Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 251 references

The paper argues that plant-to-plant signaling—chemical, electrical, fungal, and acoustic—can be systematically modeled as communication links, and that this abstraction opens the way to an Internet of Plants.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 20:39 UTC pith:DLHGMDY4

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful tutorial that overstates its own title: the ICT framing is an analogy for at least two of the four modalities, and the paper knows it. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08434 v1 pith:DLHGMDY4 submitted 2025-09-10 eess.SP

Information and Communication Theoretical Foundations of the Internet of Plants, Principles, Challenges, and Future Directions

Ahmet B. Kilic , Ozgur B. Akan This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords plant communicationmolecular communicationvolatile organic compoundsmycorrhizal networksplant electrical signalingacoustic signalingInternet of Plantsinformation theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Plants signal one another by several physical means: volatile chemicals above and below ground, fungal networks, electrical potentials, and sound. This paper tries to show that all four can be described with one engineering language—each signal has a transmitter, a channel, and a receiver—so that questions like noise, interference, channel memory, and coding become well-defined. If the mapping holds, biology and communications engineering can share tools: modelers can compute capacities and intersymbol interference for chemical plumes, fungal webs, and electrical pulses, and engineers can build monitoring systems that read plant stress the way radios read carriers. The paper's larger target is the Internet of Plants, a vision of plants as interconnected nodes in a network that could serve precision agriculture and ecosystem sensing. It positions itself as a tutorial plus survey, collecting the biological evidence and the available mathematical models for each modality.

Core claim

The central claim is that inter-plant communication is not a loose metaphor but a set of physical information channels that can be abstracted into transmitter, channel, and receiver blocks. For aboveground and belowground chemical signaling, the paper assembles emission models, advection–diffusion–reaction propagation kernels, and Robin-boundary uptake models; for electrical signaling, cable equations and action-potential models; for mycorrhizal networks, Michaelis–Menten transfer kinetics and graph-Laplacian network dynamics; and for acoustic signaling, cavitation-based emission and mechanosensitive-channel reception. In every case the same communication-theoretic vocabulary applies: delay

What carries the argument

The organizing object is the transmitter–channel–receiver decomposition applied to each plant signaling modality. Within it, the load-bearing models are the Green-function solution of the advection–diffusion–reaction equation (the chemical channel's impulse response), the Michaelis–Menten boundary kinetics for root and hyphal exchange, the cable equation and Hodgkin–Huxley-type spike models for electrical propagation, the graph Laplacian for mycorrhizal network diffusion, and the two-state Boltzmann model for mechanosensitive-channel sound reception. These give the paper's claims their quantitative content: parameters like diffusivity, wind, degradation rate, soil moisture, and network conne

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that plant signaling mechanisms are genuine information-carrying channels—not just metaphors—so that treating them as transmitters, channels, and receivers yields real insight; the paper itself concedes that acoustic plant-to-plant communication lacks definitive evidence and that mycorrhizal stress-signal mechanisms remain unclear.

What would settle it

A controlled two-room greenhouse experiment where receiver plants are exposed only to recordings of stressed-plant ultrasound while all chemical and electrical contact is blocked; if these receivers show no more defense priming than plants in silence, the paper's acoustic-channel claim loses its empirical footing. The analogous test for mycorrhizal channels is severing the fungal connection while keeping soil chemistry identical.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Aboveground and belowground chemical channels should be treated as memory-heavy: diffusion and sorption tails make intersymbol interference unavoidable, so coding or baseline-subtraction strategies matter more than symbol timing.
  • Electrical signaling behaves like a fast, sparse digital link: action potentials are near-memoryless binary pulses limited by refractory periods, while variation potentials are analog and ambiguous.
  • Mycorrhizal networks are topology-dependent channels: graph connectivity, not just diffusivity, sets latency and capacity, so a dense fungal web acts like a low-latency backbone and a sparse one like a bottleneck.
  • Acoustic signaling is the least established link: the paper treats it as a high-speed but poorly controlled channel and explicitly notes the absence of definitive plant-to-plant evidence.
  • If the framework holds, plant stress becomes a measurable communication quantity, opening the way to networked monitoring for agriculture and ecosystems—the Internet of Plants.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the transmitter–channel–receiver mapping is more than analogy, then VOC blend ratios and stress-state modulation could be analyzed as a real modulation alphabet, meaning information theory could predict how many distinct stress levels a blend can encode—something the paper does not calculate.
  • The paper's own caveats suggest a near-term research order: build and calibrate end-to-end models for chemical and electrical channels first, while treating acoustic and mycorrhizal links as hypotheses to be confirmed by experiments.
  • A testable extension would be to estimate actual channel impulse responses in the field—release a controlled VOC pulse, measure arrival at a receiver root, and fit the Green function—to measure capacity and delay spread in natural soil, connecting the paper's framework to measurable quantities.
  • The Internet of Plants vision depends on solving the multi-signal fusion problem: plants likely combine modalities, so the next step beyond single-channel models is a joint model of how chemical and electrical signals interact in a defense response.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a tutorial-with-survey article on interplant communication, covering chemical (above- and belowground VOC), mycorrhizal, electrical, and acoustic modalities. It provides biological background, reformulates each modality as transmitter–channel–receiver blocks, compiles existing mathematical models (advection–diffusion, cable equation, Michaelis–Menten kinetics, graph Laplacian, Boltzmann gating), reviews empirical studies and sensing methods, and outlines the Internet of Plants (IoP) vision. The paper is explicitly positioned as a synthesis rather than a source of new derivations or experiments.

