{{Short description|Proposed cognition of plants}} [[File:J.C.Bose.JPG|thumb|J. C. Bose has been described as the "father of plant neurobiology".<ref name="Minorsky 2021"/>]] '''Plant intelligence''' is a field of plant biology which aims to understand how plants process the information they obtain from their environment. Plant intelligence has been defined as "any type of intentional and flexible behavior that is beneficial and enables the organism to achieve its goal".
'''Plant neurobiology''' is a subfield of plant intelligence research that claims plants possess abilities associated with cognition including anticipation, decision making, learning, and memory. Terminology used in plant neurobiology is rejected by the majority of plant scientists as misleading, as plants do not possess consciousness or neurons, thus the term plant gnosophysiology is infrequently used. Most plant scientists tend to avoid using the term "intelligence" to refer to plants in their published research, despite the rise of the term in popular science writing.
== History ==
===Early research===
In 1811, James Perchard Tupper authored ''[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/106947 An Essay on the Probability of Sensation in Vegetables]'' which argued that plants possess a low form of sensation, have sensitivity, and potentially have a nervous system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Macdougal|first=D. T.|date=1895|title=Popular Science Monthly/Volume 47/June 1895/Irritability and Movement in Plants - Wikisource, the free online library|url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_47/June_1895/Irritability_and_Movement_in_Plants|access-date=2026-04-23|website=en.wikisource.org|series=47: 225–234.|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Sha|first=Richard C.|title=Perverse Romanticism: Aesthetics and Sexuality in Britain, 1750–1832|date=2009|publisher=Johns Hopkins University|isbn=978-0-8018-9041-3|pages=60–61}}</ref> It was believed that thinkers like Tupper who believed in plant sensitivity credited God, who kindly designed all organisms with purpose.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Whippo|first1=Craig W.|last2=Hangarter|first2=Roger P.|year=2009|title=The "Sensational" Power of Movement in Plants: A Darwinian System for Studying the Evolution of Behavior|journal=American Journal of Botany|volume=96|issue=12|pages=2115–2127|bibcode=2009AmJB...96.2115W|doi=10.3732/ajb.0900220|pmid=21622330}}</ref>
The notion that plants are capable of feeling emotions was first recorded in 1848, when Gustav Fechner, an experimental psychologist, suggested that plants are capable of emotions and that one could promote healthy growth with talk, attention, attitude, and affection.<ref>Heidelberger, Michael. (2004). ''Nature From Within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and his Psychophysical Worldview''. University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 54. {{ISBN|0-8229-4210-0}}</ref> Federico Delpino wrote about plant intelligence in 1867.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Mancuso S | title = Federico Delpino and the foundation of plant biology | journal = Plant Signaling & Behavior | volume = 5 | issue = 9 | pages = 1067–71 | date = September 2010 | pmid = 21490417 | pmc = 3115070 | doi = 10.4161/psb.5.9.12102 | bibcode = 2010PlSiB...5.1067M }}</ref>
The idea of cognition in plants was explored by Charles Darwin in 1880 in the book ''The Power of Movement in Plants'', co-authored with his son Francis. Using a neurological metaphor, he described the sensitivity of plant roots in proposing that the tip of roots acts like the brain of some lower animals. This involves reacting to sensation in order to determine their next movement.<ref>Darwin, C. (1880). The Power of Movement in Plants. London: John Murray. [http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_ThePowerofMovementinPlants.html Darwin Online] : "The course pursued by the radicle in penetrating the ground must be determined by the tip; hence it has acquired such diverse kinds of sensitiveness. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed, and having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense-organs, and directing the several movements."</ref><ref name="Root brain">{{cite journal | doi=10.4161/psb.4.12.10574 | title=The 'root-brain' hypothesis of Charles and Francis Darwin | date=2009 | last1=Baluška | first1=František | last2=Mancuso | first2=Stefano | last3=Volkmann | first3=Dieter | last4=Barlow | first4=Peter | journal=Plant Signaling & Behavior | volume=4 | issue=12 | pages=1121–1127 | pmid=20514226 | pmc=2819436 | bibcode=2009PlSiB...4.1121B }}</ref> Darwin's "root-brain hypothesis" influenced those in the field of plant neurobiology many years later.<ref name="Root brain" />
John Ellor Taylor in his 1884 book ''The Sagacity and Morality of Plants'' argued that plants are conscious agents.<ref>{{cite journal|year=1886|title=The Sagacity of Plants|journal=The Month|url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924065946786&seq=229|volume=57|issue=264|pages=217–225}}</ref><ref name=":022">{{Cite book |last=Taylor |first=John Ellor |url=http://archive.org/details/sagacitymoralit00taylgoog |title=The sagacity & morality of plants; a sketch of the life & conduct of the vegetable kingdom |date=1884 |publisher=London, Chatto and Windus |others=Oxford University}}</ref> He says that, "there can be no life absolutely without psychological action — that the latter is the result of the former."<ref name=":022" /> He believed that plants possess a similar trait to instinct in animals which is gaining experience and passing down those experiences to descendants.<ref name=":022" />
In 1900, ornithologist Thomas G. Gentry authored ''Intelligence in Plants and Animals'' which argued that plants have consciousness. Historian Ed Folsom described it as "an exhaustive investigation of how such animals as bees, ants, worms and buzzards, as well as all kinds of plants, display intelligence and thus have souls".<ref>{{cite journal |author=Folsom, Ed |year=1983 |title=The Mystical Ornithologist and the Iowa Tufthunter: Two Unpublished Whitman Letters and Some Identifications |journal=Walt Whitman Quarterly Review |url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/61122805.pdf |volume=1 |pages=18–29 |doi=10.13008/2153-3695.1003 |doi-access=free |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211024173124/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/61122805.pdf |archive-date=24 October 2021}}</ref>
