I agree with 
5150wned. The clinical tone of the article could of been better, especially the description part. I feel like naming the affected plants a subdesignation like RPC-879-1/A would've solved many of the tone problems it has, for example:
The manner in which this is done reflects a degree of awareness of the target's qualities on behalf of the subject
You could say something like "RPC-879-1 has a degree of awareness of the target's qualities" or "RPC-879-1 has a degree of awareness of the qualities of its target".
I understand that the anomaly in hand is difficult to explain, since it only affects the behaviour of plants and not plants themselves, which is why I think using a subdesignation would clear things out. After all, a researcher reading this article would care about the fact instances of plants under RPC-879 don't have specific designations, which could be problematic.
But all in all, it's a very good idea past that and though it may seem like "oh it's just an rpc about angry plants" at first glance the way the anomaly is presented is unique in a good way. It deserves 3 stars for now but I can see this being a very good one if you work on your tone.
(Also, remember to put your dates as if you're an euro, Day-Month-Year.)
(Also also, the Discovery part makes me really want to know how Harlov reached his conclusion and how he died. He seems like he has a whole smaller story to him, and that's pretty cool.)
