Cannabis Genetics & Plant Signaling

Chandra, S., Lata, H., & ElSohly, M. A. (2017). Cannabis sativa L. - Botany and Biotechnology. Springer.
Description: This book is the definitive compendium on cannabis biology, detailing its structure, reproduction, physiology, genetics, and modern biotech uses.
Relevance to the Loop: This source shows cannabis as a highly plastic organism, sensitive to its environment. For the Loop, this plasticity is the opening: if cannabis can bend to light, water, and nutrients, then it can also bend to human fingerprints left in the soil — sweat, saliva, urine, microbial whispers. This book gives the plant-side foundation that makes resonance possible.

 

Clarke, R. C., & Merlin, M. D. (2016). Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany. University of California Press.
Description: A sweeping survey of how cannabis spread with humans, shaped by geography, culture, and ritual.
Relevance to the Loop: This book reveals that cannabis has never evolved alone — it’s always been in dialogue with humans. That’s exactly what the Loop proposes: not just humans shaping cannabis, but humans feeding their biology back into it through soil and microbes, extending an ancient conversation into modern science.

 

Sirikantaramas, S., Morimoto, S., Shoyama, Y., Ishikawa, Y., Wada, Y., Shoyama, Y., & Taura, F. (2004). The gene controlling marijuana psychoactivity: molecular cloning and heterologous expression of Δ¹-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase from Cannabis sativa L. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 279(38), 39767–39774.
Description: This landmark study identified and cloned the gene for THCA synthase, the enzyme responsible for converting CBGA into THCA — the cannabinoid that underlies cannabis’ psychoactivity. By expressing the gene outside the plant, the researchers proved its function, cementing a biochemical roadmap of cannabinoid formation.
Relevance to the Loop: This paper pinpoints a molecular “choice point” in cannabis chemistry — the gate where one precursor becomes a major active compound. The Loop frames these enzymes as resonance-sensitive levers, open to influence by the environment: microbial metabolites, mineral ions, worm-processed nutrients, and even trace molecules from human sweat or urine. Instead of genetic engineering, the Loop proposes guiding enzymes like THCA synthase through ecological and biological feedback, embedding the caretaker’s signature into the plant’s resin chemistry.

 

Gagne, S. J., et al. (2012). Identification of olivetolic acid cyclase from Cannabis sativa. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 287(8), 6602–6614.
Description: Discovery of a key enzyme, olivetolic acid cyclase, essential to launching cannabinoid biosynthesis.
Relevance to the Loop: This enzyme is like the first domino in the cannabinoid chain. The Loop argues that resonance begins here — with microbes and minerals whispering into enzyme activity. This paper gives a precise molecular “doorway” where environmental feedback can press itself into cannabis chemistry.

 

Mahlberg, P. G., & Kim, E. S. (2004). Accumulation of cannabinoids in glandular trichomes of Cannabis. Journal of Industrial Hemp, 9(1), 15–36.
Description: A detailed study of cannabis trichomes, the resin glands where cannabinoids and terpenes accumulate.
Relevance to the Loop: Trichomes are the memory banks of resonance. Everything the plant experiences — minerals, microbes, stress, human salts — flows into trichome resin. This paper proves where resonance is stored and where the Loop ultimately manifests: in the shimmering heads that become medicine.

 

Plant Perception & Cross-Kingdom Sensing

Chamovitz, D. (2012). What a Plant Knows. Scientific American/FSG.
Description: A lay-accessible exploration of plant senses — how they see, feel, smell, and respond to their environment.
Relevance to the Loop: Chamovitz’s work shows plants are not deaf or blind. They notice. The Loop extends this: if they notice light and touch, why not the faint mineral signature of sweat or the volatile amines of urine? This book makes the Loop’s idea intuitive: plants are listeners, and humans are always speaking.

 

Baluška, F., & Mancuso, S. (2009). Plant neurobiology: from sensory biology, via plant communication, to social plant behavior. Cognitive Processing, 10(1), 3–7.
Description: A controversial but influential paper proposing “plant neurobiology” — that plants have information-processing systems akin to neural networks.
Relevance to the Loop: The Loop doesn’t require plants to have brains, only that they interpret signals and respond. This paper legitimizes the idea that plants are capable of cross-kingdom conversations, opening the door to human inputs as part of that dialog.

 

Mousavi, S. A. R., et al. (2013). GLUTAMATE receptor-like genes mediate leaf-to-leaf wound signaling. Nature, 500, 422–426.
Description: Shows plants have glutamate receptors, similar to human neurotransmitter receptors, that help them communicate injury signals.
Relevance to the Loop: Sweat and saliva are rich in glutamate and amino acids. If cannabis has receptors for them, then human bio-inputs are not waste — they’re messages. This paper gives the Loop molecular credibility: human signals can literally plug into plant receptors.

 

Toyota, M., et al. (2018). Glutamate triggers long-distance, calcium-based plant defense signaling. Science, 361(6407), 1112–1115.
Description: Demonstrates how a simple glutamate pulse can send waves of defense signals across an entire plant.
Relevance to the Loop: This is resonance in action: a drop in one place ripples through the whole. The Loop borrows this model, proposing that even a trace of sweat at the root can echo into the flowers, altering the chemistry we inhale.