Significance. If the claims are appropriately calibrated, this is a useful interdisciplinary entry point for the communications community. Its strengths are the breadth of the survey, the clear taxonomy of modalities, and the honest enumeration of open issues and missing end-to-end models. The mathematical formulas are standard and generally correctly presented, and the biological descriptions align with cited reviews. There is no machine-checked proof or reproducible code, which is not expected for a tutorial. The main risk is overstatement: the paper calls the result 'Information and Communication Theoretical Foundations' while the central abstraction is largely analogical, and the paper itself concedes that two of the four modalities lack confirmed plant-to-plant communication evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, esp. III-B and III-E; Sections II-B and II-D] The central claim—that all four modalities can be abstracted into transmitters, channels, and receivers—is load-bearing but not equally supported. The text itself states that 'definitive evidence of plant-to-plant acoustic communication is lacking' (Section II-D) and that mycorrhizal stress-signal mechanisms 'remain unclear' (Section II-B). Yet Sections III-B and III-E assign full ICT block models to these modalities. Equations (7), (18), and (24) are transport/energetics descriptions, not demonstrated information-transfer relations; no alphabets, channel transition probabilities, or mutual-information/capacity estimates are provided. The paper's own open-issues lists concede the absence of end-to-end models for belowground, mycorrhizal, and acoustic links. The title's 'Foundations' therefore overstates what is established. I recommend reframing the contribution as a perspective/roadmap
  2. [Section III, general] The paper repeatedly invokes information-theoretic concepts (modulation, ISI, capacity, noise, interference) but never computes an information-theoretic quantity. For example, Section III-A.5 describes noise as AWGN-like or colored, and III-B.5 describes severe ISI, but no signal-to-noise ratio, error probability, or capacity estimate is derived for any plant channel. For a tutorial, qualitative mapping is acceptable, but the claim of 'information and communication theoretical foundations' requires at least one quantitative demonstration that the framework is operational. A single worked example—e.g., computing channel memory or a capacity lower bound for a VOC pulse under Eq. (7) with realistic parameters—would substantially strengthen the paper. As written, the title and abstract promise more than the manuscript delivers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (21)] The resonance-frequency formula is typeset ambiguously: 'fm = m 2 vl L' should be fm = m v_l / (2L). Please correct the notation.
  2. [Reference [73]] The author name 'B. A. Kilic' in reference [73] appears inconsistent with the first author's name elsewhere; please verify.
  3. [Section IV-E / Figure 5] Figure 5 labels interplant acoustic communication as 'remains undetected,' while the text cites one study suggesting this possibility. Please align the wording: e.g., 'no definitive evidence' rather than 'undetected,' to avoid contradicting Section II-D.
  4. [Section III-A.2] The Green's function in Eq. (7) is for instantaneous point release; the text correctly notes continuous emissions matter. A sentence connecting this formula to the later continuous-emission discussion would improve readability for ICT readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the paper is a tutorial that assembles external models; the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper makes no fitted-parameter 'predictions' and derives no new numerical result. Its contribution is a reformulation of existing biological signaling studies into transmitter/channel/receiver blocks. The equations presented are standard transport/electrophysiology models cited to external sources (e.g., advection-diffusion Green's function Eq. (7) [74], Robin boundary condition Eq. (8) [89,90], cable equation Eq. (20) [136], Boltzmann gating Eq. (24) [171]). The authors' own works [21], [23] are used to supply OMC/end-to-end modeling vocabulary, but no conclusion in the paper depends on the truth of a specific numerical prediction from those works; they are literature models, not self-confirming fits. The paper explicitly identifies missing end-to-end models (Section III-C: 'there is no end-to-end model that explains the induction and emission from the plant root...') and missing evidence (Section II-D: 'definitive evidence of plant-to-plant acoustic communication is lacking'). Such admissions are correctness/empirical-support limitations, not circularity. The central claim is a framing claim, so it cannot reduce by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physics or biology; it borrows models from prior literature. The central claim depends on the transferability of these models and the interpretative leap that biological signaling can be quantified as communication channels.

