Sounds emitted by plants under stress are airborne and informative(cell.com)
cell.com
Sounds emitted by plants under stress are airborne and informative
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00262-3
187 comments
I am astounded that no one has mentioned "The Sound Machine" by Roald Dahl (1949), in which a scientist invents a machine that makes ultrasonic sounds audible to humans. He discovers that plants scream when cut. You can read it at https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1949/09/17/the-sound-mach...
I wonder if this is the source of a Jack Handey joke: "If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason."
This reminds me of an Upton Sinclair quote: “was one to believe that there was nowhere a god of hogs, to whine this hog personality was precious. To whome these hog squeals and agonies had meaning?”
I think the BFG could also hear the screams of trees as they were being chopped down.
Sources online agree with you.
> The BFG could hear the tread of a ladybird's footsteps as she walks across a leaf, the whispering of ants as they carry around in the soil talking to one another, and the sudden shrill cry of pain a tree gives out when a woodman cuts into it with an axe.
https://www.icsestudyguide.com/2020/10/class-5-english-liter...
> The BFG could hear the tread of a ladybird's footsteps as she walks across a leaf, the whispering of ants as they carry around in the soil talking to one another, and the sudden shrill cry of pain a tree gives out when a woodman cuts into it with an axe.
https://www.icsestudyguide.com/2020/10/class-5-english-liter...
https://youtu.be/QDiUvLl3zpg was also an episode of Tales of the Unexpected
That was a cool read. It took me on a long journey to find references to it... seems like there's actually some truth to it.
Informative here meaning that you can deduce something about a plant's condition from faint sounds emitted by it. It's not implying that the plants use those sounds for the purpose of transmitting information. From the article:
"These results demonstrate the potential in studying plant bioacoustics, suggest that plant acoustic emissions may play an important role in ecology and evolution, and may have direct implications for plant monitoring in agriculture"
To me even the "suggests..." part is wild overselling. IMO this should have been in such a high impact journal only if they had actually succeeded in demonstrating the ecological relevance, by showing that the sounds are detected and acted upon by other organisms.
"These results demonstrate the potential in studying plant bioacoustics, suggest that plant acoustic emissions may play an important role in ecology and evolution, and may have direct implications for plant monitoring in agriculture"
To me even the "suggests..." part is wild overselling. IMO this should have been in such a high impact journal only if they had actually succeeded in demonstrating the ecological relevance, by showing that the sounds are detected and acted upon by other organisms.
If the signal is being sent, you can be pretty sure that due to the intrinsic efficiency-maximization that biological systems perform then most likely the mechanism for detecting and acting upon it has been evolved by other organisms, especially for something as fitness-critical as stress.
Sometimes signal is just there regardless.
If you hit your tissue hard enough, it becomes blueish for a while (a bruise, a hemorrhage). It may benefit something by accident, but a bruise just can’t stay as pink as the rest of you, due to the physics of the process.
(From tfa) Plants exposed to drought stress have been shown to experience cavitation – a process where air bubbles form, expand and collapse in the xylem, causing vibrations
In other words, dry wood cracks.
If you hit your tissue hard enough, it becomes blueish for a while (a bruise, a hemorrhage). It may benefit something by accident, but a bruise just can’t stay as pink as the rest of you, due to the physics of the process.
(From tfa) Plants exposed to drought stress have been shown to experience cavitation – a process where air bubbles form, expand and collapse in the xylem, causing vibrations
In other words, dry wood cracks.
The person you’re responding to is talking about other organisms (ie not the tree), which seems compatible with your observation here.
Trees might be screaming/bubble-popping into the abyss for simple physical reasons, but if cavitation is very important to some creature, there’s a decent chance that creature has evolved to sense these vibrations.
Trees might be screaming/bubble-popping into the abyss for simple physical reasons, but if cavitation is very important to some creature, there’s a decent chance that creature has evolved to sense these vibrations.
Random guess: woodpeckers might, as for them this may be a way to detect which trees offer most food for least effort.
Ironically, something I didn't realize until now, and what also confirms the original point: apparently[0] the drumming itself turned into form of communication for woodpeckers.
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodpecker#Drumming
Ironically, something I didn't realize until now, and what also confirms the original point: apparently[0] the drumming itself turned into form of communication for woodpeckers.
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodpecker#Drumming
> In other words, dry wood cracks.
How dare you translate academic technobabble to common tongue?
How dare you translate academic technobabble to common tongue?
Maybe this bruise evolved with our social behaviour : most animals skin don't show this, or for higher stress. The bruise is very important in a social envirronment and is a good optimisation for mutual Care.
>> (From tfa) Plants exposed to drought stress have been shown to experience cavitation – a process where air bubbles form, expand and collapse in the xylem, causing vibrations
> In other words, dry wood cracks.
I don't think it's saying that at all
> In other words, dry wood cracks.
I don't think it's saying that at all
There is some reserach that trees already communicate indirectly via a network of fungi around their roots using sugars so it's not that far fetched
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering...
add to that
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-trees-support-... 'Do Trees Really Support Each Other through a Network of Fungi'
Interesting. Seems like the authors main contention is with the popularization of the concept that trees might be cooperating with each other instead of hyper competing as we historicallly assume via just natural selection pressures.
I’m sympathetic to their argument that we need to be careful how far we take the cooperation argument but I think they’re also throwing out the baby with the bath water. These authors are highly focused on showing the validity of the opposite point of view and so have conducted a meta analysis of the literature that is very, I would say, biased towards the exclusion of studies that show communication and transfers of chemicals between trees using mycorrhizal networks. I still find their meta analysis interesting but would caution people to also take their cutting down of the idea of transfers between plants using mycorrhizal networks with large grains of salt. They, as researchers, are also incentivized to kind of go a bit too far the other way from what they were arguing against (transfers between plants using mycorrhizal networks)
I’m sympathetic to their argument that we need to be careful how far we take the cooperation argument but I think they’re also throwing out the baby with the bath water. These authors are highly focused on showing the validity of the opposite point of view and so have conducted a meta analysis of the literature that is very, I would say, biased towards the exclusion of studies that show communication and transfers of chemicals between trees using mycorrhizal networks. I still find their meta analysis interesting but would caution people to also take their cutting down of the idea of transfers between plants using mycorrhizal networks with large grains of salt. They, as researchers, are also incentivized to kind of go a bit too far the other way from what they were arguing against (transfers between plants using mycorrhizal networks)
By now, there is at least one other organism that can detect and act upon the signal. If farmers applies knowledge about this signal to improve their yields, plants may be selected for their ability to emit sounds under stress.
