Plants Can Hear Animals Using Their Flowers (theatlantic.com) 151
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report via The Atlantic: The latest experiments in this niche but increasingly vocal field come from Lilach Hadany and Yossi Yovel at Tel Aviv University. In one set, they showed that some plants can hear the sounds of animal pollinators and react by rapidly sweetening their nectar. In a second set, they found that other plants make high-pitched noises that lie beyond the scope of human hearing but can nonetheless be detected some distance away. After the team released early copies of two papers describing their work, not yet published in a scientific journal, I ran them past several independent researchers. Some of these researchers have argued that plants are surprisingly communicative; others have doubted the idea. Their views on the new studies, however, didn't fall along obvious partisan lines. Almost unanimously, they loved the paper asserting that plants can hear and were skeptical about the one reporting that plants make noise. Those opposite responses to work done by the same team underscore how controversial this line of research still is, and how hard it is to study the sensory worlds of organisms that are so different from us.
First, two team members, Marine Veits and Itzhak Khait, checked whether beach evening primroses could hear. In both lab experiments and outdoor trials, they found that the plants would react to recordings of a bee's wingbeats by increasing the concentration of sugar in their nectar by about 20 percent. They did so in response only to the wingbeats and low frequency, pollinator-like sounds, not to those of higher pitch. And they reacted very quickly, sweetening their nectar in less than three minutes. That's probably fast enough to affect a visiting bee, but even if that insect flies away too quickly, the plant is ready to better entice the next visitor. After all, the presence of one pollinator almost always means that there are more around. But if plants can hear, what are their ears? The team's answer is surprising, yet tidy: It's the flowers themselves. They used lasers to show that the primrose's petals vibrate when hit by the sounds of a bee's wingbeats. If they covered the blooms with glass jars, those vibrations never happened, and the nectar never sweetened. The flower, then, could act like the fleshy folds of our outer ears, channeling sound further into the plant. (Where? No one knows yet!)
First, two team members, Marine Veits and Itzhak Khait, checked whether beach evening primroses could hear. In both lab experiments and outdoor trials, they found that the plants would react to recordings of a bee's wingbeats by increasing the concentration of sugar in their nectar by about 20 percent. They did so in response only to the wingbeats and low frequency, pollinator-like sounds, not to those of higher pitch. And they reacted very quickly, sweetening their nectar in less than three minutes. That's probably fast enough to affect a visiting bee, but even if that insect flies away too quickly, the plant is ready to better entice the next visitor. After all, the presence of one pollinator almost always means that there are more around. But if plants can hear, what are their ears? The team's answer is surprising, yet tidy: It's the flowers themselves. They used lasers to show that the primrose's petals vibrate when hit by the sounds of a bee's wingbeats. If they covered the blooms with glass jars, those vibrations never happened, and the nectar never sweetened. The flower, then, could act like the fleshy folds of our outer ears, channeling sound further into the plant. (Where? No one knows yet!)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting if true indeed. It certainly seems a whole lot more plausible that the conclusions of this study. [rebprotocol.net] [PDF alert]
TL/DR: First, consider the author: Cleve Baxter of Baxter Research Foundation, Inc. Maybe he has an academic pedigree, but it's not obvious from his affiliation. Second, consider the publication: International Journal of Parapsychology.
The "money shot" in the paper is that the author claims to have observed a sudden change in the resistance of a plant's leaf as a result of him merely thin
Re: (Score:2)
Found some more stuff on Cleve Baxter here. [wikipedia.org] He was a CIA interrogation specialist and polygraph instructor. His claims of primary perception in plant life were widely dismissed in the scientific community. Rightly so IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that if flowers and other plants can 'hear', they are likely only going to be able to hear things that increase their chances of reproduction and survival.
Flowers responding to sound/vibrations isn't so wild if you think of Venus fly traps, which have small hair-like structures that sense movement and create electrical signals to trigger the trap to close. (Details: https://www.livescience.com/15... [livescience.com] ) If there is a survival advantage to detecting and attracting pollinators, then maybe there is a similar mechanism to release nectar or pollen tuned to insect-specific sound frequencies/vibrations.
Armchair science is fun!
Re: (Score:2)
Hippies have been saying this for 40+ years and have been ridiculed for it the whole time.