Captain Arthur Smith in the early 1900s authored the first article on "plant consciousness".<ref name=":15">{{cite journal |author=Smith, Arthur|year=1907|title=Plant Consciousness|journal=The Arena|url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101064462722&seq=604|volume=37|issue=211|pages=570–576}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Smith, Arthur|year=1913|title=The Brain Power of Plants|journal=Gardener's Chronicle of America|url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924094249087&seq=209|volume=16|issue=5|pages=427–429}}</ref> In his article, Smith blurred the lines between plants and animals by pointing out the "sensibility" of plants, like animals, to outside stimuli as a form of consciousness.<ref name=":15" /> Smith argued that the brain, which plants lack, is not necessary for consciousness, since animals like Protozoa and Coelenterata lack it but still are labeled as conscious.<ref name=":15" /> Also, Smith defined intelligence as the ability to change behaviors based on different situations, as seen in the Mimosa when it responds to light touch, shadows, and darkness.<ref name=":15" />
In 1905, Rev. Charles Fletcher Argyll Saxby authored a pamphlet, ''Do Plants Think? Some speculations concerning a neurology and psychology of plants''.<ref>{{cite journal|year=1906|title=Do Plants Think?|journal=The Gardeners' Chronicle|url=https://archive.org/details/gardenerschronic339lond/page/56/mode/2up|volume=3|issue=39|page=57}}</ref>
Maurice Maeterlinck wrote about the intelligence of flowers in 1907.<ref name="Cvrcková 2009">{{cite journal|author=Cvrcková F, Lipavská H, Zárský V.|year=2009|title=Plant intelligence: Why, why not or where?|journal=Plant Signal Behav|volume=4|issue=5|pages=394–399|doi=10.4161/psb.4.5.8276|pmid=19816094|pmc=2676749|bibcode=2009PlSiB...4..394C }}</ref>
Royal Dixon in his 1914 book, ''The Human Side of Plants'' argued that plants are sentient and have minds and souls.<ref>{{cite journal|year=1915|title=(1) The Hundred Best Animals (2) True Stories about Horses (3) The Human Side of Plants|journal=Nature|url=https://archive.org/details/paper-doi-10_1038_096225a0/mode/2up|volume=96|issue=2400|pages=225–226|doi=10.1038/096225a0|bibcode=1915Natur..96..225. |s2cid=3968327 }}</ref>
=== Jagadish Chandra Bose === Jagadish Chandra Bose invented various devices and instruments to measure electrical responses in plants.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Galston, Arthur W; Slayman, Clifford L. |year=1979 |title=The Not-So-Secret Life of Plants |journal=American Scientist |url=https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Not-So-Secret-Life-of-Plants.pdf |volume=67 |issue=3 |pages=337–344 |jstor=27849226 |bibcode=1979AmSci..67..337G}}</ref><ref>V. A Shepard cited in Alexander Volkov. (2012). ''Plant Electrophysiology: Methods and Cell Electrophysiology''. Springer. p. 12. {{ISBN|978-3-642-29119-7}} "Bose began by applying delicate instrumentation he had invented in his semiconductor research to deliver electrical stimuli and record electrical responses from various plant parts... He discovered that both living animal and plant tissues exhibited a diminution of sensitivity after continuous stimulation, recovery after rest, a 'staircase' or summation of electrical effects following mechanical stimulation, abolition of current flow after applying poisons and reduced sensitivity at low temperature."</ref> Bose is considered an important forerunner of plant neurobiology by proponents of plant cognition.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Kingsland, Sharon E; Taiz, Lincoln|year=2024|title=Plant "intelligence" and the misuse of historical sources as evidence|journal=Protoplasma |volume=262 |issue=2 |pages=223–246 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00709-024-01988-1|doi=10.1007/s00709-024-01988-1|pmid=39276228|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Tandon PN|year=2019|title=Jagdish Chandra Bose & plant neurobiology|journal=Indian J Med Res|volume=149|issue=5|pages=593–599|doi=10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_392_19|doi-access=free |pmid=31417026|pmc=6702694 }}</ref><ref name="Minorsky 2021">{{cite journal|author=Minorsky, Peter V.|year=2021|title=American racism and the lost legacy of Sir Jagadis Chandra Bose, the father of plant neurobiology|journal=Plant Signal Behav|volume=16|issue=1|article-number=1818030|doi=10.1080/15592324.2020.1818030|pmid=33275072|pmc=7781790 |bibcode=2021PlSiB..1618030M }}</ref>
According to biologist Patrick Geddes "In his investigations on response in general Bose had found that even ordinary plants and their different organs were sensitive— exhibiting, under mechanical or other stimuli, an electric response, indicative of excitation."<ref>Geddes, Patrick. (1920). [https://archive.org/stream/sirjagadisbose00geddrich#page/120/mode/2up ''The Life and Work of Sir Jagadis C. Bose'']. Longmans, Green & Company. p. 120</ref> One visitor to his laboratory, the vegetarian playwright George Bernard Shaw, was intensely disturbed upon witnessing a demonstration in which a cabbage had "convulsions" as it boiled to death.<ref>Geddes, Patrick. (1920). [https://archive.org/stream/sirjagadisbose00geddrich#page/146/mode/2up ''The Life and Work of Sir Jagadis C. Bose'']. Longmans, Green & Company. p. 146</ref>
Bose was the author of ''The Nervous Mechanism of Plants'', published in 1926. Karl F. Kellerman, Associate Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Department of Agriculture criticized Bose's interpretation of the results from his experiments, stating that he failed to prove the conclusions from his reports that plants feel pain. Kellerman commented that "Sir Jagadar passed an electric current through plants, and his instruments recorded a break in the current. Such variations in resistance to electric current are found even when passing a current through dead matter".<ref>{{cite journal|year=1926|title=Pain in Plants|journal=The Florists' Review|url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924094275066&seq=224|volume=58|issue=4|page=36}}</ref>
===Cleve Backster=== [[File:Cleve Backster 1969.png|thumb|Cleve Backster in 1969]]