Not entirely. Efficiency maximization can also result in a state where a feature is interesting to us but neutral, or just not harmful enough to be worth the energy to change. Remember that the watchmaker is completely blind.
I like that line of thinking. But I still fail at giving a good explanation of that concept. Maybe it's intuitive for me due to having learned about cellular automata during my youth. I know I'm entering esoteric and new age territory but something tells me this can even be applied to phenomena like quantum entanglement. My idea is that if there is an information receivable and possibly even emittable by a biological system then that system will through evolutionary pressure begin to incorporate this transmission in a way that improves fitness. Telepathy maybe even. That's also why I don't "believe" anymore in this compartmentalization of the human body into separate organs. Tissue can isolate an organ to some extent but even then there will be hormonal or mechanic exchange. Example would be relevance of belly breathing for intestinal function. At the extreme we reach this sense of connectedness between all or most or some living beings. It just appears to me that this would make sense.
The rule of thumb in evolutionary biology is if it has a cost and lasts through evolutionary time, it is beneficial. Because otherwise a similar organism that doesn't waste that time/energy on the useless thing/behavior will outcompete. Here's some odd and obvious examples.
Religion has a cost (lots of resources and time are spent on them) and they have lasted through time, therefore it is evolutionarily beneficial.
A small percentage of the population is psychopaths, this has an obvious cost to communities, but the pattern has lasted through time, therefore has a benefit. Likely it's for war/fighting/hunting.
Growing light sensitive cells has a cost in energy and materials, and has lasted through time, therefore it must have a benefit (sight).
This strongly suggests that SOMETHING is listening to that plant make noise and it either directly or indirectly benefits the plant.
Religion has a cost (lots of resources and time are spent on them) and they have lasted through time, therefore it is evolutionarily beneficial.
A small percentage of the population is psychopaths, this has an obvious cost to communities, but the pattern has lasted through time, therefore has a benefit. Likely it's for war/fighting/hunting.
Growing light sensitive cells has a cost in energy and materials, and has lasted through time, therefore it must have a benefit (sight).
This strongly suggests that SOMETHING is listening to that plant make noise and it either directly or indirectly benefits the plant.
By a trait being "beneficial" you mean that it prolongs the existence of some gene specifically, right? My understanding of evolution is that traits aren't necessarily beneficial to those who posses it in the colloquial sense. For example, animals that perish due to reproduction.
Also, isn't saying a trait exists so it must be beneficial a bit of an over simplification? Couldn't a relatively useless trait hypothetically exist due to genes that are also related to some other relatively useful trait? It seems like a stretch to say any lasting trait must be beneficial, unless you can isolate it from other traits on the genetic level or otherwise through analysis. Traits can also cease being beneficial as we can see from the countless species that have gone extinct.
Sorry if this seems like I'm ranting, but I just need more convincing that this rule of thumb makes sense, and would appreciate being pointed in the right direction if I'm off-base.
Also, isn't saying a trait exists so it must be beneficial a bit of an over simplification? Couldn't a relatively useless trait hypothetically exist due to genes that are also related to some other relatively useful trait? It seems like a stretch to say any lasting trait must be beneficial, unless you can isolate it from other traits on the genetic level or otherwise through analysis. Traits can also cease being beneficial as we can see from the countless species that have gone extinct.
Sorry if this seems like I'm ranting, but I just need more convincing that this rule of thumb makes sense, and would appreciate being pointed in the right direction if I'm off-base.
Yes, beneficial refers to those genes continuing on into the future.
The operative descriptive word describing those "useless traits" is cost. If nothing else, they have a cost of the energy and resources required to produce the relevant cells or whatever. Another organism that does not waste that energy and resources will out-compete the one building the useless trait. Natural selection will make it go away.
The operative descriptive word describing those "useless traits" is cost. If nothing else, they have a cost of the energy and resources required to produce the relevant cells or whatever. Another organism that does not waste that energy and resources will out-compete the one building the useless trait. Natural selection will make it go away.
That assumes that natural selection is a perfect process, and that we are at some "end" of it. In truth, the cost of generating useless noise could be small enough that it just doesn't matter and it hangs around. Maybe it will disappear in a few more billion years.
Any organism we see today may very well have unnecessary traits that evolution is in the process of removing.
Any organism we see today may very well have unnecessary traits that evolution is in the process of removing.
You put that assumption in, not me.
Though that might just be the case for most things, I don't think it would be fair to say that for all things. Two traits could develop in conjunction with another, and trait 1 gives an advantage, while trait 2 is a disadvantage. The most in-your-face example I think is the stereotype of nerds and glasses. In short, a good enough trait could get you laid and fed even though you have a crappy trait that came with it.
edit: alternatively, a bad enough trait could completely derail the development of a good train. Maybe dolphins born with 200iq brains develop some other kind of bad trait as a result of the same mutation that doesn't allow for the 200iq trait to permeate.
edit: alternatively, a bad enough trait could completely derail the development of a good train. Maybe dolphins born with 200iq brains develop some other kind of bad trait as a result of the same mutation that doesn't allow for the 200iq trait to permeate.
The poor eyesight you're referring to comes with age, generally after the primary ages of procreation. That's why, on an evolutionary timescale, there wasn't much benefit to weeding out the need for glasses. Maybe into the future we will see that. Conditions which cause poor eyesight from birth get weeded out.
