Cracking the code: a comparative approach to plant communication

References

• Shettleworth SJ. Animal cognition and animal behaviour. Animal behaviour. 2001;61(2):277–286.
   Google Scholar
• Yoerg SI. Ecological frames of mind: the role of cognition in behavioral ecology. Q Rev Biol. 1991;66(3):287–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagliano M. In a green frame of mind: perspectives on the behavioural ecology and cognitive nature of plants. AoB PLANTS. 2015;7:plu075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castiello U. (Re)claiming plants in comparative psychology. Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2020;135(1):127–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witzany G. Biocommunication and Natural Genome Editing. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3319-2.
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen MH, Kirby S. Language evolution: consensus and controversies. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7(7):300–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Saussure F. Course in general linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Bredin H. Sign and value in Saussure. Philosophy. 1984;59(227):67–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle J. Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Austin JL. How to Do Things With Words. London: Harvard UniversityPress; 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Nowak MA, Krakauer DC (1999) The evolution of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 8028–8033
   Google Scholar
• Cheney D, Seyfarth R. Attending to behaviour versus attending to knowledge: examining monkeys’ attribution of mental states. Animal behaviour. 1990;40(4):742–753.
   Google Scholar
• Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P. Vervet monkey alarm calls: semantic communication in a free-ranging primate. Animal Behaviour. 1980;28(4):1070–1094.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavalli Sforza LL (1997) Genes, peoples, and languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94: 7719–7724
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg JH. The measurement of linguistic diversity. Language. 1956;32(1):109–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newport EL. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cogn Sci. 1990;14(1):11–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deacon TW. The symbolic species: the coevolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Lieberman P. The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge Massachussets: Harvard University Press; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Dennett DC. The nature of images and the introspective trap. In: Dennett DC, editor. Content and consciousness. London: Routledge; 1969. p. 132–141
   Google Scholar
• Fodor JA. The language of thought. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Indefrey P, Levelt WJM. The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition. 2004;92(1–2):101–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahon ZB, Caramazza A. A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology. 2008;102:59–70.
   Google Scholar
• Pylyshyn ZW. Computation and cognition. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou LW. Language comprehension: archival memory or preparation for situated action? Discourse Processes. 1999;28(1):61–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark A. Being there: putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press;1997.
   Google Scholar
• Kemmerer D, Gonzalez-Castillo J. The two-level theory of verb meaning: an approach to integrating the semantics of action with the mirror neuron system. Brain Lang. 2010;112(1):54–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibault PJ. First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: the distributed language view. Ecological Psychology. 2011;23(3):210–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowley SJ. Bio-ecology and language: a necessary unity. Language sciences. 2014;41:60–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salwiczek LH, Wickler W. Birdsong: an evolutionary parallel to human language. Semiotica. 2004;(2004):163–182.
   Google Scholar
• Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL. Signalers and receivers in animal communication. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54(1):145–173.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Von Frisch K. The dance language and orientation of bees. Cambridge Massachussets: Harvard University Press; 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Henry L, Barbu S, Lemasson A, et al. Dialects in animals: evidence, development and potential functions. Animal Behavior and Cognition. 2015;2(2):132–155.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson SM, Wilkinson GS. Geographic and individual variation in vocalizations by male Saccopteryx bilineata (Chiroptera: emballonuridae). J Mammal. 2002;83(2):526–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esser KH, Schubert J. Vocal dialects in the lesser spear-nosed bat Phyllostomus discolor. Naturwissenschaften. 1998;85(7):347–349.
   Google Scholar
• Schusterman RJ. Vocal learning in mammals with special emphasis on pinnipeds. In: Oller DK, Gribel U, editors. The evolution of communicative flexibility: complexity, creativity, and adaptability in human and animal communication. Cambridge Massachussets: MIT Press; 2008. p. 41–70.
   Google Scholar
• Tyack PL, Miller EH. Vocal anatomy, acoustic communication, and echolocation in marine mammals. In: Hoelzel AR, editor. Marine Mammal Biology: an Evolutionary Approach. Oxford England: Blackwell Scientific; 2002. p. 142–184.
   Google Scholar
• Le Boeuf BJ, Peterson RS. Dialects in elephant seals. Science. 1969;166(3913):1654–1656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rendell L, Whitehead H. Culture in whales and dolphins. Behav Brain Sci. 2001;24(2):309–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyack P. Whistle repertoires of two bottlenosed dolphins, Tursiops truncatus: mimicry of signature whistles? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 1986;18(4):251–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford JKB. Vocal traditions among resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal waters of British Columbia. Can J Zool. 1991;69(6):1454–1483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riesch R, Ford JK, Thomsen F. Stability and group specificity of stereotyped whistles in resident killer whales, Orcinus orca, off British Columbia. Animal Behaviour. 2006;71(1):79–91.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser MD, Konishi M. The design of animal communication. Cambridge Massachussets: MIT press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Von Frisch K. Bees: their vision, chemical senses, and language. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Evans CS. Cracking the code: communication and cognition in birds. In: Bekoff M, Allen C, Burghardt GM, editors. The cognitive animal: empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition. Cambridge Massachussets: MIT Press; 2002. p. 315–322.