free parameters (6)
  • VOC production/emission kinetics
    Rate constants in Eqs. (1)-(6) (nu_max, w, c, k_d, k_a, k_l, k_g, eta) are left unspecified; they would need calibration for any concrete plant system.
  • Atmospheric transport parameters
    Diffusivity D, wind vector u, and loss rate lambda in Eq. (7) are scenario-dependent and not specified.
  • Soil effective diffusivity and loss rate
    D_eff and k_d in Eq. (14) depend on soil structure, moisture, and microbial activity; no calibration is provided.
  • Michaelis-Menten constants
    Saturation parameters in Eqs. (10), (16), (17), (19) (e.g., K_s, q_max, J_max, K_m, V_max) are cited from root-uptake literature but not specified for the plant communication scenarios.
  • Cable/membrane constants
    Cable equation parameters r_i, r_m, C_m in Eq. (20) are not provided for plant tissues.
  • Acoustic resonator parameters
    Vessel geometry and sap properties in Eqs. (21)-(22) (v_l, L, R, rho_l, eta_l) are species-specific and not given.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Standard advection-diffusion-reaction and Green's function solutions describe VOC transport in air and soil.
    Used in Sections III-A.2 and III-B.2; these are established physics models.
  • standard math Cable equation and Hodgkin-Huxley-type dynamics describe plant electrical signaling.
    Used in Section III-D.1; borrowed from neurophysiology and applied to plants without validation.
  • domain assumption Plants emit and respond to chemical VOCs, mycorrhizal networks transfer stress signals, electrical signals propagate between plants, and acoustic emissions carry plant state information.
    These biological premises are the basis of the survey; the paper cites empirical studies but does not independently verify them.
  • domain assumption Communication-theoretic concepts (modulation, ISI, noise, capacity) are meaningful for biological signaling.
    Central to the ICT framing in Section III; the paper asserts this but provides no quantitative information-theoretic analysis.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 47446 in / 10573 out tokens · 110290 ms · 2026-08-04T20:39:55.621789+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information and Communication Theoretical Foundations of the Internet of Plants, Principles, Challenges, and Future Directions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLHGMDY4

@misc{pith2026250908434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information and Communication Theoretical Foundations of the Internet of Plants, Principles, Challenges, and Future Directions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLHGMDY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08434}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Plants exchange information through multiple modalities, including chemical, electrical, mycorrhizal, and acoustic signaling, which collectively support survival, defense, and adaptation. While these processes are well documented in biology, their systematic analysis from an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) perspective remains limited. To address this gap, this article is presented as a tutorial with survey elements. It provides the necessary biological background, reformulates inter-plant signaling within ICT frameworks, and surveys empirical studies to guide future research and applications. First, the paper introduces the fundamental biological processes to establish a foundation for readers in communications and networking. Building on this foundation, existing models of emission, propagation, and reception are synthesized for each modality and reformulated in terms of transmitter, channel, and receiver blocks. To complement theory, empirical studies and state-of-the-art sensing approaches are critically examined. Looking forward, the paper identifies open challenges and outlines future research directions, with particular emphasis on the emerging vision of the Internet of Plants (IoP). This paradigm frames plants as interconnected nodes within ecological and technological networks, offering new opportunities for applications in precision agriculture, ecosystem monitoring, climate resilience, and bio-inspired communication systems. By integrating biological insights with ICT frameworks and projecting toward the IoP, this article provides a comprehensive tutorial on plant communication for the communications research community and establishes a foundation for interdisciplinary advances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08434 by Ahmet B. Kilic, Ozgur B. Akan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of Plant Communication: a) Sound vibrations are employed in acoustic communication [26], b) Volatile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of aboveground chemical communication. The process involves VOC storage and emission in the transmitter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Modeling of belowground chemical communication: a) overview of the system, b) ICT-based modeling. The link [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of Sensing Methods for Aboveground Chem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: State of experimental studies on plant acoustic communication. (a) Detection of plant stress calls [8]. (b) Plants’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An illustrative figure of the future vision for plant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

251 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Plant communication,

    R. Karban, “Plant communication,”Annual Review of Ecology, Evolu- tion, and Systematics, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Electrical signal propagation within and between tomato plants,

    A. G. V olkov and Y . B. Shtessel, “Electrical signal propagation within and between tomato plants,”Bioelectrochemistry, vol. 124, pp. 195–205, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bioelechem.2018.08.001

    doi:10.1016/j 2018

  3. [3]

    Stress-induced volatile emissions and signalling in inter-plant communication,

    J. Midzi, D. W. Jeffery, U. Baumann, S. Rogiers, S. D. Tyerman, and V . Pagay, “Stress-induced volatile emissions and signalling in inter-plant communication,”Plants, vol. 11, no. 19, p. 2566, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11192566

    work page doi:10.3390/plants11192566 2022

  4. [4]

    How plants communicate using the underground information superhighway,

    H. P. Bais, S. W. Park, T. L. Weir, R. M. Callaway, and J. M. Vivanco, “How plants communicate using the underground information superhighway,”Trends in Plant Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 26–32,

  5. [5]