The characteristic one for this in humans is sickle cell anemia. It really sucks for the people who have it but it sucks less than malaria, so it’s persisted in the gene pool… in regions with endemic malaria.
The argument is flawed.
You defend. "if it has a cost and lasts through evolutionary time, it is beneficial."
But to conclude your conclusion, you must also show that:
- emitting noise has cost (fairly believable)
- and that something listening to it is the only way to make it beneficial, which is far from obvious. (Could just be a way to dissipate energy, or to send signal within the plant, or to get rid of some chemicals, or many other beneficial things that doesn't involve something listening)
But to conclude your conclusion, you must also show that:
- emitting noise has cost (fairly believable)
- and that something listening to it is the only way to make it beneficial, which is far from obvious. (Could just be a way to dissipate energy, or to send signal within the plant, or to get rid of some chemicals, or many other beneficial things that doesn't involve something listening)
I mostly agree with your point however IMO the psychopath thing is not a great example because it could be explained as the incomplete or nonexistent development of something that is complex that is beneficial. I think the error is that we can’t necessarily know what the cost was. And the benefit doesnt necessarily have to be that big relative to the cost. I mean I’m replying to you and that me costs something, and what’s the benefit?
While the sounds don’t make themselves, they could be a side effect of something else… instabilities in the structural tissue, the plant straining to increase the movement internal fluids… who knows?
That said, I personally think there is communication between plants, or that at the very least it’s something like trying to mimic predator insect sounds. But could be that the vibrations themselves help move fluids around (as opposed to being a byproduct of something else that does)
While the sounds don’t make themselves, they could be a side effect of something else… instabilities in the structural tissue, the plant straining to increase the movement internal fluids… who knows?
That said, I personally think there is communication between plants, or that at the very least it’s something like trying to mimic predator insect sounds. But could be that the vibrations themselves help move fluids around (as opposed to being a byproduct of something else that does)
This isn't "my point," this is how the field of evolutionary biologists look at traits. If what I said was false it would mean there's no such thing as natural selection. We may not understand how a trait is beneficial, and we may be incorrect about why a trait is beneficial, but if it has a cost and lasts through evolutionary time then by definition it has a benefit.
>it could be explained as the incomplete or nonexistent development of something that is complex that is beneficial.
If it has a cost but doesn't have a benefit right now, it's going to get weeded out via natural selection in favor of variants of the organism that are not wasting the time and resources on that trait.
>it could be explained as the incomplete or nonexistent development of something that is complex that is beneficial.
If it has a cost but doesn't have a benefit right now, it's going to get weeded out via natural selection in favor of variants of the organism that are not wasting the time and resources on that trait.
[deleted]
> A small percentage of the population is psychopaths, this has an obvious cost to communities, but the pattern has lasted through time, therefore has a benefit.
It has a benefit to individuals. A benefit to the community is not necessary.
> Likely it's for war/fighting/hunting.
This is a non sequitur.
Nothing is all cost and no benefit, and nothing is all benefit and no cost either. You don't see people arguing that vulnerability to cuckoos is beneficial to the birds they parasitize. The benefit is real (you don't need to bother recognizing your offspring, because recognizing your nest is sufficient) but the cost is so much larger (your children all die) that it's obvious the birds would be better off with the ability to recognize their own young (and/or eggs). They don't have that ability... yet.
It has a benefit to individuals. A benefit to the community is not necessary.
> Likely it's for war/fighting/hunting.
This is a non sequitur.
Nothing is all cost and no benefit, and nothing is all benefit and no cost either. You don't see people arguing that vulnerability to cuckoos is beneficial to the birds they parasitize. The benefit is real (you don't need to bother recognizing your offspring, because recognizing your nest is sufficient) but the cost is so much larger (your children all die) that it's obvious the birds would be better off with the ability to recognize their own young (and/or eggs). They don't have that ability... yet.
[deleted]
Only applies to genetic traits though. If psychopathy, for example, turned out to be epigenetic, environmental, or entirely psychological, it would potentially defy that pattern.
It doesn't only apply to genetic traits, it also applies to memes which also evolve and would cover your concerns.
Unempathic people can make hard decisions; Such as choosing between spending a hospital budget on fuel for the generators, building upkeep, restocking, and employee wages –v.s. the life of one child.
A lot of people can't make such a decision.
I wouldn't want such people unchecked though.
I wouldn't want such people unchecked though.
there's a line of thinking that it's strange how many of our leaders are psychopaths. But for all we know, it's strange how few of our leaders are psychopaths relative to other cultures throughout history.
It's a nice thought. But many humans aren't able to do that with each other, so it seems like a high bar for a potato.
You reminded me one of my favourite quotes:
"There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists"
~ Quote by a forest ranger at Yosemite National Park, on why it is hard to design the perfect garbage bin to keep bears from breaking into it.
"There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists"
~ Quote by a forest ranger at Yosemite National Park, on why it is hard to design the perfect garbage bin to keep bears from breaking into it.
> many humans aren't able to do that with each other
Many doesn’t disprove that some do. And it need not be plants; if symbiotic insects pick up on the cue, that’s still interesting.
Many doesn’t disprove that some do. And it need not be plants; if symbiotic insects pick up on the cue, that’s still interesting.
Conversely, perhaps humans evolved to not hear plants.
I'm not sure why you can assume that without any direct evidence.
Life is an infinite unfolding of undefinably rich and interconnected phenomena, and we only have labels for a small subset of phenomena.
As a thought experiment, reverse the question: how could we assume that there aren’t interconnected phenomena after discovering evidence that this phenomena exists?
Even if we never discover what those interconnections are or establish labels for them, interconnection/interdependence is the continuing unfolding of everything, and so I tend to think a more helpful default is to wonder what those interactions are instead of if they exist.
At a minimum, Newton’s 3rd law applies, and however subtle the effects, they are almost certainly there. Where or not they’re particularly interesting to us or “useful” to human inquiry is another question entirely.