It seems like you can't out-ridiculous it because people who were first discovering it would be bullied so bad, you've probably already practiced laughing at these facts.
Mythbusters: we probably messed up (Score:5, Interesting)
As I recall, Mythbusters did a test of the effect of sounds on plants. When their data surprisingly DID clearly show an effect, they reminded viewers that their experiment wasn't rigorously scientific, and the results could have been caused by some experimental error. It was pretty clear they were not expecting that result, and didn't quite believe it.
... or it's a science demonstration (Score:2)
What they do is often called "science demonstrations".
I might want to teach my kid something about science, so I drop two balls from height - a big heavy one and a little ligjt one. I'm showing that they fall at the same rate. I *know* the principle I'm demonstrating. It's not something I thought up, it's well-known basic science.
If the balls don't drop at the same rate, I know that I messed up the demonstration in some way and I should admit that. (And yes there are a couple ways to screw up that demonstr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember that most science is not done by "Eureka!", but instead happens with "That's odd...".
Thus an unexpected result could mean poor scientific
Re: (Score:1)
APK, I have a question. When you say that he is a nazi homosexual recruiter, do you mean a recruiter for "the homosexuals" who happens to also be a nazi? Or is a recruiter for the nazis who happens to be a homosexual? Or is there a group of nazi homosexuals, possibly confused self-hating individuals, but this group of nazi homosexuals has some sort of recruitment mechanism and he is a member of that?
Also, what exactly is "pre-debunked propaganda?" Is this propaganda which has been debunked prior to bein
Re: (Score:2)
"35 Hidden Comments"
Now that's funny. Looks like a struck a nerve. Hope everyone excuses me if I'm not going to read through them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, how deep are those comments nested? Good god, I made one post and it brought out the rabid frothing insanity, this is hilarious. I value my time and sanity, so you understand that I'm not reading any of this mental diarrhea.
If you'd like to link to an interaction in the past though, try the post where I tore down every single one of your so-called "achievements" to show that you haven't done but Jack and Shit for the past two decades. Shit man, you're still trying to claim "achievements" like subm
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Jack Handey - "Deep Thoughts"
Re: (Score:2)
Its always been a fun thought if trees can walk.
They are called Triffids. Don't piss them off.
Plants can hear Vegans plot against them... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on perspective, we're just slaves to pets, cattle and animals then too, especially cats. For most of history, we've been running away from most animals and often represented them as or in gods, the rest we feed and take care of as if our life depended on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you'd have to say the same of the animals we eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, many plants have what is known as antiherbivoral compounds, bitter-tasting and even poisonous chemicals that are supposed to discourage animals from eating them.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to eat it, else it would just keep growing and taking over more and more of the Earth until there was nothing but that plant species taking up all the space on this planet.
What you non-gardens haven't figured out is that plants actually ENCOURAGE bugs and animals to eat them. Yes, it's true. Take any plant and stress it out, like say, transplant it somewhere else. Stick it right next to a bunch of similar plants that aren't stressed at all. Slugs and bugs will come and devour the stressed plant
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to eat it, else it would just keep growing and taking over more and more of the Earth
Not true. No animal eats mistletoe, but it doesn't take over because many host tree species have evolved to cut of its sap supply with burls, and starve it.
If not being eaten was the only criteria for flourishing, then polar bears and Siberian tigers would be the dominant species on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. No animal eats mistletoe
Is that what your extensive research tells you? Because my extensive research (which consisted of googling "do any animals eat mistletoe" and reading the google highlighted summary at the top of the results) says:
Researchers have documented that animals such as elk, cattle and deer eat mistletoe during winter when fresh foliage is rare. ... Other mammals that eat mistletoe include squirrels, chipmunks, and even porcupines, some of which are deliriously fond of the plant.
The full article (https://www.usgs.gov/news/not-just-kissing-mistletoe-and-birds-bees-and-other-beasts-0) also documents species of birds that eat the berries
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PETA needs to change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus leading to achievement of their ultimate goal - getting rid of the human race. Only the human race consumes other living matter to survive, or something, so we have to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus leading to achievement of their ultimate goal - getting rid of the human race. Only the human race consumes other living matter to survive, or something, so we have to go.