    Mycorrhizal networks: Mechanisms, ecology and modelling,

    S. W. Simard, K. J. Beiler, M. A. Bingham, J. R. Deslippe, L. J. Philip, and F. P. Teste, “Mycorrhizal networks: Mechanisms, ecology and modelling,”Fungal Biology Reviews, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 39–60, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1749461312000048

    2012

  6. [6]

    Aboveground plant-to-plant electrical signaling mediates network acquired acclimation,

    M. Szechy ´nska-Hebda, M. Lewandowska, D. Wito ´n, Y . Fichman, R. Mittler, and S. M. Karpi ´nski, “Aboveground plant-to-plant electrical signaling mediates network acquired acclimation,”The Plant Cell, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 3047–3065, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koac150

    work page doi:10.1093/plcell/koac150 2022

  7. [7]

    Flowers respond to pollinator sound within minutes by increasing nectar sugar concentration,

    M. Veits, I. Khait, U. Obolski, E. Zinger, A. Boonman, A. Goldshtein, and L. Hadany, “Flowers respond to pollinator sound within minutes by increasing nectar sugar concentration,”Ecology Letters, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1483–1492, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Sounds emitted by plants under stress are airborne and informative,

    I. Khait, O. Lewin-Epstein, R. Sharon, K. Saban, R. Goldstein, Y . Anikster, Y . Zeron, C. Agassy, S. Nizan, G. Sharabi, R. Perelman, A. Boonman, N. Sade, Y . Yovel, and L. Hadany, “Sounds emitted by plants under stress are airborne and informative,”Cell, vol. 186, no. 7, pp. 1328–1336.e10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.03.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.03.009 2023

  9. [9]

    Plant volatiles as cues and signals in plant communication,

    V . Ninkovic, D. Markovic, and S. A. Rensing, “Plant volatiles as cues and signals in plant communication,”Plant, Cell & Environment, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1030–1043, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13910

    work page doi:10.1111/pce.13910 2021

  10. [10]

    Mild versus severe stress and bvocs: thresholds, priming and consequences,

    U. Niinemets, “Mild versus severe stress and bvocs: thresholds, priming and consequences,”Trends in Plant Science, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 145– 153, 2010

    2010

  11. [11]

    Molecular communication network and its applications in crop sciences,

    S. Ahmed, J. Hu, S. M. Naqvi, Y . Zhang, L. Linze, and A. M. Iderawumi, “Molecular communication network and its applications in crop sciences,”Planta, vol. 255, no. 6, p. 128, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Impact of insect herbivory on plant stress volatile emissions from trees: A synthesis of quantitative measurements and recommendations for future research,

    C. Faiola and D. Taipale, “Impact of insect herbivory on plant stress volatile emissions from trees: A synthesis of quantitative measurements and recommendations for future research,”Atmospheric Environment: X, vol. 5, p. 100060, 2020

    2020

  13. [13]

    Past and future of plant stress detection: An overview from remote sensing to positron emission tomography,

    A. Galieni, N. D’Ascenzo, F. Stagnari, G. Pagnani, Q. Xie, and M. Pisante, “Past and future of plant stress detection: An overview from remote sensing to positron emission tomography,”Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 11, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin. org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.609155

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Root exudate signals in plant–plant interactions,

    N. Q. Wang, C. H. Kong, P. Wang, and S. J. Meiners, “Root exudate signals in plant–plant interactions,”Plant, Cell & Environment, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1044–1058, 2021

    2021

  15. [15]

    Root- emitted volatile organic compounds: can they mediate belowground plant-plant interactions?

    B. M. Delory, P. Delaplace, M. L. Fauconnier, and P. Du Jardin, “Root- emitted volatile organic compounds: can they mediate belowground plant-plant interactions?”Plant and Soil, vol. 402, pp. 1–26, 2016

    2016

  16. [16]

    Research progress on electrical signals in higher plants,

    X. Yan, Z. Wang, L. Huang, C. Wang, R. Hou, Z. Xu, and X. Qiao, “Research progress on electrical signals in higher plants,”Progress in Natural Science, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 531–541, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1002007109000161

    2009

  17. [17]

    Mycorrhizal networks: a review of their extent, function, and importance,

    S. W. Simard and D. M. Durall, “Mycorrhizal networks: a review of their extent, function, and importance,”Canadian Journal of Botany, vol. 82, no. 8, pp. 1140–1165, 2004

    2004

  18. [18]

    Interplant communication via hyphal networks,

    R. Oelm ¨uller, “Interplant communication via hyphal networks,”Plant Physiology Reports, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 463–473, 2019

    2019

  19. [19]

    Green symphonies: a call for studies on acoustic communication in plants,

    M. Gagliano, “Green symphonies: a call for studies on acoustic communication in plants,”Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 789– 796, 2013

    2013

  20. [20]

    Sound perception in plants: from ecological significance to molecular understanding,

    M. L. Demey, R. C. Mishra, and D. Van Der Straeten, “Sound perception in plants: from ecological significance to molecular understanding,”Trends in Plant Science, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 825–840,

  21. [21]

    Odor- based molecular communications: State-of-the-art, vision, challenges, and frontier directions,