 

Soil Microbes, Worms & Biochar

Domínguez, J., & Edwards, C. A. (2011). Biology and ecology of earthworm species used for vermicomposting. In Vermiculture Technology. CRC Press.
Description: A full review of earthworms, their feeding, and their role in soil fertility.
Relevance to the Loop: Worms are translators. They take raw human inputs — keratin, salts, nitrogen waste — and turn them into microbial food. This paper backs the Loop’s claim that worms are not just decomposers but gatekeepers, turning human trace into plant language.

 

Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2015). Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation. Routledge.
Description: The global reference on biochar — its chemistry, uses, and role in soil.
Relevance to the Loop: Biochar is more than carbon; it’s architecture. Its pores become homes for microbes and vaults for salts. The Loop frames biochar as a library of resonance, holding human signals in its carbon lattice so roots can read them. This book is proof that such housing is possible.

 

Thies, J. E., & Rillig, M. C. (2009). Characteristics of biochar: biological properties. In Biochar for Environmental Management. Routledge.
Description: Examines how biochar interacts with microbial life and plant roots.
Relevance to the Loop: Biochar is often pictured as inert, but this chapter shows it’s alive with interaction. The Loop draws from this: biochar is the hotel where resonance lodges, microbes check in, and the cycle of human-soil-plant is sustained.

 

Griffiths, B. S., & Philippot, L. (2013). Insights into the resistance and resilience of the soil microbial community. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 37(2), 112–129.
Description: Reviews how soil microbial communities recover from stress and maintain stability.
Relevance to the Loop: The Loop requires resilience — signals need to last beyond one season. This paper confirms microbes have that staying power. They carry memory, ensuring resonance is not a fleeting imprint but a generational inheritance.

 

Human Inputs & Microbial Interfaces

Janssens, J. J., et al. (2022). Human sweat metabolomics: biomarkers and microbial interactions. Metabolites, 12(6), 505.
Description: Investigates the chemical composition of sweat and its interactions with microbes.
Relevance to the Loop: Sweat is not just saltwater — it’s a chemical fingerprint of the person. This paper catalogs the molecules (urea, lactate, amino acids) that microbes and roots can recognize. For the Loop, sweat becomes a personalized input, tying plant chemotype to the physiology of its caretaker.

 

Costello, E. K., et al. (2009). Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time. Science, 326(5960), 1694–1697.
Description: Landmark study showing how human microbiomes differ by body site and shift over time.
Relevance to the Loop: When we shed saliva, skin, or sweat into the soil, we’re seeding microbial fragments of ourselves. This paper proves those microbiomes exist and vary. The Loop sees these human traces as echoes of self planted back into the soil.

 

Prosseda, G., & Latella, M. C. (2021). Human urine as a fertilizer: benefits and risks. Sustainability, 13(16), 8947.
Description: Reviews the agronomic benefits and safety challenges of using human urine as fertilizer.
Relevance to the Loop: Urine is one of the boldest human inputs. This paper makes it clear it’s more than folk practice — it’s validated soil science. The Loop reframes urine not just as nitrogen, but as a coded message, blending human physiology into the plant’s metabolic script.

 

Grice, E. A., & Segre, J. A. (2011). The human microbiome: interactions with skin biology. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 9(4), 244–253.
Description: Explores the microbes living on human skin and their role in health.
Relevance to the Loop: Every touch is a microbial deposit. This paper validates that our skin microbiome is diverse and active. The Loop imagines those touches as seeds of resonance, carried from palm to soil to root hair.

​

Epigenetics & Resonance

Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2014). Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation. MIT Press.
Description: A groundbreaking book expanding evolution beyond DNA to include epigenetic changes, learned behaviors, and symbolic systems.
Relevance to the Loop: The Loop lives in these “other dimensions.” Cannabis is not just shaped by genes, but by signals pressed into its epigenetics through stress, microbes, and human fingerprints. Just as Jablonka & Lamb describe symbolic inheritance, the Loop frames human sweat and bio-inputs as a form of symbol carried in soil, inherited by the next generation of plants.

 

Feil, R., & Fraga, M. F. (2012). Epigenetics and the environment: emerging patterns and implications. Nature Reviews Genetics, 13(2), 97–109.
Description: Reviews how environmental inputs can rewrite gene expression through methylation and histone changes.
Relevance to the Loop: This paper is the scientific backbone of resonance. It proves that environment isn’t just background — it actively reprograms biology. For the Loop, sweat salts, desert char, and microbial metabolites are not passive inputs but reprogramming tools that can direct cannabis toward a chemotype tuned to the caretaker.

 

Dowen, R. H., et al. (2012). Widespread dynamic DNA methylation in response to biotic stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(32), E2183–E2191.
Description: Shows that plants rewrite their DNA methylation patterns in response to pathogens and stress.
Relevance to the Loop: Stress leaves memory in plants. The Loop builds on this by suggesting human stress hormones(histamine, cortisol, amine traces) fed into soil can mimic signals that alter plant epigenetics. This paper validates the idea of resonance as a biological echo encoded in DNA switches.

​

Heavy Metals & Chelation / Mitigation

Beesley, L., et al. (2011). Biochar’s ability to immobilize toxic metals in contaminated soils. Environmental Pollution, 159(12), 3269–3282.
Description: Demonstrates how biochar can lock away heavy metals, reducing their bioavailability.
Relevance to the Loop: In Arizona’s desert soils, metals like arsenic or cadmium lurk. This paper supports the Loop’s “shield protocols,” where biochar holds toxins back while still hosting microbial life. It shows resonance can be protected — medicine can grow clean even in poisoned ground.