   Google Scholar
• Pollick AS, De Waal FB (2007) Ape gestures and language evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 8184–8189
   Google Scholar
• Bassler BL. How bacteria talk to each other: regulation of gene expression by quorumsensing. Curr Opin Microbiol. 1999;2(6):582–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn AK, Handelsman J. Toward an understanding of microbial communities through analysis of communication networks. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2002;81(1/4):565–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schauder S, Bassler BL. The languages of bacteria. Genes Dev. 2001;15,1468-1480. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.899601.
   Google Scholar
• Karban R. Plant sensing and communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Burnet FM. “Self-recognition” in colonial marine forms and flowering plants in relation to the evolution of immunity. Nature. 1971;232(5308):230–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen BJ, During HJ, Anten NP. Detect thy neighbor: identity recognition at the root level in plants. Plant Sci. 2012;195:157–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kao TH, McCubbin AG. How flowering plants discriminate between self and non-self pollen to prevent inbreeding. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1996;93(22):12059–12065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasrallah JB. Recognition and rejection of self in plant reproduction. Science. 2002;296(5566):305–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton WD. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. J Theor Biol. 1964;7(1):17–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldman B. The ecology of kin recognition. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1988;19(1):543–571.
   Google Scholar
• Dudley SA, File AL. Kin recognition in an annual plant. Biol Lett. 2007;3(4):435–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karban R, Shiojiri K, Ishizaki S, et al. (2013) Kin recognition affects plant communication and defence. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280: 2012–3062
   Google Scholar
• Villarreal LP, Witzany G. That is life: communicating RNA networks from viruses and cells in continuous interaction. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2019;1447(1):5–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witzany G. Life: the Communicative Structure. Norderstedt: LoB; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Witzany G. Biocommunication in Soil Microorganisms. Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14512-4.
   Google Scholar
• Witzany G, Baluska F. Biocommunication of Plants. Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23524-5.
   Google Scholar
• Witzany G. Biocommunication of Fungi. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4264-2.
   Google Scholar
• Witzany G. “Language and communication as universal requirements forlife,”. In: Kolb V, editor. Astrobiology: an Evolutionary Approach. Boka Raton: CRCPress; 2014. p. 349–370.
   Google Scholar
• Gagliano M, Grimonprez M. Breaking the silence—language and the making of meaning in plants. Ecopsychology. 2015;7(3):145–152.
   Google Scholar
• Heil M. Herbivore‐induced plant volatiles: targets, perception and unanswered questions. New Phytol. 2014;204(2):297–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trewavas A. Intelligence, cognition, and language of green plants. Front Psychol. 2016;7:588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler A, Halitschke R, Diezel C, et al. Priming of plant defense responses in nature by airborne signaling between Artemisia tridentata and Nicotiana attenuata. Oecologia. 2006;148(2):280–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Moraes CM, Mescher MC, Tumlinson JH. Caterpillar-induced nocturnal plant volatiles repel conspecific females. Nature. 2001;410(6828):577–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dicke M, Sabelis MW (1988b) Infochemical terminology: based on cost-benefit analysis rather than origin of compounds?. Functional ecology. 2:131–139. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2389687.
   Google Scholar
• Turlings TC, Tumlinson JH, Lewis WJ. Exploitation of herbivore-induced plant odors by host-seeking parasitic wasps. Science. 1990;250(4985):1251–1253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• War AR, Paulraj MG, Ahmad T, et al. Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores. Plant signaling & behaviour. 2012;7(10):1306–1320.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dudareva N, Pichersky E. Biochemical and molecular genetic aspects of floral scents. Plant Physiol. 2000;122(3):627–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin IT, Halitschke R, Paschold A, et al. Volatile signaling in plant-plant interactions:” talking trees” in the genomics era. Science. 2006;311(5762):812–815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heil M, Ton J. Long-distance signalling in plant defence. Trends Plant Sci. 2008;13(6):264–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karban R, Shiojiri K, Huntzinger M, et al. Damage‐induced resistance in sagebrush: volatiles are key to intra‐and interplant communication. Ecology. 2006;87(4):922–930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paré PW, Tumlinson JH. Plant volatiles as a defense against insect herbivores. Plant Physiol. 1999;121(2):325–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peñuelas J, Llusià J. Plant VOC emissions: making use of the unavoidable. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19(8):402–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuelas J, Llusia J, Estiarte M. Terpenoids: a plant language. Trends Ecol Evol. 1995;10(7):289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harborne JB. The chemical basis of plant defense. In: Palo RT, Robbins CT, editors. Plant Defenses against Mammalian Herbivory. Boca Raton Florida: CRC Press; 1991. p. 45–60.
