Sounds emitted by plants under stress are airborne and informative
cell.com
cell.com
(via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35396901, but we merged that thread hither)
> 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...
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any organism we see today may very well have unnecessary traits that evolution is in the process of removing.
I wouldn't want such people unchecked though.
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.
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)
>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.
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)
Like, a human?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering...
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)
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.
How dare you translate academic technobabble to common tongue?
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.
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.
--
> In other words, dry wood cracks.
I don't think it's saying that at all
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"
To wit, yes, the tree makes a sound because the tree is there to hear it.
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.
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.
> 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.
I wonder whether there are people who can hear these sounds, even faintly.
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.
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.
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"
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!
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.
https://www.science.org/content/article/plants-communicate-d...
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.
> They may be filling your house with deafening clicks...
> These noises are at about the volume of a normal human conversation...
Rephrased: "for the standards of a plant as we may have imagined it, those noises may seem deafening".
Isn’t that enough?
My body bloats in a passive process after it stops functioning, I avoid that
No, that is not enough.
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.
it truly is fascinating !
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_science_fiction
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose#Science_...
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.
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.
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! ;)
Should probably be merged with this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35396901
Different links, but basically the same thing.
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
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?
In all seriousness, this is wild.
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.
Rhubarb: https://soundcloud.com/rhubarb-rhubarb-rhubarb/a-mass-of-pop...
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?
https://www.wur.nl/en/newsarticle/dutch-tree-sends-tweets-ab...
/s
No, more seriously, stop giving an emotional meaning to a sound.
> 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."Is this going to drive my food prices even higher?
None of those concerns are new. Jainism is at least three millennia old.
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.
2) I find your debate that "structure/texture changing plant matter making sounds is the same as animal matter/brain feeling"... interesting.
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.