In the 1960s Cleve Backster, an interrogation specialist with the CIA, conducted research that led him to believe that plants can feel and respond to emotions and intents from other organisms including humans. Backster's interest in the subject began in February 1966 when he tried to measure the rate at which water rises from a philodendron's root into its leaves. Because a polygraph or "lie detector" can measure electrical resistance, which would alter when the plant was watered, he attached a polygraph to one of the plant's leaves. Backster stated that, to his immense surprise, "the tracing began to show a pattern typical of the response you get when you subject a human to emotional stimulation of short duration".<ref>Backster, Cleve. (2003). ''Primary Perception: Biocommunication with Plants, Living Foods, and Human Cells''. White Rose Millennium Press. {{ISBN|978-0966435436}}</ref> His ideas about primary perception (plants responding to emotions and intents) became known as the "Backster effect".<ref name="Kmetz 1978">{{cite journal|author=Kmetz, John M.|year=1978|title=Plant Primary Perception: The Other Side of the Leaf|journal=Skeptical Inquirer|url=https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1978/04/22165501/p55.pdf|volume=2|issue=2|pages=57–61}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|author=Jensen, Derrick|date=1997|title=The Plants Respond|url=https://www.thesunmagazine.org/articles/23434-the-plants-respond|website=The Sun|language=en-GB|archive-date=July 23, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240723080155/https://www.thesunmagazine.org/articles/23434-the-plants-respond|url-status=live}}</ref>
In 1975, K. A. Horowitz, D. C. Lewis and E. L. Gasteiger published an article in ''Science'' giving their results when repeating one of Backster's effects{{snd}}plant response to the killing of brine shrimp in boiling water.<ref name="Horowitz 1975">{{cite journal|author=Horowitz KA, Lewis DC, Gasteiger EL|year=1975|title=Plant "primary perception": electrophysiological unresponsiveness to brine shrimp killing|journal=Science|url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.189.4201.478|volume=189|issue=4201|pages=478–480|pmid=17781887|doi=10.1126/science.189.4201.478|bibcode=1975Sci...189..478H |url-access=subscription}}</ref> The researchers grounded the plants to reduce electrical interference and rinsed them to remove dust particles. As a control, three of five pipettes contained brine shrimp while the remaining two only had water; the pipettes were delivered to the boiling water at random. This investigation used a total of 60 brine shrimp deliveries to boiling water while Backster's had used 13. Positive correlations did not occur at a rate great enough to be considered statistically significant.<ref name="Horowitz 1975"/> Other controlled experiments that attempted to replicate Backster's findings also produced negative results.<ref name="Galston 1981">Galston, Arthur W; Slayman, Clifford L. ''Plant Sensitivity and Sensation''. In George Ogden Abell, Barry Singer. (1981). ''Science and the Paranormal: Probing the Existence of the Supernatural''. Junction Books. pp. 40-55. {{ISBN|0-86245-037-3}}</ref><ref>Schwebs, Ursula. (1973). ''Do Plants Have Feelings?'' ''Harpers''. pp. 75-76</ref><ref>Chedd, Graham. (1975). ''AAAS takes on Emotional Plants''. ''New Scientist''. 13 February. pp. 400-401</ref><ref>Neher, Andrew. (2011). ''Paranormal and Transcendental Experience: A Psychological Examination''. Dover Publications. pp. 155-156. {{ISBN|978-0486261676}}</ref>
Botanist Arthur Galston and physiologist Clifford L. Slayman who investigated Backster's claims wrote:
<blockquote>There is no objective scientific evidence for the existence of such complex behaviour in plants. The recent spate of popular literature on "plant consciousness" appears to have been triggered by "experiments" with a lie detector, subsequently reported and embellished in a book called ''The Secret Life of Plants''. Unfortunately, when scientists in the discipline of plant physiology attempted to repeat the experiments, using either identical or improved equipment, the results were uniformly negative. Further investigation has shown that the original observations probably arose from defective measuring procedures.<ref name="Galston 1981"/></blockquote>
John M. Kmetz noted that the Backster effect was based on observations of only seven plants, which nobody including Backster was able to replicate.<ref name="Kmetz 1978"/>
The television show ''MythBusters'' also performed experiments (season 4, episode 18, 2006) to test the concept. The tests involved connecting plants to a polygraph galvanometer and employing actual and imagined harm upon the plants or upon others in the plants' vicinity. The galvanometer showed a reaction about one third of the time. The experimenters, who were in the room with the plant, posited that the vibrations of their actions or the room itself could have affected the polygraph. After isolating the plant, the polygraph showed a response slightly less than one third of the time. Later experiments with an EEG failed to detect anything. The show concluded that the results were not repeatable, and that the theory was not true.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/09/episode_61_deadly_straw_primar.html |work= Annotated Mythbusters |title= Episode 61: Deadly Straw, Primary Perception |date= September 6, 2006 |access-date= February 28, 2010 |archive-date= May 15, 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210515073417/http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/09/episode_61_deadly_straw_primar.html }}</ref>
Backster's research was cited in the pseudoscientific book ''The Secret Life of Plants'' in 1973.<ref name="Horowitz 1975"/><ref>{{cite journal|author=Mescher, Mark C; Moraes, Consuelo M. De|year=2015|title=Role of plant sensory perception in plant–animal interactions|journal=Journal of Experimental Biology|url=http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/2/425.full|volume=66|issue=2|pages=425–433|doi=10.1093/jxb/eru414|pmid=25371503 |hdl=20.500.11850/95438|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161107010553/http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/2/425.full |archive-date=7 November 2016 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> Whilst the book captured public attention it severely damaged the credibility of the field of plant intelligence. Philosopher Yogi H. Hendlin noted that the book's "combination of haphazard, panpsychist metaphysical speculations and unmethodical citizen science stigmatised legitimate progressive plant research, alongside the era's new-age pseudoscience, tarring the discipline's serious inquiry".<ref>{{cite journal|author=Hendlin, Yogi H.|year=2022|title=Plant Philosophy and Interpretation|journal=Environmental Values|url=https://pure.eur.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/54702311/Plant_Philosophy_and_Interpretation_Making_Sense_of_Contemporary_Plant_Intelligence_Debates.pdf|volume=31|issue=3|pages=253–276|doi=10.3197/096327121X16141642287755}}</ref>