   Google Scholar
• Holopainen JK. Multiple functions of inducible plant volatiles. Trends Plant Sci. 2004;9(11):529–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senghas A. The development of Nicaraguan Sign Language via the language acquisition process. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual Boston University conference on language development. Somerville, MA: Cas‐cadilla Press; 1995. p. 543–552.
   Google Scholar
• Brodmann J, Twele R, Francke W, et al. Orchids mimic green-leaf volatiles to attract prey-hunting wasps for pollination. Curr Biol. 2008;18(10):740–744.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitman DW, Eller FJ. Parasitic wasps orient to green leaf volatiles. Chemoecology. 1990;1(2):69–76.
   Google Scholar
• Tomasello M. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Takabayashi J, Dicke M, Posthumus MA. Volatile herbivore-induced terpenoids in plant-mite interactions: variation caused by biotic and abiotic factors. J Chem Ecol. 1994;20(6):1329–1354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langenheim JH. Higher plant terpenoids: a phytocentric overview of their ecological roles. J Chem Ecol. 1994;20:1223–1280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones CG, Firn RD. On the evolution of plant secondary chemical diversity Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 1991;333:273–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pimentel D, Bellotti AC. Parasite-host population systems and genetic stability. Am Nat. 1976;110(975):877–888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz JC . Impact of variable plant defensive chemistry on susceptibility of insects to natural enemies. In P.A. Hedin (ed.). Plant Resistance to Insects, ACS: Symposium Series 208. Washington DC: American Chemical Society; 1983. p.37–54.
   Google Scholar
• Bergström G, Groth I, Pellmyr O, et al. Chemical basis of a highly specific mutualism: chiral esters attract pollinating beetles in Eupomatiaceae. Phytochemistry. 1991;30(10):3221–3225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodson CH, Dressler RL, Hills HG, et al. Biologically active compounds in orchid fragrances. Science. 1969;164(3885):1243–1249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dicke M, Sabelis MW. How plants obtain predatory mites as bodyguards. Neth J Zool. 1988;38(2–4):148–165.
   Google Scholar
• Vet LE, Dicke M. Ecology of infochemical use by natural enemies in a tritrophic context. Annu Rev Entomol. 1992;37(1):141–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dicke M, Sabelis MW, Takabayashi J, et al. Plant strategies of manipulating predator prey interactions through allelochemicals: prospects for application in pest control. J Chem Ecol. 1990;16(11):3091–3118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiojiri K, Karban R. Seasonality of herbivory and communication between individuals of sagebrush. Arthropod Plant Interact. 2008;2(2):87–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karban R, Yang LH, Edwards KF. Volatile communication between plants that affects herbivory: a meta‐analysis. Ecol Lett. 2014;17(1):44–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreira X, Abdala Roberts L, Rasmann S, et al. Plant diversity effects on insect herbivores and their natural enemies: current thinking, recent findings, and future directions. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2016;14:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luporini P, Vallesi A, Miceli C, et al. Chemical signaling in ciliates. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 1995;42(3):208–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visick KL, Fuqua C. Decoding microbial chatter: cell-cell communication in bacteria. J Bacteriol. 2005;187(16):5507–5519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witzany G, Nowacki M. Biocommunication of Ciliates. Dordrecht: Springer; 2016. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32211-7.
   Google Scholar
• Witzany G. Biocommunication of Archaea. Dordrecht: Springer; 2017. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65536-9Witzany.
   Google Scholar
• Guenther AB, Zimmerman PR, Harley PC, et al. Isoprene and monoterpene emission rate variability: model evaluations and sensitivity analyses. J Geophys Res Atmos. 1993;98(D7):12609–12617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peñuelas J, Llusià J. BVOCs: plant defense against climate warming? Trends Plant Sci. 2003;8(3):105–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuokkanen K, Julkunen Tiitto R, Keinänen M, et al. The effect of elevated CO2 and temperature on the secondary chemistry of Betula pendula seedlings. Trees. 2001;15(6):378–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sallas L, Luomala EM, Ultriainen J, et al. Contrasting effects of elevated carbon dioxide concentration and temperature on Rubisco activity, chlorophyll fluorescence, needle ultrastructure and secondary metabolites in conifer seedlings. Tree Physiol. 2003;23(2):97–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson MA, Trowbridge AM, Raffa KF, et al. Consequences of climate warming and altered precipitation patterns for plant-insect and multitrophic interactions. Plant Physiol. 2012;160(4):1719–1727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerra S, Peressotti A, Peressotti F, et al. Flexible control of movement in plants. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar