9 ms·
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 so
by svara 4y ago
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.
- erie 4y ago[flagged]
- sarusso 4y agoBut you could use ultrasound sensors to monitor plants in agricolture... maybe this is why it got published in such a high impact factor journal.
- canadiantim 4y agoIf 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.
- mclide 4y agoBy 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.
- q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y agoIt'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.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> 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.
- passterby 4y agopotatos have more genes that you
- tpoacher 4y agoThis just means that the potato dna-source-code devs were being evaluated by management against a "kLOC" metric.
- tpoacher 4y agoYou 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.
- LegitShady 4y agoI'm not sure why you can assume that without any direct evidence.
- philipov 4y agoIf you break a branch, the sound of it breaking informs you that you have broken a branch.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoIt also informs other animals that a large creature may be passing by.
- throwaway290 4y agoLike 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
- galaxyLogic 4y agoIf 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#:~:text=%22If%20a%20tree%20falls%20in,questions%20regarding%20observation%20and%20perception 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"
- philipov 4y ago"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.
- galaxyLogic 4y agoWell yes IF it is true that trees can hear, which is what these new experiments give some credence to but don't prove conclusively
- calibas 4y agoThey'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.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> 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.
- j16sdiz 4y agoIn algculture setting, it is far easier to record sound than testing for chemical.
- layer8 4y agoFrom 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.
- entwife 4y agoThe 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.
- davidcollantes 4y agoImagine 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.