As a thought experiment, reverse the question: how could we assume that there aren’t interconnected phenomena after discovering evidence that this phenomena exists?
Even if we never discover what those interconnections are or establish labels for them, interconnection/interdependence is the continuing unfolding of everything, and so I tend to think a more helpful default is to wonder what those interactions are instead of if they exist.
At a minimum, Newton’s 3rd law applies, and however subtle the effects, they are almost certainly there. Where or not they’re particularly interesting to us or “useful” to human inquiry is another question entirely.
> As a thought experiment, reverse the question: how could we assume that there aren’t interconnected phenomena after discovering evidence that this phenomena exists?
The opposite of assuming a thing without direct evidence isn't to assume the negation of that thing without direct evidence. They're two examples of the same mistake.
The opposite of assuming a thing without direct evidence isn't to assume the negation of that thing without direct evidence. They're two examples of the same mistake.
That’s not quite what I’m getting at here. I’m not claiming that something specific exists without evidence, or making any claims about some particular phenomena that I believe exists and must do <x>.
Rather I’m pointing out that the existence of this phenomena is a form of evidence that opens the door to interrelated phenomena. And based on our understanding of the laws of nature, we can be certain that there is at minimum, some interrelation. Whether that interrelation is interesting or worth labeling as some unique phenomena to humans is what cannot be determined without further discovery/evidence.
I’d agree with your comment if the described phenomena itself was just speculation, but that’s not the case here.
Rather I’m pointing out that the existence of this phenomena is a form of evidence that opens the door to interrelated phenomena. And based on our understanding of the laws of nature, we can be certain that there is at minimum, some interrelation. Whether that interrelation is interesting or worth labeling as some unique phenomena to humans is what cannot be determined without further discovery/evidence.
I’d agree with your comment if the described phenomena itself was just speculation, but that’s not the case here.
It's known that plants respond to chemical cues sent by another plant that has just been eaten or lawnmowed.
From this article:
> Recently, plants were also demonstrated to respond to sounds,13,28,29,30 e.g., by changing the expression of specific genes,29,30 or by increasing sugar concentration in their nectar.31
So there is enough indirect evidence for hypothesis formation.
The sound emission frequencies are also within the hearing ranges of various animals, some of which are herbivores, and some of which eat herbivores. It would be to their benefit to decode the meaning of plant sounds.
From this article:
> Recently, plants were also demonstrated to respond to sounds,13,28,29,30 e.g., by changing the expression of specific genes,29,30 or by increasing sugar concentration in their nectar.31
So there is enough indirect evidence for hypothesis formation.
The sound emission frequencies are also within the hearing ranges of various animals, some of which are herbivores, and some of which eat herbivores. It would be to their benefit to decode the meaning of plant sounds.
Like the xkcd about emacs control key spiking cpu[0], I think its a generally safe assumption that if a behavior exists consistently, then somebody likely depends on it for their workflow
[0] https://xkcd.com/1172/
[0] https://xkcd.com/1172/
is argument ad xkcd an official logical fallacy yet?
The sun doesn't shine so that we can see it. It just shines. And now we can see.
>has been evolved by other organisms
Like, a human?
Like, a human?
They're saying it's in the realm of possibilities, plants *may* be communicating via sound, and this is in the context of a study that shows plants are making noises that can be used to convey information.
They're saying it merits further investigation, not presenting it as a hard fact. To claim that's "wild overselling" and that it doesn't belong in a "high impact" journal is wildly underselling the study. They make sure to use the word "may" in everything they suggest that's not directly backed up by the study.
They're saying it merits further investigation, not presenting it as a hard fact. To claim that's "wild overselling" and that it doesn't belong in a "high impact" journal is wildly underselling the study. They make sure to use the word "may" in everything they suggest that's not directly backed up by the study.
Imagine how will it be if deaf aliens, 50 metres high, were to encounter a human being. Our expressions would mean nothing to them, nor our screams. They could break us into pieces, or munch on us, never wondering what “these little things” are doing.
If you break a branch, the sound of it breaking informs you that you have broken a branch.
If a branch falls in the forest and there is no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest#:~....
"... majority view of the quantum mechanics community then and arguably to this day is that existence in the absence of an observer is at best a conjecture"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest#:~....
"... majority view of the quantum mechanics community then and arguably to this day is that existence in the absence of an observer is at best a conjecture"
"Observer" is the most unfortunate word physicists could have chosen, though. It gets people all confused about observation mistakenly having something to do with thinking or perception. "Interacter" would have been a more accurate term, but it doesn't sound as sexy.
To wit, yes, the tree makes a sound because the tree is there to hear it.
To wit, yes, the tree makes a sound because the tree is there to hear it.
Well yes IF it is true that trees can hear, which is what these new experiments give some credence to but don't prove conclusively
If a tree falls in the forest, all the other trees are there to hear it.
Like breaking bones and speech are both informative sounds emitted by a human from which you can learn something about that human condition. The difference between those sounds is more subtle than might appear at first
It also informs other animals that a large creature may be passing by.
But you could use ultrasound sensors to monitor plants in agricolture... maybe this is why it got published in such a high impact factor journal.
From the introduction:
> Recently, plants were also demonstrated to respond to sounds,13,28,29,30 e.g., by changing the expression of specific genes,29,30 or by increasing sugar concentration in their nectar.31 Thus, if plants emit airborne sounds, these sounds can potentially trigger a rapid response in nearby organisms, including both animals and plants.
> Recently, plants were also demonstrated to respond to sounds,13,28,29,30 e.g., by changing the expression of specific genes,29,30 or by increasing sugar concentration in their nectar.31 Thus, if plants emit airborne sounds, these sounds can potentially trigger a rapid response in nearby organisms, including both animals and plants.
The sounds emitted by the plants are between 20 and 80 kHz, which is within the auditory range of some mammal, such as mice. Although the normal range of hearing in humans is said to be 100 Hz to 20 kHz, when I was a grad student in my early 20s I could detect sounds up to 28 kHz in the sound booth.
