Skip to content
NatureHQ

Claim check

Can plants learn and remember?

Disputed

Specialists actively disagree, and the disagreement is substantive.

Two different claims. Habituation in Mimosa — the simplest form of learning, found in organisms with no nervous system — has support. Associative learning in pea plants, the result that made the case for something cognitive, failed to replicate.

The claim as it circulates

“Plants can learn, remember what they have learned, and be trained like Pavlov's dogs.”

Where you may have met it: Google autocomplete for "do plants think or have memory" and "can plants think and feel"; Coverage of the Mimosa habituation and pea-plant conditioning experiments; Plant-neurobiology and popular-science publishing

Taking it apart

What was claimed
That plants learn from experience, retain what they learn, and can be conditioned to associate one stimulus with another.
What was actually observed
Mimosa pudica plants dropped repeatedly on a rig stopped folding their leaves within a few trials, continued to respond to a different disturbance, and still failed to respond to the drop up to a month later; plants in low light, where folding is more costly, habituated faster. Separately, a widely reported experiment claiming that pea seedlings could be conditioned to grow towards a fan previously paired with light was not reproduced in a pre-registered replication with a larger sample.
What the evidence supports
Habituation — learning to stop responding to a repeated harmless stimulus — with retention over weeks, and with a rate that varies adaptively with the cost of responding. Habituation is real learning in the technical sense used for animals.
What it does not support
Associative learning, on current evidence. Habituation is also the lowest bar there is, found in single-celled organisms, and does not generalise to anything richer. Nothing here supports memory in the sense the popular claim implies, or thought.

Where researchers disagree

The Mimosa habituation result carries the control that matters — the plants continued to respond to a different stimulus, which separates habituation from simple exhaustion — and has not been overturned. The pea-plant associative-learning result, which is the one that would demonstrate something cognitively substantial, was not reproduced in a pre-registered replication with a larger sample. The original authors argue that seed stock, growth conditions and apparatus placement differ between laboratories in ways that matter, and that the replication therefore did not test the same thing. Plant physiologists argue separately that even the habituation result requires no learning mechanism. A single failed replication is evidence rather than a verdict, and this remains open.

This is a case where NatureHQ has to leave the question open, and it is worth being explicit about why rather than hedging. The two claims are not the same size. Habituation means an organism stops reacting to something harmless that keeps happening — genuinely learning, and so basic that amoebae do it. Associative learning means linking two unrelated things, which is what Pavlov demonstrated and what would suggest something cognitive.

The first has support with an appropriate control. The second is the one that made headlines, and a careful independent repeat found nothing. Reporting the first while implying the second is how "plants can learn" came to carry far more than the evidence allows.

The claims underneath

Each one carries its own evidence, scope and caveats. Expand any of them to reach the studies.

Plants habituate; whether they can learn to associate two things is disputed

Contested

Researchers actively disagree, and the disagreement is substantive.

Mimosa pudica ceases its leaf-folding response to a repeated harmless drop within a small number of trials, continues to respond to a different stimulus, and retains the reduced response for up to a month, with faster habituation under conditions where folding is more costly — the standard criteria for habituation rather than fatigue. A separate and stronger claim, that pea seedlings can be conditioned to grow towards a fan previously paired with light, was not reproduced in a pre-registered replication with a larger sample. Habituation is the simplest form of learning and occurs in organisms without nervous systems; associative learning is a materially stronger capability.

Who this applies to
habituation demonstrated in Mimosa; associative learning claimed in peas and not reproducedDo not extend this beyond the taxa listed — the popular version over-reaches.
Studied in
Mimosa pudica, Pisum sativum

You may have heard

“Plants can learn and remember”

It depends entirely which claim is meant, and the two get merged. Mimosa stops reacting to a repeated harmless disturbance and keeps reacting to a new one, which is habituation — real learning in the technical sense, and the simplest kind there is, found in single-celled organisms with nothing resembling a nervous system. The claim that made headlines was much stronger: that pea plants could be taught to associate a breeze with light, which is Pavlovian conditioning. That one failed to replicate. Reporting the first while implying the second is how "plants learn" came to mean far more than the evidence carries.

Why we rate it this way, and what the caveats are
ContestedModerate confidence

The habituation result has appropriate controls and has not been overturned. The associative-learning result failed a careful replication, and the original authors dispute the conditions. A single failed replication is evidence rather than a verdict, so the honest state is disagreement.

How far it can be extended

Neither result has been extended across plants generally, and the two point in different directions, so no group-wide generalisation is available.

Where researchers disagree

  • The Mimosa habituation result stands with adequate controls; the pea associative-learning result, which is the one that would demonstrate something cognitively substantial, did not replicate.
  • The original authors argue that growth conditions, seed stock and apparatus placement differ between laboratories in ways that matter, and that the replication therefore did not test the same thing.
  • Plant physiologists argue that even the habituation result requires no learning mechanism, being explicable by depletion and recovery of the tissues involved in the movement — though the novel-stimulus control was designed to address exactly that.

Still unanswered

  • Can associative learning in plants be demonstrated in a design where the outcome is scored automatically and the experimenter is blind to condition?
  • Is habituation in Mimosa a change in the signalling pathway, or a change in the mechanical capacity to fold?

Last reviewed 2026-08-11

The evidence (3 studies)

Go deeper

Plant communication

Plants do send chemical signals. The best evidence says they are talking to themselves, and the neighbours are listening in.

Last reviewed 2026-08-11