===Dorothy Retallack=== In 1973, Dorothy Retallack authored ''The Sound of Music and Plants''.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2015|title=The inner life of plants|url=https://theweek.com/articles/467919/inner-life-plants|website=The Week|language=en-GB}}</ref> In the book, Retallack records experiments she conducted at Colorado Women's College on applying different music to plants in controlled chambers.<ref name="Ribley 1971" /> After about 20 experiments, she stated that the plants died in response to acid rock, had no response to country music, and flourished under classical music and jazz.<ref name="Ribley 1971">{{Cite web|title=Rock or Bach an Issue to Plants, Singer Says|author=Ribley, Anthony|date=1971|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/02/21/archives/rock-or-bach-an-issue-to-plants-singer-says.html|website=The New York Times|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=1975-11-23|title=House plants hate hard rock|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/11/23/archives/house-plants-hate-hard-rock.html|access-date=2026-04-22|work=The New York Times|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Retallack was ecstatic to find out that her and the plants had overlapping taste in music.<ref name="Ribley 1971" />
Despite Retallack's pride in her experiments, the experiments were described as pseudoscientific and poorly designed as there was a lack of control for factors such as humidity, light and water.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chalker-Scott|first=Linda|date=2008|title=The Informed Gardener|url=https://wpcdn.web.wsu.edu/wp-puyallup/uploads/sites/403/2015/03/bad-science.pdf|publisher=University of Washington Press|pages=5–9|isbn=978-0-295-98790-3|jstor=j.ctvcwnb45.4.}}</ref> Also, Retallack did not have scientific definitions for genres of music.<ref name="Ribley 1971" /> Professors and researchers from Colorado Women's College expressed anger and embarrassment over the experiments.<ref name="Ribley 1971" /> Nonetheless, Retallack's work had a lasting impact, as attempts to replicate her experiment are still ongoing to this day.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Joanne Pei Sze Yeoh|last2=Zixue Zhang|last3=Khong Shien Koh|last4=Uma Rani Sinniah|last5=Charles Spence|last6=Wen Fen Beh|date=2024-09-02|title=Music for Plants? An Investigation into the impact of Exposure to Acoustic Stimulus in Bok Choy (Brassica Rapa) Plants|url=https://esiculture.com/index.php/esiculture/article/view/677|journal=Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture|pages=129–143|doi=10.70082/esiculture.vi.677|issn=2472-9876}}</ref>
== Modern research == {{Fringe section|date=April 2026}} Anthony Trewavas is credited with reintroducing the idea of plant intelligence in the early 2000s.<ref name="Cvrcková 2009"/><ref name="Trewavas 2003"/><ref>{{cite journal|author=Trewavas, Anthony|year=2002|title=Plant intelligence: Mindless mastery|journal=Nature|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/415841a|volume=415|issue=841|page=841 | doi=10.1038/415841a|pmid=11859344 |bibcode=2002Natur.415..841T }}</ref> In 2003, Trewavas led a study to see how the roots interact with one another and study their signal transduction methods. He was able to draw similarities between water stress signals in plants affecting developmental changes and signal transductions in neural networks causing responses in muscle.<ref name="Trewavas 2003">{{cite journal | vauthors = Trewavas A | title = Aspects of plant intelligence | journal = Annals of Botany | volume = 92 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–20 | date = July 2003 | pmid = 12740212 | doi = 10.1093/aob/mcg101 | pmc = 4243628 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Particularly, when plants are under water stress, there are abscisic acid dependent and independent effects on development.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Shinozaki | first1 = Kazuo | name-list-style = vanc | year = 2000 | title = Molecular responses to dehydration and low temperature: differences and cross-talk between two stress signaling pathways | journal = Current Opinion in Plant Biology | volume = 3 | issue = 3| pages = 217–223 | doi = 10.1016/s1369-5266(00)00067-4 | pmid = 10837265 }}</ref> This brings to light further possibilities of plant decision-making based on its environmental stresses. The integration of multiple chemical interactions show evidence of the complexity in these root systems.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = McCully ME | title = ROOTS IN SOIL: Unearthing the Complexities of Roots and Their Rhizospheres | journal = Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology | volume = 50 | pages = 695–718 | date = June 1999 | pmid = 15012224 | doi = 10.1146/annurev.arplant.50.1.695 }}</ref>
In 2014, Anthony Trewavas released a book called ''Plant Behavior and Intelligence'' that highlighted a plant's cognition through its colonial-organization skills reflecting insect swarm behaviors.{{sfn|Trewavas|2014|p=95-96}} This organizational skill reflects the plant's ability to interact with its surroundings to improve its survivability, and a plant's ability to identify exterior factors. Evidence of the plant's minimal cognition of spatial awareness can be seen in their root allocation relative to neighboring plants.<ref name="Garzon 2011" /> The organization of these roots have been found to originate from the root tip of plants.{{sfn|Trewavas|2014|p=140}}
In 2012, Paco Calvo Garzón and Fred Keijzer speculated that plants exhibited structures equivalent to (1) action potentials (2) neurotransmitters and (3) synapses. Also, they stated that a large part of plant activity takes place underground, and that the notion of a 'root brain' was first mooted by Charles Darwin in 1880. Free movement was not necessarily a criterion of cognition, they held. The authors gave five conditions of minimal cognition in living beings, and concluded that 'plants are cognitive in a minimal, embodied sense that also applies to many animals and even bacteria.'<ref name="Garzon 2011">{{cite journal|last1=Garzon|first1=Paco|last2=Keijzer|first2=Fred |s2cid=5060470| name-list-style = vanc |title=Plants: Adaptive behavior, root-brains, and minimal cognition|journal=Adaptive Behavior|date=2011|volume=19|issue=3|pages=155–171|doi=10.1177/1059712311409446|bibcode=2011AdBeh..19..155C |url=https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/13139552/2011_Calvo_Keijzer_Plants_AB_official.pdf }}</ref> In 2017 biologists from University of Birmingham announced that they found a "decision-making center" in the root tip of dormant ''Arabidopsis'' seeds.<ref name="pmid28584126">{{cite journal | vauthors = Topham AT, Taylor RE, Yan D, Nambara E, Johnston IG, Bassel GW | title = Temperature variability is integrated by a spatially embedded decision-making center to break dormancy in Arabidopsis seeds | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 114 | issue = 25 | pages = 6629–6634 | date = June 2017 | pmid = 28584126 | pmc = 5488954 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.1704745114 | bibcode = 2017PNAS..114.6629T | doi-access = free }}</ref>
