The "plant neurobiology" revolution

Peter V. Minorsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2024.2345413

2024-05-07

Plant Signaling & Behavior

Abstract:The 21st-century "plant neurobiology" movement is an amalgam of scholars interested in how "neural processes", broadly defined, lead to changes in plant behavior. Integral to the movement (now called plant behavioral biology) is a triad of historically marginalized subdisciplines, namely plant ethology, whole plant electrophysiology and plant comparative psychology, that set plant neurobiology apart from the mainstream. A central tenet held by these "triad disciplines" is that plants are exquisitely sensitive to environmental perturbations and that destructive experimental manipulations rapidly and profoundly affect plant function. Since destructive measurements have been the norm in plant physiology, much of our "textbook knowledge" concerning plant physiology is unrelated to normal plant function. As such, scientists in the triad disciplines favor a more natural and holistic approach toward understanding plant function. By examining the history, philosophy, sociology and psychology of the triad disciplines, this paper refutes in eight ways the criticism that plant neurobiology presents nothing new, and that the topics of plant neurobiology fall squarely under the purview of mainstream plant physiology. It is argued that although the triad disciplines and mainstream plant physiology share the common goal of understanding plant function, they are distinct in having their own intellectual histories and epistemologies.

biochemistry & molecular biology,plant sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main issue this paper attempts to address is whether plant neurobiology (or plant behavior biology) provides new insights into plant physiology, cell biology, and signal transduction, and whether this discipline is merely a branch of mainstream plant physiology. The author refutes critics of plant neurobiology by exploring three historically marginalized sub-disciplines—plant behavior, plant comparative psychology, and holistic plant electrophysiology. Specifically, the paper aims to:

1. **Refute Criticism**: The paper refutes the criticism that "plant neurobiology does not add new understanding to plant physiology, cell biology, or signal transduction" in detail through eight aspects.
2. **Historical Background**: It explores the historical background of these three sub-disciplines, explaining why they were marginalized in the past and how they found a haven in the plant neurobiology movement.
3. **Philosophical and Sociological Perspectives**: It analyzes the differences between these sub-disciplines and mainstream plant physiology from philosophical and sociological perspectives, highlighting the uniqueness of plant neurobiology.
4. **Methodological Differences**: It discusses the differences in research methods between plant neurobiology and mainstream plant physiology, particularly the former's inclination towards natural and holistic methods, while the latter relies more on destructive experimental methods.

Through these discussions, the author attempts to demonstrate that plant neurobiology is not only an independent discipline but also has its unique knowledge system and epistemology, providing new perspectives for understanding plant functions.