Talk:Plant communication

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 5 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michael Petroff.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change to plant-plant communication

Except for a couple of sentences in the lead, this article is all about plant-plant communication. Plant communication is a much broader topic encompassing communication with other organisms (herbivores, pollinators, rhizobia, etc) which are not covered here. Ethan Bass (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow lead

The lead is mostly about herbivore-induced VOCs, but the article also discusses other forms of plant-plant communication. Ethan Bass (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undue emphasis on primary sources

This article places an undue emphasis on the results from a few studies (e.g. Runyon et al 2006, Zebelo et al 2012 and Falik et al 2011). While these may be important articles in the field, the article would benefit from consultation with more secondary sources (i.e. review articles) for additional context. There are a number of recent review papers on this topic. For example: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-010421-020045 Ethan Bass (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove section on electrical signaling

I don't think the section on electrical signaling really fits with the article, since it is discussing a mechanism of communication between cells of an individual plant, whereas the rest of the article is about mechanisms of inter-organismal communication. Ethan Bass (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep the article as is. beanstash (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this article be merged with the article plant cognition.

After leaving some markers on related pages to attract attention to this incomplete page, I read the article plant cognition and found that the categories there overlap this one and the information contained here could easily fit within one section of that page without bloating it. Furthermore, it is highly likely that our readers would be looking for the info on this page if they were visiting the plant cognition page. I propose leaving a redirect here to Plant cognition. I will boldly take this action (most likely to the chagrin of experts on the subject) if this message is not answered within a reasonable period as this page does not have a lot of contributors. Edaham (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: plant communication covers chemical signalling between plants and other organisms such as insects and fungi, whereas plant cognition supposes "mental capacities" for internal decision-making processes. These aren't the same thing at all, and there is no justification for merging. The subjects invoke different mechanisms with different purposes, described in the separate literatures of their fields. While plants undoubtedly exhibit responses to signals, such as in phototropism, plant cognition and talk of 'plant neurons' is, frankly, seen as pseudoscience by many botanists. I may remark, by the way, that the plant cognition article makes use of primary sources rather than reliable secondary sources and is therefore improperly constructed. In addition, it has been subject to conflict-of-interest editing, which I shall flag in that article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you are right, I hadn't read things properly. The absence of a primary source notification and the lack of any conspicuous words like pseudoscience let me to the misunderstanding that articles both merely dealt with a plants ability to react to its environment. Having read both articles more clearly, I can see that this is definitely not the case. I withdraw my proposal and have removed the tags as the result will almost certainly be SNOW:OPPOSE. I do however support the continued use of the category:plant communication and would like to use it to aid in expanding the plant communication article, which I'm interested in. Edaham (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is "elicit" correctly used?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elicit 2601:183:CA7F:6010:D406:8BD6:4A91:2004 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it definitely isn't used correctly. I don't know how I missed this. I think maybe they mean "emitted" beanstash (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

phytosemiotics

I am not convinced this needs to be in the lead to this article. Maybe it could be nested in a section on definitions of communication and could explain how they define communication in phytosemiotics. I do research in this field and I can't really figure out what this phytosemiotics business is all about. 17:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC) beanstash (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Chemical Ecology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Biology Brooke (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Natoleon.

— Assignment last updated by Symbiologist (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]