Worse than that since there are many things from the smallest microbes up to animals and even other plants consume living matter to survive that the plants ultimate goal is to wipe the earth clean of all "living' matter. Tossing out the baby with the bathwater as it may be, then at least when everything is gone there will be no more pain and suffering and the next round of what gets to inhabit this rock gets a fresh start.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to a Roald Dahl Story (Score:2)
Makes me think of the story 'The Sound Machine' [youtube.com] by Roald Dahl (part of the "Tales of the Unexpected" series in the UK) where a botanist invents a machine that lets him 'hear' plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, unfortunately too much of a mad scientist with some seriously deficient marketing skills -- but there wouldn't have been the suspense and story otherwise.
It does make me wonder, what can be seen using a wide-band ultrasound microphone and a spectrum analyzer.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuts, you beat me to it! I'll just add some another link to places the numerous places the story has appeared: https://www.roalddahlfans.com/... [roalddahlfans.com]. There seem to be excerpts of the story in various places, but I believe this is the complete written version: http://fliphtml5.com/ppjz/hbbt... [fliphtml5.com], in case anyone would prefer to read instead of listen.
Not "hearing", reacting (Score:5, Insightful)
They have evolved chemical reactions that are linked to vibrations of a certain pattern but they aren't hearing. The difference is that hearing implies cognition which plants lack.
This may seem pendant but it's like saying your stairs feel you walking up them because they squeak when you step on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this interpretation reminds me of some mumbo jumbo “science” way back in the late 60s or early 70s. Some “researcher” reported that plants knew fear. The scientist put two plants in a room and had a person walk in and destroy one of the plants. Then they monitored the other plant somehow and, whenever the “murderer” would walk in the room, the plant’s stress level would go up.
My flower-child teacher, who reported this to us kids, thought this was very deep. I
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand it's not "impossible". Some trees communicate when a leaf eating 'monster' (giraffe) is nearby and excrete foul or even poisonous (to the giraffe) taste into their leaves. It's not impossible for something to have a 'memory' of sorts, even our computers have inputs, processing, memory, outputs, but that doesn't make it sentient, it's just been 'programmed' (by evolutionary pressures) to behave a certain way.
Re: (Score:2)
Except what you are describing would happen whenever any giraffe is nearby. The story concocted back then would mean that the plants would only act that way when one particular individual giraffe approached the plants - one that had previously decimated a tree - while nothing would happen if any other giraffe approached.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming the memory is long-term. If it is short-term, it could be that the plant, when actively dying, secreted something that stuck to the "murderer", and that the other plants could detect that scent whenever the person walked in.
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstood the details, but that is solid, well-established research.
When you cut on one plant, it communicates with other plants through its roots, and other plants increase production of poisons intended to reduce browsing.
You morons are so busy hating on hippies, you can't even science anymore.
Re:Not "hearing", reacting (Score:5, Interesting)
Hearing certainly doesn't imply cognition to me. Hearing was around long before anything like a cerebrum existed, and most life reacts via stimulus/response, and always has. You hear a loud sharp noise, you don't think "hey, maybe I should twitch" - the twitch happens long before you consciously perceive it.
Re: (Score:1)
This is true. It has also been demonstrated that some plants seem to be able to count stimuli. There is a TED talk showing plants only reacting after being stimulated multiple times, meaning their nervous system appears to be able to count in a basic way.
So to assume plants have no cognative ability may be inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
"Counting" brings in excess implications, though. They can keep track of a state variable, and react at certain thresholds, for sure. But it is unlikely they're actually quantizing the value into countable units; even if sometimes it seems that way because the inputs are quantized.
Also, does keeping track of a state variable, and reacting at a threshold, count as cognition? Maybe the implication is that less things require cognition than we assumed. This idea is often resisted because people it hurts people
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! The naysayers make so many assumptions, when they hear about any sort of research they think it is impwaaaaahsible because it would violate their assumptions. They don't even stop to consider; maybe the implication is that the assumptions are unfounded?
