[HN Gopher] Sounds emitted by plants under stress are airborne a...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Sounds emitted by plants under stress are airborne and informative
        
       Author : ecosystem
       Score  : 140 points
       Date   : 2023-04-01 01:39 UTC (21 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cell.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cell.com)
        
       | willcipriano wrote:
       | We know basically nothing about the world around us.
        
         | camgunz wrote:
         | So true, this has become one of my mantras.
        
           | ungamedplayer wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | klyrs wrote:
             | you'll never run out of amazing things to learn
        
             | camgunz wrote:
             | 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.
        
       | mejutoco wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | maartn wrote:
       | This must be april fools???
        
         | moffkalast wrote:
         | Idk, does someone have a plant, some scissors, and a 60khz
         | capable microphone on hand to confirm? This is a matter of
         | utmost urgency!
        
       | Pigalowda wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | yieldcrv wrote:
         | 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
        
           | quonn wrote:
           | > Isn't that enough?
           | 
           | No, that is not enough.
        
           | qbrass wrote:
           | While your body would also make noises if someone cut your
           | head off, it's not a process your body evolved to signal
           | everything around it to run.
        
             | yieldcrv wrote:
             | Its what would happen anyway because its a precursor to
             | more undermining of self-preservation
        
           | schwartzworld wrote:
           | 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?
        
             | yieldcrv wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | schwartzworld wrote:
               | 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.
        
       | ecosystem wrote:
       | Sounds tuned to human range:
       | https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/979177
        
       | withinboredom wrote:
       | Vegans aren't going to have anything to eat now... /s
       | 
       | In all seriousness, this is wild.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | arcanemachiner wrote:
         | [flagged]
        
           | steve_adams_86 wrote:
           | I don't think we're all that murderous at all unless we're
           | subjected to acute, severe stresses and/or maladaptive
           | processes (usually early in life). I genuinely care about the
           | well being of other living things and would hate to be in a
           | position where I felt murder was necessary. I know I'm not
           | alone.
           | 
           | Seeing how war affects soldiers, I suspect the experience of
           | killing and witnessing death is typically very traumatic to
           | humans. It appears that animal processing facilities also
           | inflict trauma on many workers, so it isn't only killing
           | humans that can harm us.
           | 
           | We're very good at killing, but I don't think we innately
           | like it or tend towards it outside of procuring food. Even
           | then, not all of us eat animals.
           | 
           | Look at the lengths we go to hide death and murder when we do
           | it. From war to agricultural systems, we go to great lengths
           | to pretend it's something it's not so we can stomach what
           | we're doing or buying into. The closer we get to the
           | individuals effected, the more reprehensible I think we tend
           | to find it.
           | 
           | If we were truly murderous I suspect we wouldn't behave in
           | that way. I could be wrong -- I'm very biased.
        
             | kjkjadksj wrote:
             | I think our current culture is biased to feel weird about
             | killing. Historically, killing was often a form of
             | entertainment for the public, and a matter of course for
             | getting the nutrients for life.
        
               | AlecSchueler wrote:
               | In the past people weren't able to voice their concerns
               | and demand better things. Violence as entertainment was
               | used as a tool by the ruling classes as a way to enforce
               | their power.
               | 
               | The effects of the trauma of violence are clear and well
               | studied. Just because something happened in the past
               | doesn't mean we can assume it had true support from the
               | people who had no choice.
               | 
               | Maybe people in the future will say that the people today
               | found it entertaining to pollute the world, while we know
               | many of us find it upsetting and wish in vain for
               | alternatives against the strong tide of the power system
               | in place.
               | 
               | Another thing to consider is the old taboo around left
               | handedness. As the taboo lifted the actually recorded
               | rate of left handedness increased dramatically! Turns out
               | social systems can lead to people acting in ways that are
               | personally uncomfortable for them rather than going
               | against the tide.
        
               | arcanemachiner wrote:
               | This sounds like the response of someone steeped in
               | modern culture, safe from the influence of having to kill
               | things as part of day-to-day life.
               | 
               | What is missing from the discussion is likely (if I'm not
               | projecting too much here... I feel this way about myself
               | as well) that you have a relatively detached relationship
               | from death compared to people in times past and are
               | disconnected from the experience of what it is actually
               | like to be steeped in such experience.
               | 
               | I have no idea what it would be like to live in such a
               | life, but to assume it's inherently bad is a prejudiced
               | outlook based only on your own limited experience. If you
               | were raised watching public executions every week, you
               | might be singing a different tune, and casting doubt in
               | the opposite direction.
        
               | AlecSchueler wrote:
               | I'm not claiming that the opposite from the original
               | claim was the truth, I'm doing the same as you and saying
               | be careful not to project your current feelings onto a
               | past that we can never truly know.
               | 
               | No one can say the people of the past felt one way or
               | not, that's my main point. The other point I'm adding on
               | is that people are inherently varied in their mindsets
               | and it's only very recently in history we've had such an
               | equal opportunity to share our feelings and hope to have
               | them heard.
               | 
               | I would add one thing as well: In many societies there's
               | been a great reverence given to animals and their
               | slaughter ritualized or governed by cultural rules. To me
               | this suggests at the very least that people have always
               | had some sense of the gravity of their actions and felt a
               | need to make sense of and tame their feelings by
               | externalizing or controlling them.
        