In 2016, Peter A. Crisp and his colleagues proposed a novel view on plant memory in their review: plant memory could be advantageous under recurring and predictable stress; however, resetting or forgetting about the brief period of stress may be more beneficial for plants to grow as soon as the desirable condition returns.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Crisp PA, Ganguly D, Eichten SR, Borevitz JO, Pogson BJ | title = Reconsidering plant memory: Intersections between stress recovery, RNA turnover, and epigenetics | journal = Science Advances | volume = 2 | issue = 2 | article-number = e1501340 | date = February 2016 | pmid = 26989783 | pmc = 4788475 | doi = 10.1126/sciadv.1501340 | bibcode = 2016SciA....2E1340C }}</ref>
Plant memory has been described as an environmental-dependent adaptive mechanism that utilizes past environmental stimuli to optimize future growth through better resource distribution.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal |last1=Auge|first1=Gabriela|last2=Hankofer|first2=Valentin|last3=Groth|first3=Martin|last4=Antoniou-Kourounioti|first4=Rea|last5=Ratikainen|first5=Irja|last6=Lampei|first6=Christian|date=2023-07-01|editor-last=Doherty|editor-first=Colleen|title=Plant environmental memory: implications, mechanisms and opportunities for plant scientists and beyond|journal=AoB Plants|language=en|volume=15|issue=4|article-number=plad032 |doi=10.1093/aobpla/plad032|issn=2041-2851|pmc=10321398|pmid=37415723}}</ref> Memories are encoded through the formation of molecules and metabolites, as well as through DNA methylation and histone modifications.<ref name=":02" /> Memories can be within a generation, such as the regulation of flowering by vernalization in ''A. thaliana'', which involves the turning off of the flowering inhibitor gene, AtFLC, during cold temperatures and remains turned off even after temperatures increase again.<ref name=":02" /> Conversely, memories can be passed across generations to influence the development of offspring.<ref name=":02" />
Peter Wohlleben argued for plant sentience in his 2016 book ''The Hidden Life of Trees''.<ref name="Kingsland 2018">{{cite journal|last=Kingsland|first=Sharon Elizabeth|year=2018|title=Facts or Fairy Tales? Peter Wohlleben and the Hidden Life of Trees|journal=Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America|volume=99|issue=4|article-number=e01443|doi=10.1002/bes2.1443|doi-access=free|bibcode=2018BuESA..99E1443K }}</ref> The book was widely criticized by biologists and forest scientists for using strong anthropomorphic and teleological language such as describing trees as having friendships and registering fear, love and pain.<ref name="Kingsland 2018" /> It has been described as containing a "conglomeration of half-truths, biased judgements, and wishful thinking".<ref name="Kingsland 2018" />
In 2017 Yokawa, K. et al. found that, when exposed to anesthetics, a number of plants lost both their autonomous and touch-induced movements. Venus flytraps no longer generate electrical signals and their traps remain open when trigger hairs were touched, and growing pea tendrils stopped their autonomous movements and were immobilized in a curled shape.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Yokawa |first1=K |last2=Kagenishi |first2=T |last3=Pavlovič |first3=A |last4=Gall |first4=S |last5=Weiland |first5=M |last6=Mancuso |first6=S |last7=Baluška |first7=F |title=Anaesthetics stop diverse plant organ movements, affect endocytic vesicle recycling and ROS homeostasis, and block action potentials in Venus flytraps |journal=Annals of Botany |date=11 December 2017 |volume=122 |issue=5 |pages=747–756 |doi=10.1093/aob/mcx155 |pmid=29236942 |pmc=6215046 }}</ref>
Affifi (2018) proposed an empirical approach to examining the ways plants model coordinate goal-based behaviour to environmental contingency as a way of understanding plant learning.<ref>{{cite book | last = Affifi | first = Ramsey | date = 2018 | chapter = Deweyan Psychology in Plant Intelligence Research: Transforming Stimulus and Response | veditors = Baluska F, Gagliano M, Witzany G | title = Memory and Learning in Plants | series = Signaling and Communication in Plants | pages = 17–33 | publisher = Springer | location = Cham. | doi = 10.1007/978-3-319-75596-0_2 | isbn = 978-3-319-75595-3 }}</ref> According to Affifi, associative learning will only demonstrate intelligence if it is seen as part of teleologically integrated activity. Otherwise, it can be reduced to mechanistic explanation.
Raja et al. (2020) found that potted French bean plants, when planted 30 centimetres from a garden cane, would adjust their growth patterns to enable themselves to use the cane as a support in the future. Raja later stated that "If the movement of plants is controlled and affected by objects in their vicinity, then we are talking about more complex behaviours (rather than simple) reactions". Raja proposed that researchers should look for corresponding cognitive signatures.<ref>{{cite news |title=Plants: Are they conscious? |url=https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/plants-are-they-conscious/ |access-date=6 February 2021 |work=BBC Science Focus Magazine |date=5 February 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Raja |first1=Vicente |last2=Silva |first2=Paula L. |last3=Holghoomi |first3=Roghaieh |last4=Calvo |first4=Paco |title=The dynamics of plant nutation |journal=Scientific Reports |date=December 2020 |volume=10 |issue=1 |page=19465 |doi=10.1038/s41598-020-76588-z|pmid=33173160 |pmc=7655864 |bibcode=2020NatSR..1019465R |doi-access=free }}</ref>