    D. Aktas, B. E. Ortlek, M. Civas, E. Baradari, A. B. Kilic, F. E. Bilgen, A. S. Okcu, M. Whitfield, O. Cetinkaya, and O. B. Akan, “Odor- based molecular communications: State-of-the-art, vision, challenges, and frontier directions,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    An end-to-end model of plant pheromone channel for long range molecular communication,

    B. D. Unluturk and I. F. Akyildiz, “An end-to-end model of plant pheromone channel for long range molecular communication,”IEEE Transactions on Nanobioscience, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2016

    2016

  23. [23]

    End-to-End Mathematical Modeling of Stress Communication Between Plants

    A. B. Kilic and O. B. Akan, “End-to-end mathematical modeling of stress communication between plants,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11790

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    MC for Agriculture: A Framework for Nature-inspired Sustainable Pest Control

    F. Vakilipoor, N. Hirschmann, J. Schladt, S. Schwab, A. Reineke, R. Schober, K. Castiglione, and M. Schaefer, “Mc for agriculture: A framework for nature-inspired sustainable pest control,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20637

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Decoding and engineering the phytobiome communication for smart agriculture,

    F. Gulec, H. Awan, N. Wallbridge, and A. W. Eckford, “Decoding and engineering the phytobiome communication for smart agriculture,”

  26. [26]

    Out of sight but not out of mind: Alternative means of communication in plants,

    M. Gagliano, M. Renton, O. Duvdevani, M. Timmins, and S. Mancuso, “Out of sight but not out of mind: Alternative means of communication in plants,”PLOS ONE, vol. 7, no. 5, p. e37382, May 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037382

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037382 2012

  27. [27]

    Plant-mycorrhiza communication and myc- orrhizae in inter-plant communication,

    G. Boyno and S. Demir, “Plant-mycorrhiza communication and myc- orrhizae in inter-plant communication,”Symbiosis, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 155–168, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Methyl jasmonate is blowing in the wind, but can it act as a plant–plant airborne signal?

    C. A. Preston, G. Laue, and I. T. Baldwin, “Methyl jasmonate is blowing in the wind, but can it act as a plant–plant airborne signal?”Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1007–1023, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0305197801000490

    2001

  29. [29]

    Physiological and physic- ochemical controls on foliar volatile organic compound emissions,

    U. Niinemets, F. Loreto, and M. Reichstein, “Physiological and physic- ochemical controls on foliar volatile organic compound emissions,” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 180–186, 2004

    2004

  30. [30]

    A new modeling approach for estimating abiotic and biotic stress-induced de novo emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds from plants,

    R. Grote, M. Sharma, A. Ghirardo, and J.-P. Schnitzler, “A new modeling approach for estimating abiotic and biotic stress-induced de novo emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds from plants,” Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, vol. 2, p. 26, 2019

    2019

  31. [31]

    Sustainable and precision agriculture with the internet of everything (ioe),

    A. Z. Babar and O. B. Akan, “Sustainable and precision agriculture with the internet of everything (ioe),” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06341

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Plant communication: mediated by individual or blended vocs?

    H. Ueda, Y . Kikuta, and K. Matsuda, “Plant communication: mediated by individual or blended vocs?”Plant Signaling & Behavior, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 222–226, 2012

    2012

  33. [33]

    V olatile emissions fromAlnus glutinosainduced by herbivory are quantitatively related to the extent of damage,

    L. Copolovici, A. K ¨annaste, T. Remmel, V . Vislap, and U. Niinemets, “V olatile emissions fromAlnus glutinosainduced by herbivory are quantitatively related to the extent of damage,”Journal of Chemical Ecology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 18–28, 2011

    2011

  34. [34]

    Fruit tree model for uptake of organic compounds from soil and air,

    S. Trapp, “Fruit tree model for uptake of organic compounds from soil and air,”SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research, vol. 18, no. 3-4, pp. 367–387, 2007

    2007

  35. [35]

    The roles of stomatal conductance and compound volatility in controlling the emission of volatile organic compounds from leaves,

    P. Harley, “The roles of stomatal conductance and compound volatility in controlling the emission of volatile organic compounds from leaves,” inBiology, Controls and Models of Tree Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, 2013, pp. 181–208

    2013

  36. [36]

    The role of volatiles in plant communication,

    H. Bouwmeester, R. C. Schuurink, P. M. Bleeker, and F. Schiestl, “The role of volatiles in plant communication,”The Plant Journal, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 892–907, 2019. [Online]. Available: https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/tpj.14496

    work page doi:10.1111/tpj.14496 2019

  37. [37]

    Leaf uptake of methyl ethyl ketone and croton aldehyde by castanopsis sieboldii and viburnum odoratissimum saplings,

    A. Tani, S. Tobe, and S. Shimizu, “Leaf uptake of methyl ethyl ketone and croton aldehyde by castanopsis sieboldii and viburnum odoratissimum saplings,”Atmospheric Environment, vol. 70, pp. 300–306, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1352231013000162

