[HN Gopher] Plants hear their pollinators, and produce sweet nec...
___________________________________________________________________
Plants hear their pollinators, and produce sweet nectar in response
Author : marojejian
Score : 287 points
Date : 2025-06-07 19:27 UTC (5 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| marojejian wrote:
| What most surprised me in this interview is, not only do plants
| increase sugar for 'efficient' pollinators, but:
|
| >In contrast they respond to the sound of nectar-stealing non-
| pollinators by cutting back on sugar.
|
| So there is some discrimination in their hearing.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| What is an example of a nectar-stealing non-pollinator? Doesn't
| anything rooting around in there end up moving around some
| pollen?
| creaturemachine wrote:
| I'd guess hummingbirds.
| gus_massa wrote:
| No, hummingbirds also pollinate some plants. Random link
| from a Google search: https://www.nps.gov/articles/hummingb
| irds.htm#:~:text=Hummin...
| IAmBroom wrote:
| Some is not all, and hummingbirds may well steal nectar
| from less tubular flowers.
| nemo wrote:
| Some plants actually have evolved to be pollinated by
| hummingbirds, they have long thin tube shaped flowers that
| a hummingbird beak can travel up. The Sword-billed
| hummingbird has an incredibly long beak due to mutual
| evolution with flowers that grew deep tubes.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Some carpenter bees will bite straight through the flower
| bypassing the stamens and stigma.
|
| Sometimes it's just an anatomy mismatch - like very small bee
| species and big open flowers.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nectar_robbing
| nemo wrote:
| Take a look at the Flowerpiercers:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowerpiercer
|
| They're true parasites, piercing the flower to drink nectar
| without any chance of pollination.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| The most common example are ants. Moths are often guilty of
| this as well.
| jbotz wrote:
| Plants are our cousin eucaryotes, and they've been evolving as
| long as we animals have and so there is likely to be equivalent
| information processing complexity to be found in them, we just
| don't know how to recognize it because it's so different from
| animal intelligence. There might even be something comparable
| to animal consciousness, not at the level of an individual
| plant, but more collectively, even including multiple species,
| whole ecosystems of plants and fungi together having an
| awareness and intelligence that can not only rival ours, but
| even transcend it, having lifespans in the thousands of years.
| jmcgough wrote:
| Another possibility is that this is a non-conscious trait.
| Luring pollinators is an evolutionary advantage, but there is
| survival cost to giving nectar indiscriminately, so natural
| selection will favor plants that can mechanically
| differentiate between the two.
| Jabrov wrote:
| "... so there is likely to be equivalent information
| processing complexity to be found in them"
|
| This sounds like a really wild take. Just because something
| has been evolving for millions of years doesn't necessarily
| mean it's evolving information processing capabilities. It's
| patently obvious to me that the information processing
| capabilities of animals (eg. just vision alone) are far
| beyond those of plants.
| deadbabe wrote:
| This would make things quite complicated for vegans.
| nkrisc wrote:
| > Plants are our cousin eucaryotes, and they've been evolving
| as long as we animals have
|
| That is true. And look how different we've become.
|
| > and so there is likely to be equivalent information
| processing complexity to be found in them
|
| That's quite a leap. I think precisely because plants and
| animals have evolved separately for so you can't make that
| assumption. Maybe plants hasn't not simply because they don't
| need to, as a fundamental consequence of their differing
| physiology.
| rusticpenn wrote:
| That is a leap, but its could be approached with open mind.
| We have learnt a lot in the last few decades that would
| have sounded like fantasy to someone 100 years ago.
| cjbenedikt wrote:
| Link to study?
| Jackim wrote:
| The study is ongoing, the researcher presented their findings
| so far at a conference. Here's an article:
| https://phys.org/news/2025-05-nectar-production-response-pol...
| and a link to the study abstract:
| https://www.hfsp.org/node/74710
| voxelghost wrote:
| Noting that the researchers use terms as 'responds to
| vibroacoustic signals' rather than the term 'hear' used in
| the article of the post. Hearing to me implies some kind of
| auditory processing, this seems to be a more passive
| 'biomechanical' response.
| ramijames wrote:
| I've been listening to Quirks and Quarks for more than 20 years
| now. What an absolutely amazing show. If you haven't, and like
| science podcasts, you're really missing out.
