants are capable of a range of complex interactions with the environment. Over the last decade, some authors have used this as evidence to argue that plants are cognitive agents. While there is no consensus on this view, it is certainly interesting to approach the debate from a comparative perspective, trying to understand whether different lineages of plants show different degrees of responsiveness to environmental cues, and how their responses compare with those of animals or humans. In this paper, I suggest that a potentially fruitful approach to these comparative studies is provided by automata theory. Accordingly, I shall present a possible application of this theory to plant communication. Two tentative results will emerge. First, that different lineages may exhibit different levels of complexity in response to similar stimuli. Second, that current evidence does not allow to infer great cognitive sophistication in plants.

Indexed as

Plant Physiological PhenomenaPlantsAnimalsCognitionHumansAutomata theoryChomsky’s hierarchyComparative approachPlant cognitionPlant communication

Identifiers

PMID38949721
PMCPMC11217117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.