    2013

  38. [38]

    A portion of plant airborne communication is endorsed by uptake and metabolism of volatile organic compounds,

    K. Matsui, “A portion of plant airborne communication is endorsed by uptake and metabolism of volatile organic compounds,”Current Opinion in Plant Biology, vol. 32, pp. 24–30, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369526616300735

    2016

  39. [39]

    V olatile organic compounds in the roots and rhizosphere of pinus spp

    C. Lin, S. M. Owen, and J. Pe ˜nuelas, “V olatile organic compounds in the roots and rhizosphere of pinus spp.”Soil Biology and Biochemistry, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 951–960, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071706004810

    2007

  40. [40]

    Soil physical properties related to soil structure,

    R. Horn, H. Taubner, M. Wuttke, and T. Baumgartl, “Soil physical properties related to soil structure,”Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 30, no. 2-4, pp. 187–216, 1994

    1994

  41. [41]

    An in situ method for real-time measurement of gas transport in soil,

    T. Laemmel, M. Maier, H. Schack-Kirchner, and F. Lang, “An in situ method for real-time measurement of gas transport in soil,”European Journal of Soil Science, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 156–166, 2017. [Online]. 26 Available: https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ ejss.12412

    2017

  42. [42]

    Soil-gas phase transport and structure parameters for a soil under different management regimes and at two moisture levels,

    M. Eden, P. Moldrup, P. Schjønning, K. M. Scow, and L. W. de Jonge, “Soil-gas phase transport and structure parameters for a soil under different management regimes and at two moisture levels,”Soil Science, vol. 177, no. 9, pp. 527–534, Sep 2012

    2012

  43. [43]

    Linking particle and pore size distribution parameters to soil gas transport properties,

    E. Arthur, P. Moldrup, P. Schjønning, and L. W. de Jonge, “Linking particle and pore size distribution parameters to soil gas transport properties,”Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 18–27, 2012. [Online]. Available: https: //acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2136/sssaj2011.0125

    work page arXiv 2012

  44. [44]

    Sorption, transport, and degradation of quinoline in unsaturated soil,

    A. B. Thomsen, K. Henriksen, C. Grøn, and P. Møldrup, “Sorption, transport, and degradation of quinoline in unsaturated soil,”Environ- mental Science & Technology, vol. 33, no. 17, pp. 2891–2898, 1999

    1999

  45. [45]

    The effect of the nutrient intensity and buffering power of a soil, and the absorbing power, size and root hairs of a root, on nutrient absorption by diffusion,

    P. Nye, “The effect of the nutrient intensity and buffering power of a soil, and the absorbing power, size and root hairs of a root, on nutrient absorption by diffusion,”Plant and Soil, vol. 25, pp. 81–105, 1966

    1966

  46. [46]

    Plant–plant communication through common mycorrhizal networks,

    L. Gilbert and D. Johnson, “Plant–plant communication through common mycorrhizal networks,” inAdvances in Botanical Research. Academic Press, 2017, vol. 82, pp. 83–97

    2017

  47. [47]

    Inter-plant communication of tomato plants through underground common mycorrhizal networks,

    Y . Y . Song, R. S. Zeng, J. A. F. Xu, J. Li, X. A. Shen, and W. G. Yihdego, “Inter-plant communication of tomato plants through underground common mycorrhizal networks,”PLoS One, vol. 5, p. e13324, 2010

    2010

  48. [48]

    Hijacking common mycorrhizal networks for herbivore-induced defence signal transfer between tomato plants,

    Y . Y . Song, M. Ye, C. Y . Li, X. H. He, K. Y . Zhu-Salzman, R. L. Wang, and R. S. Zeng, “Hijacking common mycorrhizal networks for herbivore-induced defence signal transfer between tomato plants,” Scientific Reports, vol. 4, p. 3915, 2014

    2014

  49. [49]

    Defoliation of interior douglas fir elicits carbon transfer and stress signalling to ponderosa pine neighbors through ectomycorrhizal networks,

    Y . Y . Song, S. W. Simard, A. Carroll, W. W. Mohn, and R. S. Zeng, “Defoliation of interior douglas fir elicits carbon transfer and stress signalling to ponderosa pine neighbors through ectomycorrhizal networks,”Scientific Reports, vol. 5, p. 8495, 2015

    2015

  50. [50]

    Underground signals carried through common mycelial networks warn neighbouring plants of aphid attack,

    Z. Babikova, L. Gilbert, T. J. A. Bruce, M. Birkett, J. C. Caulfield, C. Woodcock, and D. Johnson, “Underground signals carried through common mycelial networks warn neighbouring plants of aphid attack,” Ecology Letters, vol. 16, pp. 835–843, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ele.12115

    work page doi:10.1111/ele.12115 2013

  51. [51]

    The fungal fast lane: Common mycorrhizal networks extend bioactive zones of allelochemicals in soils,

