ArticleProtoplasma2025
Reply to Calvo, Raja, and Segundo-Ortin, "Don't jump the gun quite yet: aiming for the true target in plant neurobiology research".
Article in Protoplasma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to Calvo, Raja, and Segundo-Ortin, "Don't jump the gun quite yet: aiming for the true target in plant neurobiology research".Protoplasma · 2025Article
- Understanding otherness-the anthropocentrism trap.Protoplasma · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We reply to the response by P Calvo, V Raja, and M Segundo-Ortin to our article titled "Plant 'intelligence' and the misuse of historical sources as evidence." Their response draws on the authority of psychologist Edward C. Tolman in support of their suggestion that the study of plant intelligence requires an interdisciplinary approach, including cognitive science and other disciplines. We argue that there is no justification for using Tolman as an authority in support of the study of plant intelligence. For Tolman, psychology was confined to the study of organisms with brains, and therefore his comment, when taken in context, has no bearing on the subject of plant intelligence. Calvo et al.'s use of this quotation is a further example of the misuse of a historical authority to support their claim that disciplines such as cognitive science can be applied to the study of those plant behaviors that they consider to be "intelligent."
Indexed as
Identifiers
39545947What 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.