skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Evolved Control of Natural Plants: Crossing the Reality Gap for User-Defined Steering of Growth and Motion

Published:20 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Mixing societies of natural and artificial systems can provide interesting and potentially fruitful research targets. Here we mix robotic setups and natural plants in order to steer the motion behavior of plants while growing. The robotic setup uses a camera to observe the plant and uses a pair of light sources to trigger phototropic response, steering the plant to user-defined targets. An evolutionary robotic approach is used to design a controller for the setup. Initially, preliminary experiments are performed with a simple predetermined controller and a growing bean plant. The plant behavior in response to the simple controller is captured by image processing, and a model of the plant tip dynamics is developed. The model is used in simulation to evolve a robot controller that steers the plant tip such that it follows a number of randomly generated target points. Finally, we test the simulation-evolved controller in the real setup controlling a natural bean plant. The results demonstrate a successful crossing of the reality gap in the setup. The success of the approach allows for future extensions to more complex tasks including control of the shape of plants and pattern formation in multiple plant setups.

References

  1. Renaud Bastien, Stéphane Douady, and Bruno Moulia. 2015. A unified model of shoot tropism in plants: Photo-, gravi- and propio-ception. PLOS Computational Biology 11, 2 (2015), 1--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Josh C. Bongard. 2013. Evolutionary robotics. Communications of the ACM 56, 8 (2013), 74--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Gilles Caprari, Alexandre Colot, Roland Siegwart, José Halloy, and Jean-Louis Deneubourg. 2005. Animal and robot mixed societies: Building cooperation between microrobots and cockroaches. IEEE Robotics 8 Automation Magazine 12, 2 (2005), 58--65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Oscar E. Checa and Matthew W. Blair. 2008. Mapping QTL for climbing ability and component traits in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Molecular Breeding 22, 2 (2008), 201--215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Peter Chervenski and Shane Ryan. 2017. MultiNEAT, project website. Retrieved from http://www.multineat.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. John M. Christie and Angus S. Murphy. 2013. Shoot phototropism in higher plants: New light through old concepts. American Journal of Botany 100, 1 (2013), 35--46. arXiv:http://www.amjbot.org/content/100/1/35.full.pdf+htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Rodrigo da Silva Guerra, Hitoshi Aonuma, Koh Hosoda, and Minoru Asada. 2010. Behavior change of crickets in a robot-mixed society. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics 22, 4 (2010), 526--531.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Mohammad Divband Soorati and Heiko Hamann. 2015. The effect of fitness function design on performance in evolutionary robotics: The influence of a priori knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. ACM, 153--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Roy Featherstone and David Orin. 2000. Robot dynamics: Equations and algorithms. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2000 (ICRA’00). Vol. 1. 826--834.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. flora robotica. 2017. Project website. http://www.florarobotica.eu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Paco Calvo Garzón and Fred Keijzer. 2011. Plants: Adaptive behavior, root-brains, and minimal cognition. Adaptive Behavior 19, 3 (2011), 155--171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Alexey Gribovskiy, José Halloy, Jean-Louis Deneubourg, Hannes Bleuler, and Francesco Mondada. 2010. Towards mixed societies of chickens and robots. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’10). 4722--4728.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. José Halloy, Gregory Sempo, Gilles Caprari, Colette Rivault, Mahdi Asadpour, Fabien Tâche, Imen Saïd, Virginie Durier, Stephane Canonge, Jean-Marc Amé, Claire Detrain, Nikolaus Correll, Alcherio Martinoli, Francesco Mondada, Roland Siegwart, and Jean-Louis Deneubourg. 2007. Social integration of robots into groups of cockroaches to control self-organized choices. Science 318, 5853 (Nov. 2007), 1155--1158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Heiko Hamann, Mostafa Wahby, Thomas Schmickl, Payam Zahadat, Daniel Hofstadler, Kasper Stoy, Sebastian Risi, Andres Faina, Frank Veenstra, Serge Kernbach, Igor Kuksin, Olga Kernbach, Phil Ayres, and Przemyslaw Wojtaszek. 2015. flora robotica -- Mixed societies of symbiotic robot-plant bio-hybrids. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence (IEEE SSCI’15). IEEE, 1102--1109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Sylvain Koos, Jean-Baptiste Mouret, and Stéphane Doncieux. 2013. The transferability approach: Crossing the reality gap in evolutionary robotics. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 17, 1 (2013), 122--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Aristid Lindenmayer. 1975. Developmental algorithms for multicellular organisms: A survey of L-systems. Journal of Theoretical Biology 54, 1 (1975), 3--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Bernard Millet and Pierre-Marie Badot. 1996. The revolving movement mechanism in Phaseolus: New approaches to old questions. Vistas on Biorhythmicity (First Edition), (1996), 77--98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Andrew L. Nelson, Gregory J. Barlow, and Lefteris Doitsidis. 2009. Fitness functions in evolutionary robotics: A survey and analysis. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 57 (2009), 345--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Donald Shepard. 1968. A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data. In Proceedings of the 1968 23rd ACM National Conference (ACM’68). ACM, New York,, 517--524. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kenneth O. Stanley and Risto Miikkulainen. 2004. Competitive coevolution through evolutionary complexification. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21, 1 (Jan. 2004), 63--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Ondrej Stava, Soren Pirk, Julian Kratt, Baoquan Chen, Radomir Mech, Oliver Deussen, and Bedrich Benes. 2014. Inverse procedural modelling of trees. Computer Graphics Forum 33, 6 (2014), 118--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Maria Stolarz. 2009. Circumnutation as a visible plant action and reaction: physiological, cellular and molecular basis for circumnutations. Plant Signaling 8 Behavior 4, 5 (2009), 380--387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Sebastian von Mammen and Christian Jacob. 2009. The evolution of swarm grammars -- growing trees, crafting art, and bottom-up design. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 4, 3 (2009), 10--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mostafa Wahby, Daniel N. Hofstadler, Mary Katherine Heinrich, Payam Zahadat, and Heiko Hamann. 2016. An evolutionary robotics approach to the control of plant growth and motion: Modeling plants and crossing the reality gap. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 10th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems (SASO’16). IEEE, 21--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Richard A. Watson, Sevan G. Ficici, and Jordan B. Pollack. 2002. Embodied evolution: Distributing an evolutionary algorithm in a population of robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 39, 1 (2002), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Payam Zahadat, Michael Bodi, Ziad Salem, Frank Bonnet, Marcelo E. D. Oliveira, Francesco Mondada, Karlo Griparic, Tomislav Haus, Stjepan Bogdan, Stjepan Mills, Pedro Mariano, Luis Correia, Olga Kernbach, Serge Kernbach, and Thomas Schmickl. 2014. Social adaptation of robots for modulating self-organization in animal societies. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 8th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems Workshops (SASOW’14). 55--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Payam Zahadat, Daniel N. Hofstadler, and Thomas Schmickl. 2017. Vascular morphogenesis controller: A generative model for developing morphology of artificial structures. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO’17). ACM, 163--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Aleš Zamuda and Janez Brest. 2014. Vectorized procedural models for animated trees reconstruction using differential evolution. Information Sciences 278 (2014), 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Evolved Control of Natural Plants: Crossing the Reality Gap for User-Defined Steering of Growth and Motion

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!