František Baluška (2021) argues for a model called the Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC) which proposes that all cells are conscious.<ref name="Baluška 2021" /> The model has been criticized for being based on only speculation and lacking empirical evidence for its claim that cells have consciousness.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Key, Brian|year=2016|title="Cellular basis of consciousness": Not just radical but wrong|journal=Animal Sentience|url=https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol1/iss11/5/|volume=11|issue=5|pages=1–2|doi=10.51291/2377-7478.1163|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Robinson DG, Mallatt J, Peer WA, Sourjik V, Taiz L.|year=2024|title=Cell consciousness: a dissenting opinion: The cellular basis of consciousness theory lacks empirical evidence for its claims that all cells have consciousness|journal=EMBO Reports|volume=25|issue=5|pages=2162–2167|doi=10.1038/s44319-024-00127-4|pmid=38548972|pmc=11094104}}</ref>
A minority of researchers within the field of plant neurobiology argue that plants are conscious organisms.<ref name="Baluška 2021">{{cite journal |author=Reber, Arthur S; Baluška, František |year=2021 |title=Cognition in some surprising places |journal=Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X20317204 |volume=564 |issue= |pages=150–157 |doi=10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.08.115 |pmid=32950231 |bibcode=2021BBRC..564..150R |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Mallatt J, Taiz L, Draguhn A, Blatt MR, Robinson DG.|year=2021|title=Integrated information theory does not make plant consciousness more convincing|journal=Biochem Biophys Res Commun|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X21000577|volume=564|issue=|pages=166–169|doi=10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.01.022|pmid=33485631|bibcode=2021BBRC..564..166M |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Hansen, Mads Jørgensen|year=2024|title=A critical review of plant sentience: moving beyond traditional approaches|journal=Biology & Philosophy|volume=39|issue=13|article-number=13 |doi=10.1007/s10539-024-09953-1|doi-access=free}}</ref> Although arguments in favor of plant intelligence tend to draw similarities between plant phenomena and animal neurobiology, it is unsure if these traits are significantly comparable to their neural counterparts.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Nick|first=Peter|date=2021-05-01|title=Intelligence without neurons: a Turing Test for plants?|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-021-01642-0|journal=Protoplasma|language=en|volume=258|issue=3|pages=455–458|doi=10.1007/s00709-021-01642-0|issn=1615-6102|pmc=8052224|pmid=33837845 |bibcode=2021Prpls.258..455N }}</ref> Structures like phloem, although similar to neurons, cannot be considered as convergent structures, and terms such as plant "neural networks" are similarly regarded to how we interpret the word "learning" in the context of AI, that is, they are closer to metaphors. <ref name=":6" />
=== Definition of intelligence === One of the biggest debates in regard to plant intelligence is how intelligence is defined, as a lack of consensus in its meaning can lead to varying interpretations.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Chamovitz|first=Daniel A.|date=2018-09-05|title=Plants are intelligent; now what?|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0237-3|journal=Nature Plants|language=en|volume=4|issue=9|pages=622–623|doi=10.1038/s41477-018-0237-3|pmid=30185976 |bibcode=2018NatPl...4..622C |issn=2055-0278}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |title=Plant Intelligence: An Overview|journal=BioScience|volume=66|issue=7|last=Trewavas|first=Tony|date=2016|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/90007626|pages=542–551|doi=10.1093/biosci/biw048 |jstor=90007626 |issn=0006-3568}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Are plants intelligent? It depends on the definition {{!}} Cornell Chronicle |url=https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2024/06/are-plants-intelligent-it-depends-definition |access-date=2026-04-21 |website=news.cornell.edu |language=en}}</ref>
In Anthony Trewavas's "Plant Intelligence: An Overview" (2016), Trewavas collects multiple definitions of intelligence from various sources:<ref name=":2" /> * Geneticist Herbert Spencer Jennings (1906) describes intelligence as the action of "profiting from experience" or the ability to learn from experiences and use that knowledge in the future.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite book |last=Jennings|first=H. S. (Herbert Spencer)|url=http://archive.org/details/behavioroflowero00jenn|title=Behavior of the lower organisms|date=1906|publisher=New York, The Columbia university press, The Macmillan company, agents; [etc., etc.]|others=MBLWHOI Library}}</ref> * Psychologists Robert J. Sternberg and Douglas K. Detterman (1986) say "Intelligence is a capacity for problem-solving."<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last=None|url=http://archive.org/details/whatisintelligen0000unse|title=What is intelligence? : contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition|date=1986|publisher=Norwood, N.J. : Ablex Pub. Corp.|others=Internet Archive|isbn=978-0-89391-373-1}}</ref> * Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter (2007) found 70 different definitions of intelligence and compiled them into a single summary that goes as follows: ** Intelligence is a property an individual has when it interacts with the world around them.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3">{{Citation |last1=Legg|first1=Shane|title=A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence|date=2007-06-25|last2=Hutter|first2=Marcus |arxiv=0706.3639 }}</ref> ** Intelligence is the individual's ability to succeed or profit when pursuing a goal.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /> ** Intelligence is the capability of the individual to adapt to various goals and environments. <ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" />
In Daniel A. Chamovitz's article (2018), "Plants are intelligent; now what?", Chamovitz argues that the definition of intelligence has become overly vague which "leaves room for multiple encompassing definitions."<ref name=":1" /> Although he acknowledges various traits in plants showing signs of intelligence, such as similar physiology to animal neural networks, he doesn't believe plant intelligence should be considered a field of scientific study due to its lack of an objective definition: "As scientists, we must only deal with that which is testable and falsifiable, and intelligence, with a subjective definition, is neither."<ref name=":1" />
== Criticism ==