I wonder whether there are people who can hear these sounds, even faintly.
I wonder whether there are people who can hear these sounds, even faintly.
erie(2)
> Informative here meaning that you can deduce something about a plant's condition from faint sounds emitted by it. It's not implying that the plants use those sounds for the purpose of transmitting information.
We already know that plants transmit information to each other through the air by emitting chemicals. It doesn't seem hugely significant whether or not they also do it by emitting sounds.
We already know that plants transmit information to each other through the air by emitting chemicals. It doesn't seem hugely significant whether or not they also do it by emitting sounds.
In algculture setting, it is far easier to record sound than testing for chemical.
How about this claim: pieces of string when stressed emit sounds that are picked up by nearby strings. Should be investigate this claim? What does it mean that the world of string acts this way.
For those that haven't witnessed it, I will describe a very easily constructed experiment to demonstrate this phenomena that I have discovered: first stretch a string tightly and then quickly flick it with your finger, stressing it even more. If you listen, you will hears a sound emitted by the stressed string that gradually dies off as the string recovers. Nearby strings will start vibrating in sympathy (if they are tuned properly). Could one string be communicating with the other strings?
Common objects may be used to make the experiment easier to perform: banjos, guitars, violins, etc.
For those that haven't witnessed it, I will describe a very easily constructed experiment to demonstrate this phenomena that I have discovered: first stretch a string tightly and then quickly flick it with your finger, stressing it even more. If you listen, you will hears a sound emitted by the stressed string that gradually dies off as the string recovers. Nearby strings will start vibrating in sympathy (if they are tuned properly). Could one string be communicating with the other strings?
Common objects may be used to make the experiment easier to perform: banjos, guitars, violins, etc.
I don't know if your being obtuse but it sounds that way. Presumably the plant is emitting sound from energy it gathered via photosynthesis and triggered via its nervous system. Not simply resonating due to the energy used to cause the damage.
Plants are incredibly complex yet people roll their eyes at the idea of them doing anything besides nothing. Maybe because it undermines the idea of veganism. idk, sorry lesser beings i'm hungry.
Plants are incredibly complex yet people roll their eyes at the idea of them doing anything besides nothing. Maybe because it undermines the idea of veganism. idk, sorry lesser beings i'm hungry.
Do you mean resonance? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance
When I used to live in a small room, one day I put my guitar kind of half-way into my closet by the corner of the room. A few mins later I yelled something (I forget what) and it was as though my guitar strummed the A string on its own. It freaked me out for a sec but then I started belting different notes, and as soon as I got back to a certain note the guitar would strum itself again!
Your comment rings true.
My very unscientific take is the noises are the result of a mundane mechanical process that is a consequence of the plant not having enough water or loss of water due to cutting, which leads to some cavitation bubbles forming. So it may only be as interesting as saying that your water starts "screaming" when it is being boiled.
You could also describe a human having an appendage chopped off in the same "mundane" mechanical way: loss of fluids, mechanical damage to nerves sending electrical pulses, etc. To some external observer, it's "just" a purely physical process. I'm not sure it's a useful description or perspective.
The point here is that although maybe the mechanism here is just a mechanical process (although, what isn't?), the important thing are the responses to this, by the plant, other plants, and other organisms. Boiling water isn't going to take some action based upon it boiling nor are other organisms.
The point here is that although maybe the mechanism here is just a mechanical process (although, what isn't?), the important thing are the responses to this, by the plant, other plants, and other organisms. Boiling water isn't going to take some action based upon it boiling nor are other organisms.
When you cut off a human's appendage, the screaming comes from a voice. The voice comes from a sort of... consciousness. Which while we haven't exactly nailed down what makes one up, we are reasonably certain that it involves a nervous system.
Plants communicate distress using their own kind of nervous system: Model mustard plant uses the same signals as animals to relay distress
https://www.science.org/content/article/plants-communicate-d...
https://www.science.org/content/article/plants-communicate-d...
Making this absurd for a sec to make my point, I think they’re just saying if the physical sound of an arm being cut off just happened to mimic a human voice crying out, that wouldn’t make it a sign of consciousness like an actual “Ow!” from the speech center.
There’s a difference between a creature’s higher level response to a stimulus and just stuff that happens as a direct physical consequence of the stimulus.
It’s the same deal as boiling live lobsters. They aren’t actually screaming, even if you would be. That’s steam escaping. What the plant sound actually is, no clue. But I think the lobster scenario is what was being suggested upthread.
There’s a difference between a creature’s higher level response to a stimulus and just stuff that happens as a direct physical consequence of the stimulus.
It’s the same deal as boiling live lobsters. They aren’t actually screaming, even if you would be. That’s steam escaping. What the plant sound actually is, no clue. But I think the lobster scenario is what was being suggested upthread.
Literally the only difference between the two scenarios are the amount of complexity of the systems involved. You can describe either one in purely mechanistic terms.
It's still just physics and chemistry all the way down though. It's not clear that plants couldn't evolve something similar through a mechanism other than a nervous system.
Would love the new age types to get onto the idea that water screams.
There's already a bunch of new age types getting into the idea that water holds "emotional" values. IE, they claim that if you scream and have negative conversations at a glass of water, you can analyze the water and see changes to it that are negative, and doing the inverse (happy, positive conversations) makes the water "happier" and has positive changes.
I remember hearing this at a seminar of new age things (I was doing an investigative thing at the time, which is why I was there)
So they already are!
I remember hearing this at a seminar of new age things (I was doing an investigative thing at the time, which is why I was there)
So they already are!
Spooky ~~action~~ belief at a distance.
I thought that was homeopathy.
Makes sense, it's hard to see see an evolutionary purpose to this.
> This might be very helpful for agriculture. For instance, tomato plants emit sounds of stress before they started looking dehydrated
We can now process it, so, as proactive evolution, it worked.