    E. K. Bartoet al., “The fungal fast lane: Common mycorrhizal networks extend bioactive zones of allelochemicals in soils,”PLoS ONE, vol. 6, p. e27195, 2011

    2011

  52. [52]

    System potentials, a novel electrical long- distance apoplastic signal in plants, induced by wounding,

    M. R. Zimmermann, H. Maischak, A. Mithofer, W. Boland, and H. H. Felle, “System potentials, a novel electrical long- distance apoplastic signal in plants, induced by wounding,”Plant Physiology, vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 1593–1600, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.133884

    work page doi:10.1104/pp.108.133884 2009

  53. [53]

    Electrotonic signal transduction between aloe vera plants using underground pathways in soil: Experimental and analytical study,

    A. G. V olkov and Y . B. Shtessel, “Electrotonic signal transduction between aloe vera plants using underground pathways in soil: Experimental and analytical study,”AIMS Biophysics, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 576–593, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/ 10057590

    2017

  54. [54]

    Electrical signal transmission in the plant-wide web,

    A. G. V olkov, S. Toole, and M. WaMaina, “Electrical signal transmission in the plant-wide web,”Bioelectrochemistry, vol. 129, pp. 70–78, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem. 2019.05.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bioelechem 2019

  55. [55]

    Variation potential in higher plants: Mechanisms of generation and propagation,

    V . V odeneev, E. Akinchits, and V . Sukhov, “Variation potential in higher plants: Mechanisms of generation and propagation,”Plant Signaling & Behavior, vol. 10, no. 9, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2015.1057365

    work page arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    Electrical signals in higher plants: Mechanisms of generation and propagation,

    V . A. V odeneev, L. A. Katicheva, and V . S. Sukhov, “Electrical signals in higher plants: Mechanisms of generation and propagation,” BIOPHYSICS, vol. 61, pp. 505–512, 2016

    2016

  57. [57]

    Plant acoustics: in the search of a sound mechanism for sound signaling in plants,

    R. Mishra, R. Ghosh, and H. Bae, “Plant acoustics: in the search of a sound mechanism for sound signaling in plants,”Journal of Experimental Botany, vol. 67, no. 15, pp. 4483–4494, August 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw235

    work page doi:10.1093/jxb/erw235 2016

  58. [58]

    Exposure to sound vibrations lead to transcriptomic, proteomic and hormonal changes in arabidopsis,

    R. Ghosh, R. C. Mishra, B.-H. Choi, Y . S. Kwon, D. W. Bae, S. C. Park, and H. Bae, “Exposure to sound vibrations lead to transcriptomic, proteomic and hormonal changes in arabidopsis,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 33370, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33370

    work page doi:10.1038/srep33370 2016

  59. [59]

    Sound vibration-triggered epigenetic modulation induces plant root immunity against *ralstonia solanacearum*,

    J. Jung, S. K. Kim, S. H. Jung, M. J. Jeong, and C.-M. Ryu, “Sound vibration-triggered epigenetic modulation induces plant root immunity against *ralstonia solanacearum*,”Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 11, p. 1978, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01978

    work page arXiv 1978

  60. [60]

    Plants respond to leaf vibrations caused by insect herbivore chewing,

    H. M. Appel and R. B. Cocroft, “Plants respond to leaf vibrations caused by insect herbivore chewing,”Oecologia, vol. 175, no. 4, pp. 1257–1266, 2014

    2014

  61. [61]

    Root phonotropism: early signalling events following sound perception in *arabidopsis* roots,

    A. Rodrigo-Moreno, N. Bazihizina, E. Azzarello, E. Masi, D. Tran, F. Bouteau, and S. Mancuso, “Root phonotropism: early signalling events following sound perception in *arabidopsis* roots,”Plant Sci- ence, vol. 264, pp. 9–15, 2017

    2017

  62. [62]

    Tuned in: plant roots use sound to locate water,

    M. Gagliano, M. Grimonprez, M. Depczynski, and M. Renton, “Tuned in: plant roots use sound to locate water,”Oecologia, vol. 184, no. 1, pp. 151–160, 2017

    2017

  63. [63]

    Acoustic radiation force on a long cylinder, and potential sound transduction by tomato trichomes,

    X. Peng, Y . Liu, W. He, E. D. Hoppe, L. Zhou, F. Xin, and T. J. Lu, “Acoustic radiation force on a long cylinder, and potential sound transduction by tomato trichomes,”Biophysical Journal, vol. 121, no. 20, pp. 3917–3926, 2022

    2022

  64. [64]

    Arabidopsis leaf trichomes as acoustic antennae,

    S. Liu, J. Jiao, T. J. Lu, F. Xu, B. G. Pickard, and G. M. Genin, “Arabidopsis leaf trichomes as acoustic antennae,”Biophysical Journal, vol. 113, no. 9, pp. 2068–2076, 2017

    2068

  65. [65]