The idea of plant cognition or plant "intelligence" is a source of controversy and is rejected by the majority of plant scientists.<ref name="Alpi 20072">{{cite journal |display-authors=6|vauthors=Alpi A, Amrhein N, Bertl A, Blatt MR, Blumwald E, Cervone F, Dainty J, De Michelis MI, Epstein E, Galston AW, Goldsmith MH, Hawes C, Hell R, Hetherington A, Hofte H, Juergens G, Leaver CJ, Moroni A, Murphy A, Oparka K, Perata P, Quader H, Rausch T, Ritzenthaler C, Rivetta A, Robinson DG, Sanders D, Scheres B, Schumacher K, Sentenac H, Slayman CL, Soave C, Somerville C, Taiz L, Thiel G, Wagner R|date=April 2007|title=Plant Neurobiology: No Brain, No Gain?|journal=Trends in Plant Science|volume=12|issue=4|pages=135–6|bibcode=2007TPS....12..135A|doi=10.1016/j.tplants.2007.03.002|pmid=17368081}}</ref><ref name="Taiz 20192">{{cite journal |author=Taiz, Lincoln; Alkon, Daniel; Draguhn, Andreas; Murphy, Angus; Blatt, Michael; Hawes, Chris; Thiel, Gerhard; Robinson, David G.|year=2019|title=Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360138519301268|journal=Trends in Plant Science|volume=24|issue=8|pages=677–687|bibcode=2019TPS....24..677T|doi=10.1016/j.tplants.2019.05.008|pmid=31279732|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name="Mallatt 20202">{{cite journal |author=Mallatt J, Blatt MR, Draguhn A, Robinson DG, Taiz L.|year=2020|title=Debunking a myth: plant consciousness|journal=Protoplasma|volume=258|issue=3|pages=459–476|doi=10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w|pmc=8052213|pmid=33196907}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Draguhn A, Mallatt JM, Robinson DG.|year=2021|title=Anesthetics and plants: no pain, no brain, and therefore no consciousness|journal=Protoplasma|volume=258|issue=2|pages=239–248|bibcode=2021Prpls.258..239D|doi=10.1007/s00709-020-01550-9|pmc=7907021|pmid=32880005}}</ref> Plant neurobiology has been criticized for misleading the public with false terminology.<ref name="Taiz 20192" /><ref>{{cite journal |author=Robinson, David G; Draguhn, Andreas; Taiz, Lincoln|year=2020|title=Plant "intelligence" changes nothing|journal=EMBO Reports|volume=21|issue=5|article-number=e50395|doi=10.15252/embr.202050395|pmc=7202214|pmid=32301219}}</ref> This is because there is no definite scientific evidence that plants possess cognitive abilities or are sentient.<ref name="Alpi 20072" /><ref name="Taiz 20192" /><ref name="Mallatt 20202" /><ref>{{cite journal |author=Hamilton, Adam; McBrayer, Justin|year=2020|title=Do Plants Feel Pain?|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343273411|journal=Disputatio|volume=12|issue=56|pages=71–98|doi=10.2478/disp-2020-0003|doi-access=free}}</ref>
Parallel to the argument that plants do not have cognitive abilities or consciousness, Amadeo Alpi and thirty-five other scientists published an article in 2007 titled "Plant Neurobiology: No Brain, No Gain?" in ''Trends in Plant Science''.<ref name="Alpi 20073">{{cite journal |display-authors=6|vauthors=Alpi A, Amrhein N, Bertl A, Blatt MR, Blumwald E, Cervone F, Dainty J, De Michelis MI, Epstein E, Galston AW, Goldsmith MH, Hawes C, Hell R, Hetherington A, Hofte H, Juergens G, Leaver CJ, Moroni A, Murphy A, Oparka K, Perata P, Quader H, Rausch T, Ritzenthaler C, Rivetta A, Robinson DG, Sanders D, Scheres B, Schumacher K, Sentenac H, Slayman CL, Soave C, Somerville C, Taiz L, Thiel G, Wagner R|date=April 2007|title=Plant Neurobiology: No Brain, No Gain?|journal=Trends in Plant Science|volume=12|issue=4|pages=135–6|bibcode=2007TPS....12..135A|doi=10.1016/j.tplants.2007.03.002|pmid=17368081}}</ref> Alpi et al. claim that since there is no evidence for the presence of neurons, synapses, or brains in plants, the idea of plant neurobiology and cognition is unfounded and needs to be redefined.<ref name="Alpi 20073" /> Plants are able to respond to external stimuli, such as light, however, there is no evidence of intentional cognition.<ref name="Alpi 20073" /> They commented that "plant neurobiology does not add to our understanding of plant physiology, plant cell biology or signaling".<ref name="Alpi 20073" />
* In response to Amadeo Alpi's article, Francisco Calvo Garzón published an article in ''Plant Signaling and Behavior''.<ref name="Garzón 20072">{{cite journal |vauthors=Garzón FC|date=July 2007|title=The quest for cognition in plant neurobiology|journal=Plant Signaling & Behavior|volume=2|issue=4|pages=208–11|bibcode=2007PlSiB...2..208C|doi=10.4161/psb.2.4.4470|pmc=2634130|pmid=19516990}}</ref> He states that, while plants do not have neurons as animals do, they do possess an information-processing system composed of cells. He argues that this system can be used as a basis for discussing the cognitive abilities of plants.<ref name="Garzón 20072" /> * However, other biologists reproved Calvo's argument. They said that consciousness is something that requires having a mental image of the world or a representation of the sensed world, but plants cannot experience such thing.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Resilience|date=2026-01-27|title=Plants and the great cognition debate|url=https://www.resilience.org/stories/2026-01-27/plants-and-the-great-cognition-debate/|access-date=2026-04-22|website=resilience|language=en-US}}</ref>
Additionally, a report by Lincoln Taiz et al. suggests that it is very unlikely that plants possess consciousness because they do not have any anatomical structures that are even slightly similar to how complex the animal brain is.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last1=Taiz|first1=Lincoln|last2=Alkon|first2=Daniel|last3=Draguhn|first3=Andreas|last4=Murphy|first4=Angus|last5=Blatt|first5=Michael|last6=Hawes|first6=Chris|last7=Thiel|first7=Gerhard|last8=Robinson|first8=David G.|date=2019-08-01|title=Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138519301268|journal=Trends in Plant Science|volume=24|issue=8|pages=677–687|doi=10.1016/j.tplants.2019.05.008|pmid=31279732 |bibcode=2019TPS....24..677T |issn=1360-1385}}</ref> Animals with sufficiently complex nervous systems are considered likely to be conscious. However, plants have a comparatively simple anatomical organization and do not possess neurons and brains. Therefore, it is implausible to suggest that plants have consciousness.<ref name=":8" />
== See also == * Phytosemiotics * Plant communication * Plant perception (physiology)
== References == {{Reflist}}
== Further reading ==
===Plant intelligence and neurobiology===