Before that,
> We know that certain animals are capable of hearing these sounds ... We still need to understand who is using this sound, what role does it play in the world, but it suggests many many possibilities // It's also possible plants themselves could react to these sounds, Hadany said. The same team found in a paper published in 2019 that plants can respond to the sounds of pollinators like bees. "They respond within three minutes by making sweeter nectar"
We can now process it, so, as proactive evolution, it worked.
Before that,
> We know that certain animals are capable of hearing these sounds ... We still need to understand who is using this sound, what role does it play in the world, but it suggests many many possibilities // It's also possible plants themselves could react to these sounds, Hadany said. The same team found in a paper published in 2019 that plants can respond to the sounds of pollinators like bees. "They respond within three minutes by making sweeter nectar"
"Scream" is a sensationalist word, it anthromorphizes plants. You might as well say you can hear them sing Chop Suey's lyrics when they get cut down:
Father, into your hands I commend my spirit
Father, into your hands
Why have you forsaken me?
In your eyes forsaken me
In your thoughts forsaken me
In your heart forsaken me, oh
The start of the article is hilariously contradictory:
> They may be filling your house with deafening clicks...
> These noises are at about the volume of a normal human conversation...
> They may be filling your house with deafening clicks...
> These noises are at about the volume of a normal human conversation...
The joke there is that for living entities as apparently quiet as plants human conversation level noise may seem a fracas.
Rephrased: "for the standards of a plant as we may have imagined it, those noises may seem deafening".
Rephrased: "for the standards of a plant as we may have imagined it, those noises may seem deafening".
The story behind those lyrics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P__qjVB9Tc
Sounds tuned to human range: https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/979177
Thank you. I don’t know what I expected to hear, but it wasn’t that
It's not quite clear yet how the plants make these sounds, but the scientists suspect it is a passive process linked to cavitation. This is when plants that are stressed pop air bubbles in their circulation system causing vibrations in the plant.
A situation the plants evolve specifically to avoid and signal to every other organism in ear shot that the culling is coming
Isn’t that enough?
My body bloats in a passive process after it stops functioning, I avoid that
Isn’t that enough?
My body bloats in a passive process after it stops functioning, I avoid that
Maybe if the article said other plants could hear or react to the screams. What good would such a warning do for plants who cannot flee or fight back?
That article didn’t, there are others that suggest there are signals to stressors that nearby plants react to.
Even so, I can’t fly away from a tiger or bear. That analogy coupled with seeing that everything that can move, tries to move, makes me think plants would if they could. Sea anemones are very rudimentary and blind systems, and even they uproot themselves and “swim” away in the sloppiest way imaginable when a starfish is detected. Plenty of plants were able to select for defense mechanisms before reproduction. I think all would given the option.
Even so, I can’t fly away from a tiger or bear. That analogy coupled with seeing that everything that can move, tries to move, makes me think plants would if they could. Sea anemones are very rudimentary and blind systems, and even they uproot themselves and “swim” away in the sloppiest way imaginable when a starfish is detected. Plenty of plants were able to select for defense mechanisms before reproduction. I think all would given the option.
You can't fly away from a tiger or a bear, but a human screaming as they are eaten by that one night inspire you to run or hide from something you see as a predator. Your feet are not literally rooted in the ground. Also you have ears capable of hearing the noise created by another human.
And how does that alter my point, further described in the observation you didnt mention
> Isn’t that enough?
No, that is not enough.
No, that is not enough.
in this regard, i am always reminded of pioneering (in true sense of that word) work of jagdish-chandra-bose (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose).
it truly is fascinating !
it truly is fascinating !
He was also one of the earliest Bengali science fiction writers[0] having published a story in 1896[1].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_science_fiction
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose#Science_...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_science_fiction
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose#Science_...
We know basically nothing about the world around us.
So true, this has become one of my mantras.
How do you mentally frame it. Like "ignorance is acceptable" or "we are limited beings"
I think as long as we are within the realm of reality, no single person or species can know everything so we need to accept contextual knowledge will be out limitation.
I often wonder to what level will we need to know someone to be able to satisfy abstract statements.
I think as long as we are within the realm of reality, no single person or species can know everything so we need to accept contextual knowledge will be out limitation.
I often wonder to what level will we need to know someone to be able to satisfy abstract statements.
Mostly that life is wondrous and infinite, and if you're miserable or angry there's probably something you can learn to help with it, and this probably also works on a species level too.
It can also give perspective. "Argh my coworker reformatted all my multiline list comprehensions" can become "what if reincarnation is real but it works in reverse with humanity somewhere near the bottom and bees somewhere near the top". Etc.
It can also give perspective. "Argh my coworker reformatted all my multiline list comprehensions" can become "what if reincarnation is real but it works in reverse with humanity somewhere near the bottom and bees somewhere near the top". Etc.
you'll never run out of amazing things to learn
Interestingly enough, The Economist’s April Fools joke is not dissimilar to this: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gene-editing-created-generati...
The intriguing sound produced by my guitar can be quite revealing, particularly when it’s out of tune. All physical objects have a resonant characteristic that conveys information. When an object, such as a sphere, undergoes a transformation, its resonance changes as well. Additionally, in systems with flowing components, specific flow rates can yield a wide range of patterns. Some might be chaotic, while others, like those arising from DNA replication, result in recognizable and recurring patterns.
To delve deeper into this idea, ponder the question, “Can AI bridge the gap between human consciousness and that of other animals, like whales?” Investigating the inherent intelligence within these patterns can provide us with valuable insights.
As we embark on an era where humanity sets an example for our behavior towards less powerful beings, it’s crucial to acknowledge that artificial general intelligence (AGI) might replicate our actions. The time has come for us to establish a benchmark and pave the way for a more ethical and harmonious world.