| navigate8310 wrote:
| This is the first time I'm hearing about this show. Could you
| highlight any specific episode that stands out?
| ramijames wrote:
| Not really. There are literally hundreds. They mostly bring
| on and interview science experts from recent discoveries.
| Whatever is interesting, recent, and relevant. The vast
| majority of it is under the radar and having the discoverers
| come and talk about their work is usually very interesting. I
| listen almost every week. They take the summer off.
| raffael_de wrote:
| Seems like there is no paper yet. Best I could find:
|
| https://acousticalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Pro...
| (page 194): Flower visitors, including
| pollinators, produce characteristic sounds through flapping wing
| movements during flight. Recent research underscores the value of
| studying these acoustic signals to develop non-invasive,
| efficient tools for monitoring pollinator communities.
| Additionally, these sounds may provide key information to
| flowering plants, potentially influencing their resource
| allocation to attract pollinators, thus impacting their fitness.
| In this study, we investigated the acoustic properties of
| airborne sounds generated by recording different flying visitors
| to Antirrhinum flowers in the field. The audio recordings were
| annotated according to the observed flying behaviors and analyzed
| using nonlinear time-series analysis. We also conducted playback
| experiments to evaluate how plants respond to the buzzing sounds
| of insects. Our results reveal that distinct flying behaviors,
| such as hovering, landing, and takeoff, produce unique acoustic
| signatures. Furthermore, plants exhibit reactions to the
| vibroacoustic stimuli from pollinators, suggesting potentially
| adaptive responses. These findings provide valuable insight for
| developing passive acoustic monitoring tools for flying insects
| and may inspire further research in the field of plant-pollinator
| interaction.
|
| Link should be this: https://phys.org/news/2025-05-nectar-
| production-response-pol...
| Maxion wrote:
| There is a paper, here it is:
|
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.13331
| raffael_de wrote:
| Seems like this is not _the_ paper but (as you write
| yourself) _a_ paper dealing with the same question. I assume
| that _the_ paper will provide further insights otherwise the
| presentation wouldn't be justified.
| altruios wrote:
| If plants make decisions, and have preferences. Then ethically,
| are we not bound to consider those preferences?
|
| Then again: nothing wants to be eaten...
|
| Lab grown meat can't come fast enough: ethical flesh to consume.
| AstroBen wrote:
| > Lab grown meat can't come fast enough
|
| Yeah, but 6 US states have now banned it
|
| Humans are a billion miles away from considering plant
| preferences
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| cancel culture is out of control these days
| nashashmi wrote:
| The plant is happy to give nectar with sugar to pollinators.
| That means they are ok with being eaten. They are likely not ok
| with being damaged.
|
| So go ahead and take the apple because it will drop otherwise.
| And take the fruits. If you want to go all out, go with a Jain
| diet system where carrots and mushrooms are not ok but mints
| and herbs are a-ok.
| gbjw wrote:
| Fruit is plant flesh that is meant (designed?) to be eaten.
| nradov wrote:
| There's nothing unethical about eating meat, and lab grown
| "meat" isn't any more ethical than the real thing.
| kseistrup wrote:
| In my opinion, "I'ma eat you, coz I am more entitled to live
| that you are" is unethical. But then again, I also chose a
| plantbased diet.
|
| It is impossible for more complex organism to live on Earth
| and not feast on other organisms, so you could say I should
| avoid eating plants too. Correct, but since I cannot avoid
| killing other beings, I have chosen the path of less overall
| suffering.
| nradov wrote:
| What is suffering and how do you measure it? How do you
| know that plants don't suffer? Why is less suffering more
| ethical?
|
| I don't believe you've actually thought any of this through
| in an intellectually rigorous way. Your choices just allow
| you to falsely believe that you're somehow superior to
| people with other priorities and values.
| kseistrup wrote:
| I perceive suffering as unnecessary pain and/or fear. I
| can certainly know when I suffer myself. And while it's
| true that I cannot directly measure the pain or fear of
| other organisms, to some extend I can extrapolate my own
| experience to that of other beings. Empathy. First and
| foremost "higher" animals. E.g., if a dog is screaming
| when somebody treads its tail, I lend from my own
| experience when somebody steps on my toe and conclude
| that the dog is screaming in pain. I could be wrong, of
| course, but that's how the reasoning goes. And don't we
| all behave based on our conscious or unconscious
| evaluations?