             | withinboredom wrote:
             | Without modern agriculture + nutrition, I don't think you
             | could survive without eating meat (if I'm wrong, feel free
             | to ignore the rest of this). That means you have to murder
             | an animal to live and don't really get a choice in the
             | matter. This why we are inherently murderous. Sure, these
             | days we pay other people to do it, but when you pick up a
             | burger; that cow was murdered -- hopefully humanly.
        
               | olyjohn wrote:
               | Hmm. I don't agree that all killing is murder.
        
         | mistrial9 wrote:
         | 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?
        
         | akomtu wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | Euphorbium wrote:
           | If you camp in spring near fast growing grasses or bushes,
           | you can clearly hear them grow.
        
             | krisoft wrote:
             | How do you know what you are hearing is them "growing"
             | instead of wind rustling them or insects moving around?
        
               | steve_adams_86 wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | pessimizer wrote:
               | 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
        
             | mcswell wrote:
             | Maybe you can hear paint dry, too.
        
             | twothamendment wrote:
             | 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.
        
           | steponlego wrote:
           | A pig's squeals when it's slaughtered is merely air passing
           | through the constricted trachea.
        
       | steponlego wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | hombre_fatal wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | debesyla wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | steponlego wrote:
           | It's now well understood that plants communicate and can even
           | have moods. Even algae. This wasn't even news decades ago.
        
       | Ekaros wrote:
       | 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?
        
         | PretzelPirate wrote:
         | > 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.
        
         | mdp2021 wrote:
         | > _panic_
         | 
         | None of those concerns are new. Jainism is at least three
         | millennia old.
        
           | pfannkuchen wrote:
           | It is much newer in many parts of the world.
        
           | hombre_fatal wrote:
           | Moral conclusions I don't agree with are panics.
        
         | schwartzworld wrote:
         | I refuse to believe this isn't a troll comment.
        
         | doubled112 wrote:
         | Now we have to live like The Giving Tree was a documentary?
         | 
         | Is this going to drive my food prices even higher?
        
       | costco wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | scooperx wrote:
       | "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
        
         | aix1 wrote:
         | The story behind those lyrics:
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P__qjVB9Tc
        
         | crazygringo wrote:
         | 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..._
        
           | mdp2021 wrote:
           | 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".
        
       | petesergeant wrote:
       | Interestingly enough, The Economist's April Fools joke is not
       | dissimilar to this: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gene-editing-
       | created-generati...
        
       | AtomicOrbital wrote:
       | Implication is that they can also listen to such screaming
        
       | badrabbit wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | leobg wrote:
       | So where is the device that I can buy and put next to my house
       | plants so I'll hear when they are thirsty?
        
         | yoavm wrote:
         | They said you can use a simple $200 bat detector to record
         | these sounds.
        
         | kjkjadksj wrote:
         | Just probe for soil moisture if you are serious
        
       | DoreenMichele wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | afarviral wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | hackerlight wrote:
         | Makes sense, it's hard to see see an evolutionary purpose to
         | this.
        
           | mdp2021 wrote:
           | > _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"_
        
         | bmitc wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | eckza wrote:
           | 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_.
        
             | bmitc wrote:
             | 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...
        
         | stuaxo wrote:
         | Would love the new age types to get onto the idea that water
         | screams.
        
           | no_wizard wrote:
           | 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!
        
       | kilianinbox wrote:
       | 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! ;)
        
       | dang wrote:
       | There's also https://www.businessinsider.com/plants-shriek-with-
       | high-pitc...
       | 
       | (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35396901, but we merged
       | that thread hither)
        
       | todd8 wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | JUNGLEISMASSIVE wrote:
         | [dead]
        
         | manmal wrote:
         | Do you mean resonance?
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance
        
       | mcswell wrote:
       | 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...
        
       | pengaru wrote:
       | > 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."
        
         | _Microft wrote:
         | Google says that this is part of the lyrics of "
         | _Disgustipated_ " by Tool.
        
       | svara wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | calibas wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | erie wrote:
         | [flagged]
        
           | nequo wrote:
           | The article is about ultrasonic sounds though. And the
           | stresses they describe were not that they tapped on them.
        
           | meepmorp wrote:
           | This is great, thanks for the summary!
        
         | sarusso wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | canadiantim wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | 2-718-281-828 wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | Consultant32452 wrote:
             | 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.
        
           | LegitShady wrote:
           | I'm not sure why you can assume that without any direct
           | evidence.
        
             | anonymouskimmer wrote:
             | 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.
        
             | setr wrote:
             | 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/
        
             | haswell wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | pessimizer wrote:
               | > 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.
        
               | haswell wrote:
               | 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.
        
           | q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | JumpCrisscross wrote:
             | > _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 wrote:
             | potatos have more genes that you
        
             | tpoacher wrote:
             | 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.
        
           | alwaysbeconsing wrote:
           | 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.
        
           | atahanacar wrote:
           | >has been evolved by other organisms
           | 
           | Like, a human?
        
           | mclide wrote:
           | 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.
        
         | philipov wrote:
         | If you break a branch, the sound of it breaking informs you
         | that you have broken a branch.
        
           | anonymouskimmer wrote:
           | It also informs other animals that a large creature may be
           | passing by.
        
       | TEP_KimIlSung wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | signa11 wrote:
       | 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_ !
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-04-01 23:02 UTC)