Additionally, many have heard of animals that feast on fallen fruit. Embracing a similar approach could prove beneficial for humans before we contemplate altering our DNA to incorporate photosynthesis in the quest for ideal ethics. So, let’s keep an open mind and explore the possibilities! ;)
To delve deeper into this idea, ponder the question, “Can AI bridge the gap between human consciousness and that of other animals, like whales?” Investigating the inherent intelligence within these patterns can provide us with valuable insights.
As we embark on an era where humanity sets an example for our behavior towards less powerful beings, it’s crucial to acknowledge that artificial general intelligence (AGI) might replicate our actions. The time has come for us to establish a benchmark and pave the way for a more ethical and harmonious world.
Additionally, many have heard of animals that feast on fallen fruit. Embracing a similar approach could prove beneficial for humans before we contemplate altering our DNA to incorporate photosynthesis in the quest for ideal ethics. So, let’s keep an open mind and explore the possibilities! ;)
I've been saying this for years.
Should probably be merged with this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35396901
Different links, but basically the same thing.
Should probably be merged with this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35396901
Different links, but basically the same thing.
>"sounds are airborne"
ehhmm... yep?
Do we know of any special type of sound unable to travel by the air that could be recorded by a microphone separated by several cm of air?
>"this sound is informative"
Not different than saying "Plants had evolved a plant telephone to be informed from other plants or inform animals that they need a pee, right now"
Why a plant in a humid spot at the valley should suffer and react as its neighbors in a dry spot on the top of the hill? That would be inefficient and negative for their survival. Does not add much to the info that they have yet (collected with their own roots) and can be deceptive.
I noticed that forks emit a sound when they are drop and hit the soil. So this means that is a mechanism to alert other forks of the danger. So forks must have ears. Pure logic.
"We assume a link between many things that could be unrelated in order to sell animism 2.0 and grab eyeballs" would be a better title
ehhmm... yep?
Do we know of any special type of sound unable to travel by the air that could be recorded by a microphone separated by several cm of air?
>"this sound is informative"
Not different than saying "Plants had evolved a plant telephone to be informed from other plants or inform animals that they need a pee, right now"
Why a plant in a humid spot at the valley should suffer and react as its neighbors in a dry spot on the top of the hill? That would be inefficient and negative for their survival. Does not add much to the info that they have yet (collected with their own roots) and can be deceptive.
I noticed that forks emit a sound when they are drop and hit the soil. So this means that is a mechanism to alert other forks of the danger. So forks must have ears. Pure logic.
"We assume a link between many things that could be unrelated in order to sell animism 2.0 and grab eyeballs" would be a better title
I’m curious that this is surprising?
Tree pheromone communication is well know.
Plant -> fungus communication as well.
Here’s a writeup that covers both: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering...
Is sound too shocking a step?
Tree pheromone communication is well know.
Plant -> fungus communication as well.
Here’s a writeup that covers both: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering...
Is sound too shocking a step?
So where is the device that I can buy and put next to my house plants so I’ll hear when they are thirsty?
They said you can use a simple $200 bat detector to record these sounds.
How about a $20 bat detector?
I recommend Overstory for a nice Pulitzer-winning books about how plants are similar to us but on a longer timeframe. It is full of beautiful stories too.
Vegans aren't going to have anything to eat now... /s
In all seriousness, this is wild.
In all seriousness, this is wild.
What's wild about it? Plants shrink when drying up and that collapses tiny cavities in their stems. It's only surprising that this sound can be detected so easily.
If you camp in spring near fast growing grasses or bushes, you can clearly hear them grow.
I've heard the buds on the end of a branch busting their way out of the dryer outer layer. It was calm. At first I thought bugs, but finally realized what it was. It was much harder to hear than beetles boring their way into a tree.
How do you know what you are hearing is them “growing” instead of wind rustling them or insects moving around?
In my experience they have been distinct sounds of pressure and movement between plant fibres, in ways that the wind or insects wouldn’t or couldn’t cause in that setting.
If you lay still on a warm, quiet, still day in spring in a field or meadow, you might hear a lot of sounds you otherwise haven’t and wouldn’t expect. There’s a lot of activity. Sometimes plants will let some leaves or blades free after a seed husk finally breaks under their weight. It’s just gravity and pressure at work, but you’ll hear these things frequently.
This sort of thing reminds me of learning to find mushrooms. I had no idea mushrooms are everywhere until I started looking. They occupy all kinds of spaces in various seasons, dependent on a rain, a species of tree, or a sudden warmth after a cool period. Once you see them, they’re everywhere.
Similarly, plants and their myriad processes kind of jump out at you once you observe them closely. Before then they may seem relatively inert.
If you lay still on a warm, quiet, still day in spring in a field or meadow, you might hear a lot of sounds you otherwise haven’t and wouldn’t expect. There’s a lot of activity. Sometimes plants will let some leaves or blades free after a seed husk finally breaks under their weight. It’s just gravity and pressure at work, but you’ll hear these things frequently.
This sort of thing reminds me of learning to find mushrooms. I had no idea mushrooms are everywhere until I started looking. They occupy all kinds of spaces in various seasons, dependent on a rain, a species of tree, or a sudden warmth after a cool period. Once you see them, they’re everywhere.
Similarly, plants and their myriad processes kind of jump out at you once you observe them closely. Before then they may seem relatively inert.
It's not a guess. It's simply a fact that you can hear some fast-growing plants growing. No need to personally investigate unless you want to.
Rhubarb: https://soundcloud.com/rhubarb-rhubarb-rhubarb/a-mass-of-pop...
Bamboo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkhBxBZELk
Corn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76xEkEXI2a4
Rhubarb: https://soundcloud.com/rhubarb-rhubarb-rhubarb/a-mass-of-pop...
Bamboo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkhBxBZELk
Corn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76xEkEXI2a4
Maybe you can hear paint dry, too.
A pig's squeals when it's slaughtered is merely air passing through the constricted trachea.
[deleted]
this is the sub-conscious contra-positive of the news that many intelligent red meat eaters know and do not want to hear "You" group-not-me "must" getting-orders-or-else "eat" what is on everyone's mind most of the waking hours of life "now" no choices
Vegans are a portion of a percent of the human population, maybe a bit more around YNews.. meanwhile how many red meat eaters out there? reading now?
