Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41667876›Full record

ReviewProtoplasma2026

Plant emotion revisited: toward a new conceptual framework.

Katia Forsman, Jari Jussila

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Protoplasma, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Katia Forsman *, Salo, Finland.
Jari Jussila *HAMK Design Factory, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Vankanlähde 9, Hämeenlinna, 13100, Finland. jari.jussila@hamk.fi.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional paradigms in basic emotion research, largely grounded in animal and human psychology, are problematic when extended to plants due to fundamental biological and neurophysiological differences. This paper criticizes the anthropocentric tendency to equate plant responses with human emotional states, emphasizing that plants, lacking a central nervous system and brain, cannot experience feelings in the human sense. Instead, we propose a novel conceptual framework: emotus plantarum. This term defines a plant-specific signaling system that fulfills a role functionally analogous to emotions in animals—coordinating adaptive responses to environmental stimuli. Unlike cognitive models that presuppose centralized information processing, emotus plantarum reframes abilities such as learning, memory, anticipation, and decision-making as emergent, decentralized properties of plant physiology that serve emotion system functions. These processes modulate plant behavior, such as tropisms, nastic movements, and chemical signaling enabling flexible, context-dependent reactions that enhance survival and fitness. This framework shift allows for a more biologically appropriate interpretation of plant behavior, bypassing the need to force-fit plant responses into anthropomorphic categories. By repositioning these attributes within an emotion system framework unique to plants, the concept of emotus plantarum offers a more nuanced approach to understanding plant-environment interactions. Ultimately, this perspective promotes a deeper integration of plant-specific biology into the study of adaptive behavior, opening new avenues for research in plant signaling, communication, and responsiveness.

Indexed as

EmotionsPlant Physiological PhenomenaPlantsHumansSignal TransductionCore affectEmotus plantarumPlant consciousnessPlant emotionPlant neurobiologyPlant sentiencePlant signaling

Identifiers

PMID41667876
PMCPMC13109108

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.