*{{cite journal|author=Baluska F, Mancuso S.|year=2009|title=Plant neurobiology: from sensory biology, via plant communication, to social plant behavior|journal=Cogn Process|volume=1|issue=|pages=S3-7|doi=10.1007/s10339-008-0239-6|pmid=18998182}} *{{cite journal|author=Calvo P, Gagliano M, Souza GM, Trewavas A.|year=2020|title=Plants are intelligent, here's how|journal=Annals of Botany|url=https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/125/1/11/5575979|volume=125|issue=1|pages=11–28|doi=10.1093/aob/mcz155|pmid=31563953|pmc=6948212}} *{{cite book |last=Ferretti |first=Gabriele |date=2024 |title=Philosophy of Plant Cognition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-032-49351-0}} *{{cite journal | vauthors = Garzón FC | title = The quest for cognition in plant neurobiology | journal = Plant Signaling & Behavior | volume = 2 | issue = 4 | pages = 208–11 | date = July 2007 | pmid = 19516990 | pmc = 2634130 | doi = 10.4161/psb.2.4.4470 | bibcode = 2007PlSiB...2..208C}} *{{cite book |last=Mancuso |first=Stefano |author-link=Stefano Mancuso |date=2019 |title=Brilliant Green: The Surprising History and Science of Plant Intelligence |publisher=Island Press |isbn=978-1-61091-731-5}} *{{Cite magazine|author=Pollan, Michael|date=2013|title=The Intelligent Plant|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant|magazine=The New Yorker|language=en-GB|archive-date=December 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241204153403/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant|url-status=live}} *Pollan, Michael (2026). "A World Appears: A Journey Into Consciousness" *{{cite book | last=Manetas | first=Yiannis | title=Alice in the Land of Plants | pages=323–342 | chapter=Are Plants Intelligent Organisms After All? | publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg | location=Berlin, Heidelberg | year=2012 | isbn=978-3-642-28337-6 | doi=10.1007/978-3-642-28338-3_10}} *{{cite journal|author=Minorsky, Peter V.|year=2024|title=The "plant neurobiology" revolution|journal=Plant Signaling & Behavior|volume=19|issue=1|article-number=2345413 |doi=10.1080/15592324.2024.2345413|pmid=38709727 |pmc=11085955|bibcode=2024PlSiB..1945413M }} * {{Cite book |last=Schlanger |first=Zoë |date=2024 |title=The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth |url=https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-light-eaters-zoe-schlanger?variant=41096248295458 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240416183517/https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-light-eaters-zoe-schlanger?variant=41096248295458 |archive-date=16 April 2024 |location=New York |publisher=Harper |isbn=978-0-06-307385-2 |oclc=1421933387 |access-date=6 May 2024}} *{{cite journal|author=Segundo-Ortin M, Calvo P.|year=2022|title=Consciousness and cognition in plants|journal=Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci|volume=13|issue=2|article-number=e1578|doi=10.1002/wcs.1578|pmid=34558231 |doi-access=free}} * {{Cite book |last=Trewavas |first=A. J.|author-link=Tony Trewavas|name-list-style = vanc |year=2014 |title=Plant Behaviour and Intelligence |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-953954-3 |oclc=890389682}} *{{cite journal|author=Trewavas, Anthony|year=2003|title=Aspects of Plant Intelligence|journal=Annals of Botany|url=https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/92/1/1/177536|volume=92|issue=1|pages=1–20|doi=10.1093/aob/mcg101|pmid=12740212 |pmc=4243628}}
===Criticism===
*{{Cite web|date=2015|title=No, plants don't have feelings|url=https://theweek.com/articles/442356/no-plants-dont-have-feelings|website=The Week|language=en-GB|archive-date=October 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231029173508/https://theweek.com/articles/442356/no-plants-dont-have-feelings|url-status=live}} *{{cite journal|author=Firn, Richard|year=2004|title=Plant Intelligence: An Alternative Point of View|journal=Annals of Botany|volume=93|issue=4|pages=345–351|doi= 10.1093/aob/mch058|pmid=15023701 |pmc=4242337}} *{{cite journal|author= Galston, Arthur W; Slayman, Clifford L.|year=1979|title=The Not-So-Secret Life of Plants|journal=American Scientist|url=https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Not-So-Secret-Life-of-Plants.pdf|volume=67|issue=3|pages=337–344|jstor=27849226|bibcode=1979AmSci..67..337G }} *{{cite journal|author=Hamilton, Adam; McBrayer, Justin|year=2020|title=Do Plants Feel Pain?|journal=Disputatio|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343273411|volume=12|issue=56|pages=71–98|doi=10.2478/disp-2020-0003|doi-access=free}} *{{cite journal|author=Kingsland, Sharon E; Taiz, Lincoln|year=2024|title=Plant "intelligence" and the misuse of historical sources as evidence|journal=Protoplasma |volume=262 |issue=2 |pages=223–246 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00709-024-01988-1|doi=10.1007/s00709-024-01988-1|pmid=39276228|url-access=subscription}} *{{cite journal|author=Mallatt J, Blatt MR, Draguhn A, Robinson DG, Taiz L.|year=2020|title=Debunking a myth: plant consciousness|journal= Protoplasma|volume=258|issue=3|pages=459–476| doi=10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w|pmid=33196907|pmc=8052213 }} *{{cite journal|author=Mallatt, Jon; Robinson, David G; Blatt, Michael R; Draguhn, Andreas; and Taiz, Lincoln| year=2023|title=Plant sentience: The burden of proof|journal=Animal Sentience|url=https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1802&context=animsent|volume=33|issue=15|pages=1–10|doi=10.51291/2377-7478.1802|doi-access=free}} *{{Cite web|date=1975|author=Rensberger, Boyce|title=Idea That Plants Emote Is Rebutted|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/01/30/archives/idea-that-plants-emote-is-rebutted.html|website=The New York Times|language=en-GB|archive-date=July 26, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726113628/https://www.nytimes.com/1975/01/30/archives/idea-that-plants-emote-is-rebutted.html|url-status=live}} *{{cite journal|author=Robinson DG, Draguhn A.|year=2021|title=Plants have neither synapses nor a nervous system|journal=J Plant Physiol|volume=263|issue=|article-number=153467|doi=10.1016/j.jplph.2021.153467|pmid=34247030|bibcode=2021JPPhy.26353467R }} *{{cite journal|author=Taiz, Lincoln; Alkon, Daniel; Draguhn, Andreas; Murphy, Angus; Blatt, Michael; Hawes, Chris; Thiel, Gerhard; Robinson, David G.|year=2019|title=Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness|journal=Trends in Plant Science|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360138519301268|volume=24|issue=8|pages=677–687|doi=10.1016/j.tplants.2019.05.008|pmid=31279732|bibcode=2019TPS....24..677T |url-access=subscription}}
==External links==
*[https://skepdic.com/plants.html Plant perception (a.k.a. the Backster effect)] *[https://www.plantbehavior.org/ Society of Plant Signaling and Behavior] (formerly Society for Plant Neurobiology)
{{Botany}} {{Portal bar|Biology |Plants}}
Category:Branches of botany Category:Plant communication Category:Plant intelligence