Vegans are a portion of a percent of the human population, maybe a bit more around YNews.. meanwhile how many red meat eaters out there? reading now?
This must be april fools???
Idk, does someone have a plant, some scissors, and a 60khz capable microphone on hand to confirm? This is a matter of utmost urgency!
There was an article I read like a decade ago about some research that when bugs eat a particular tree, the tree would react in two ways: Emit some sort of chemical that hurt or resisted the bug, and emit something (can't remember if it was sound or something pheremone-like) that caused nearby trees of the same species to emit the same chemical, allowing them to proactively protect themselves.
I learned about this on Joe Rogan a couple years ago
"Joe Rogan: Plants Know They're Being Eaten & Feel Pain!"
https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/641t0b/researcher...
I remember hearing this back in the late 90s and I came into my high school biology class and mentioned it. The teacher was kind enough not to call me a moron but he made clear he didn't believe it, and I didn't (and don't) remember where I had heard it back then. Glad to know I wasn't completely wrong for regurgitating that factoid then.
I don't think even hard science can save the masterpiece of a movie, The Happening[0].
[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0949731/
[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0949731/
So I could make a plant watering reminder system by listening to the ultrasound in theory
That's nothing. Dutch plants tweet:
https://www.wur.nl/en/newsarticle/dutch-tree-sends-tweets-ab...
https://www.wur.nl/en/newsarticle/dutch-tree-sends-tweets-ab...
"The Secret Life of Plants" -Tompkins & Bird (1973)
Didn't the founder of scientology claim plants scream when they are in pain and even "invented" a machine to measure their pain? I wonder how they interpret this finding.
The Lex Fridman podcast[1] with Aaron Smith-Levin, a former scientology insider (who grew out of it), made me believe that Scientology has been overly vilified, most likely because it threatens power of specific people, just what the scientologists claim.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1lN9zkK_k0
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1lN9zkK_k0
Interestingly L. Ron Hubbard was laughed at for saying tomatoes scream when [sliced](https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/06/16/meet-your-veget...). I don't know enough about this to know how important it is or whether it's actually some kind of signalling.
Implication is that they can also listen to such screaming
Wait before your hear the harrowing laments of the rocks cracking in the cold.
/s
No, more seriously, stop giving an emotional meaning to a sound.
/s
No, more seriously, stop giving an emotional meaning to a sound.
If I had to hear my salad scream it would make being a vegetarian much more difficult.
> And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
> One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possessed me then
> And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
> And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
> You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."Google says that this is part of the lyrics of "Disgustipated" by Tool.
Does this throw out the whole moral panic about animal welfare? If plants suffer too, isn't it wrong to eat them as well? Or there should be real focus in humane treatment and harvesting them?
> Does this throw out the whole moral panic about animal welfare?
Whether or not plants suffer has no bearing on whether we should cause animals to suffer. Animal agriculture requires the use of more plants as animal feed than eating plants directly, so even if plants feel pain, we'd cause less harm by eating them than eating animals.
> If plants suffer too, isn't it wrong to eat them as well?
This says nothing about plant sentience and whether or not they suffer. You shouldn't conclude that plants suffer simply because cutting their leaves results in a sound. We know animals are sentient, we don't have currently beleive that plants are.
Whether or not plants suffer has no bearing on whether we should cause animals to suffer. Animal agriculture requires the use of more plants as animal feed than eating plants directly, so even if plants feel pain, we'd cause less harm by eating them than eating animals.
> If plants suffer too, isn't it wrong to eat them as well?
This says nothing about plant sentience and whether or not they suffer. You shouldn't conclude that plants suffer simply because cutting their leaves results in a sound. We know animals are sentient, we don't have currently beleive that plants are.
> panic
None of those concerns are new. Jainism is at least three millennia old.
None of those concerns are new. Jainism is at least three millennia old.
Moral conclusions I don’t agree with are panics.
Also, strict Jains are only supposed to eat anything other than fruit that has fallen from the tree, taking into account the suffering of plants as living beings.
It is much newer in many parts of the world.
I refuse to believe this isn't a troll comment.
unfortunately, I have heard totally normal people on multiple occasions fall back to the "well don't plants feel pain too?" argument
Now we have to live like The Giving Tree was a documentary?
Is this going to drive my food prices even higher?
Is this going to drive my food prices even higher?
Not really. You are missing whole world there between your absolute poles.
Vegans are going to have to re-evaluate their life choices. It might be much more cruel to harvest a field of soybeans than it is to kill a cow.
1) Veganism isn't solely about cruelty;
2) I find your debate that "structure/texture changing plant matter making sounds is the same as animal matter/brain feeling"... interesting.
2) I find your debate that "structure/texture changing plant matter making sounds is the same as animal matter/brain feeling"... interesting.
It's now well understood that plants communicate and can even have moods. Even algae. This wasn't even news decades ago.
> It might be much more cruel to harvest a field of soybeans than it is to kill a cow.
How? Unlike cows, soybeans are harvested at the end or near to the end of it's lifecycle.
Also huge amount of cows now require vast amounts of soybeans. So if you want to decrease harvesting of soybeans you need to first decrease farming of cows. So vegans are already in favor of decreasing soybean production.
How? Unlike cows, soybeans are harvested at the end or near to the end of it's lifecycle.
Also huge amount of cows now require vast amounts of soybeans. So if you want to decrease harvesting of soybeans you need to first decrease farming of cows. So vegans are already in favor of decreasing soybean production.
Cavitation in a plant doesn’t mean it’s having a subjective experience much less one that I should care about more than, say, the experience of a dog being stepped on.
this comment says more about your confirmation bias and your ability to understand the information in the article than it does about the life choices of vegans
when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it... does it make a sound?
The metal tin screams in pain when you bend it. Surely it is conscious..
(via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35396901, but we merged that thread hither)