    Life behind the wall: sensing mechan- ical cues in plants,

    O. Hamant and E. S. Haswell, “Life behind the wall: sensing mechan- ical cues in plants,”BMC Biology, vol. 15, pp. 1–9, 2017

    2017

  66. [66]

    Biosynthesis, function and metabolic engineering of plant volatile organic compounds,

    N. Dudareva, A. Klempien, J. K. Muhlemann, and I. Kaplan, “Biosynthesis, function and metabolic engineering of plant volatile organic compounds,”New Phytologist, vol. 198, no. 1, pp. 16–32,

  67. [67]

    Nonlinear differential equation model for quantification of transcriptional regulation applied to microarray data of saccharomyces cerevisiae,

    T. T. Vu and J. V ohradsky, “Nonlinear differential equation model for quantification of transcriptional regulation applied to microarray data of saccharomyces cerevisiae,”Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 35, pp. 279– 287, 2007

    2007

  68. [68]

    Leaf-level models of constitu- tive and stress-driven volatile organic compound emissions,

    R. Grote, R. Monson, and U. Niinemets, “Leaf-level models of constitu- tive and stress-driven volatile organic compound emissions,” inBiology, Controls and Models of Tree Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, 2013

    2013

  69. [69]

    A global model of natural volatile organic compound emissions,

    A. Guenther, C. Hewitt, D. Erickson, R. Fall, C. Geron, T. Graedel, and et al., “A global model of natural volatile organic compound emissions,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 100, no. D5, pp. 8873–8892,

  70. [70]

    The model of emissions of gases and aerosols from nature version 2.1 (megan2.1): an extended and updated framework for modeling biogenic emissions,

    A. Guenther, X. Jiang, C. Heald, T. Sakulyanontvittaya, T. Duhl, L. Emmons, and X. Wang, “The model of emissions of gases and aerosols from nature version 2.1 (megan2.1): an extended and updated framework for modeling biogenic emissions,”Geoscientific Model Development Discussions, vol. 5, 2012

    2012

  71. [71]

    Plant production and emission of volatile organic compounds,

    M. Lerdau, A. Guenther, and R. Monson, “Plant production and emission of volatile organic compounds,”BioScience, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 373–383, 1997

    1997

  72. [72]

    Modulation techniques for communication via diffusion in nanonetworks,

    M. S. Kuran, H. B. Yilmaz, T. Tugcu, and I. F. Akyildiz, “Modulation techniques for communication via diffusion in nanonetworks,” pp. 1–5, 2011

    2011

  73. [73]

    Multi ratio shift keying (mrsk) for molecular communication,

    B. A. Kilic and O. B. Akan, “Multi ratio shift keying (mrsk) for molecular communication,”arXiv preprint, 2024

    2024

  74. [74]

    Parame- ter analysis in macro-scale molecular communications using advection- diffusion,

    D. T. McGuiness, S. Giannoukos, A. Marshall, and S. Taylor, “Parame- ter analysis in macro-scale molecular communications using advection- diffusion,”IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 46 706–46 717, 2018

    2018

  75. [75]

    Transformed fourier and fick equations for the control of heat and mass diffusion,

    S. Guenneau, D. Petiteau, M. Zerrad, C. Amra, and T. Puvirajesinghe, “Transformed fourier and fick equations for the control of heat and mass diffusion,”AIP Advances, vol. 5, no. 5, p. 053404, May 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4917492

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4917492 2015

  76. [76]

    Analytical solutions for advection and advection-diffusion equations with spatially variable coefficients,

    C. Zoppou and J. H. Knight, “Analytical solutions for advection and advection-diffusion equations with spatially variable coefficients,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 144– 148, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/ %28ASCE%290733-9429%281997%29123%3A2%28144%29

    1997

  77. [77]

    Analytical solutions to one- dimensional advection–diffusion equation with variable coefficients in semi-infinite media,

    A. Kumar, D. K. Jaiswal, and N. Kumar, “Analytical solutions to one- dimensional advection–diffusion equation with variable coefficients in semi-infinite media,”Journal of Hydrology, vol. 380, no. 3–4, pp. 330–337, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0022169409007173

    2010

  78. [78]

    Approximate solutions of the advection–diffusion equation for spatially variable flows,

    Y . Sun, A. S. Jayaraman, and G. S. Chirikjian, “Approximate solutions of the advection–diffusion equation for spatially variable flows,” Physics of Fluids, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 033318, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0084789

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0084789 2022

  79. [79]

    Generalized analytical solutions of the advection-dispersion equation with variable flow and transport coefficients,

    A. Sanskrityayn, H. Suk, J.-S. Chen, and E. Park, “Generalized analytical solutions of the advection-dispersion equation with variable flow and transport coefficients,”Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 14, p. 7796, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147796

    work page doi:10.3390/su13147796 2021

  80. [80]

    Laminar and turbulent flow,

    C. Doolan and D. Moreau, “Laminar and turbulent flow,” in Flow Noise. Singapore: Springer, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2484-2 6 27

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-19-2484-2 2022

Showing first 80 references.