They think you need a brain to understand when your body is threatened, or to seek out food, or whatever. They should pay some attention to the fucking worms on the sidewalk; they don't even have a brain, only a spinal cord, and yet they respond to t
Re: (Score:2)
No one currently grasps the extent to which stimulus response guides even human being's actions and where reflexes leave off and active conscious thought begin. It's not like a bacteria requires self-awareness to actively respond to environmental stimuli, and its my opinion that the difference between them and us is mostly a matter of degree - many orders of magnitude.
Not to give credence to Stephen Wolfram and his raging egomania, but it is well-known that complex behavior can evolve
Re: (Score:1)
"Hearing certainly doesn't imply cognition to me. "
Well, it does to me. Hearing is first and foremost a SENSATION.
A sensation generated by a clump of neurons.
These plants react to sound, but it's not hearing. There is no brain to produce a sensation.
We should invent a new word for this because the mechanism for how the information from the air pressure is processed by these organism is just completely different from how animals do it.
I mean, you wouldn't say that plants are able to walk because they manage
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't thinking for humans also the result of "evolved chemical reactions"?
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to say just this. When you overstate something in these kinds of terms - the word hear has a very specific meaning not applicable in this case - you immediately lose credibility to those of us that are scientifically minded. Like the guy who builds those wind sculpture things that move under wind power, and talks about them as living creatures with nerves and muscles and such. Loose analogy is not a good form of scientific description to talk about something you've observed.
We already know that
Re: (Score:3)
They have evolved chemical reactions that are linked to vibrations of a certain pattern but they aren't hearing. The difference is that hearing implies cognition which plants lack.
If correct then it's a response in response to a sound based stimulus. That's pretty much like hearing. Why does it have to imply cognition?
This may seem pendant but it's like saying your stairs feel you walking up them because they squeak when you step on them.
That's not a stimulus.
Re: (Score:1)
"Why does it have to imply cognition?"
Because that is how it's defined.
The mechanism by which sound is processed is just completely different.
Hearing is a distinctly neural activity.
But, you know, people are prone to anthropomorphize things that look similar to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that is how it's defined.
Really? Where?
The mechanism by which sound is processed is just completely different.
Yes, and?
Re: (Score:1)
"Really? Where?"
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
"Yes, and?"
And that makes this tree thing different from hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
That link does not support your claim.
Re: (Score:1)
"That link does not support your claim."
Only if you didn't read it.
Anyway, if you have actual arguments then we can discuss it, otherwise, you're wasting everyones time.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you didn't read it.
Except I did. Posting wrong links then claiming "you didn't read" isn't an argument. It's dumbass. If you think the link says it, quot the part and say WHY you have that interpretation. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
Re: (Score:3)
You can also say only chemical reactions happen in our brain when we think so we're really not thinking but our brains are chemical-reacting. A word means something if it is useful. If saying plants "hearing" is useful -- if it is -- why not say it.
That said, we don't understand what life is, not even plant life, so some may well find it useful with respect to this matter to go with the Sufi mystic's saying, "God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man."
Re: (Score:1)
Partisanship (Score:2)
Their views on the new studies, however, didn't fall along obvious partisan lines.
How on Earth can this have a partisan divide?
I don't even know my member of parliament's stand on the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations! You have an opportunity right now, today, due to this mistake that you made, to learn that words can, and usually do, have more than one meaning!
Please scroll down to the 2nd definition of partisan. And if you're really up for some shockers, try to get all the way to the end of the definitions. Wow, look at all those different uses for a single word! Holy smokes!
Re: (Score:2)
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked it up, and "obvious partisan lines" is still ludicrous.
Plants respond to stimuli (Score:2, Funny)
Nothing new here except they're calling it "hearing" because people can hear a bee's wings beating. Another case of anthropomorphism click bait.
Re: (Score:1)
Another case of anthropomorphism click bait.
Well, if it weren't for us, nothing would exist
Skeptical? (Score:2)
Did they make noise or didnâ(TM)t they? Itâ(TM)s not like we donâ(TM)t have the ability to reliably detect sound.
As for hearing, of course the petals vibrate. The question is whether the vibrations have any effect. I canâ(TM)t imagine how temporal correlation between sonic emissions and chemial changes couldnâ(TM)t be found conclusively if the phenomenon exists.
vegans worse nightmare! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The important question (Score:2)
How does this research impact marijuana growth?
seems to me (Score:2)