|
| The further away, phylogenetically, we come from the
| human species, the more difficult it is for me to assess
| if a being is suffering (i.e., experiencing unnecessary
| pain or suffering), but based on my observations of
| plants, and my knowledge of their anatomy and physiology,
| I have concluded that yes, they may feel something --
| even pain -- but it doesn't look much like they do. But I
| could still be wrong. It's still how my reasoning goes.
| If one day I am faced with more tangible evidence, then I
| will obviously have to evaluate my behaviour. Until then
| I choose what seems to be the road of less suffering.
|
| 40+ years ago I worked for several months at a "chicken
| farm" where chicks were raised from "Easter chickens" to
| fullgrown chickens in roosts of 10_000 chickens each. It
| was a waking nightmare. It is _the_ most horrible
| experience I have had in my life because of the obvious
| and extensive suffering of the animals, and the
| experience made me choose to become a vegetarian because
| I didn't want to contribute to that specific suffering.
| Later evidence has shown that pigs and cattle and other
| farmed animals are experiencing suffering too because of
| the way humans are raising them. I simply don't want to
| be a part of that. Period.
|
| My choice of diet doesn't change my value as a human
| being even one iota (the same way the value of any other
| human being isn't measured by their choice of diet). I
| could be very very wrong about the whole thing, and in
| that way making things unnecessarily complicated for
| myself (and my fellow human beings), but I cannot live on
| Earth without making decisions, and I try to make the
| best I can -- just like all other humans do. All other
| humans could be right, for all I know. I could be the
| fool here. Who am I to judge.
| sethammons wrote:
| Eating meat doesn't mean the consumed thing suffered.
| Factory farming might. The farming and slaughter process
| may be more efficient when causing suffering, but it
| doesn't have to.
|
| I find a more compelling argument that it is generally
| awful to end something's joyful existence and experience.
| But apparently not compelling enough to dramatically
| alter my diet much. But enough to cause me to
| save/relocate some bugs in some cases rather than kill
| them.
| nradov wrote:
| So in short you're just guessing.
| altruios wrote:
| That poster seems to have thought things through. A first
| hand account of an industry of suffering, and our best
| evidence on how plants work and a well reasoned
| conclusion.
|
| A 'guess' is less than accurate.
| srameshc wrote:
| I never thought about it, but it is pretty surprising to learn
| that nature has evolved this system. I'm amazed by how this
| scientist was able to find a correlation and tell how things work
| in this instance. There is so much synch in the nature that is't
| hard to notice how connected everything is.
| IshKebab wrote:
| This sounds somewhat implausible. What mechanism do plants have
| to "hear" sounds? And to respond differently to the sounds of
| different insects? Hmm.
|
| I would definitely wait for a peer reviewed article before paying
| any attention to this. People _love_ "plants can hear things"
| stories.
| tough wrote:
| isn't sound vibration?
|
| aren't plants well suited with all their small and moving parts
| to some-what percieve that from their envirorment, even if its
| not literal hearing?
| kseistrup wrote:
| The way I see it, it's just a matter of terminology: When we
| detect vibrations through the air ("sound waves") we call it
| hearing, and humans have dedicated organs to accomplish the
| task. When vibrations are detected (i.e., felt) in solid
| stuff, they're just called vibrations.
| boudin wrote:
| Even regarding hearing it's not that clear, for example
| hearing a "noise" under water or bone conduction.
| roywiggins wrote:
| Plants definitely can sense pressure and motion to some extent,
| that's what Venus flytraps do, and how creeping vines find and
| follow surfaces.
|
| Hearing pollinators does seem somewhat unlikely but still
| plausible.
| calibas wrote:
| > What mechanism do plants have to "hear" sounds?
|
| Mechanoreceptors:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanoreceptors_(in_plants)
| IshKebab wrote:
| The examples there are for direct contact - feeling not
| hearing.
| sethammons wrote:
| What do you think hearing is? It _is_ direct contact. Sound
| is pressure waves directly contacting you and it is why
| there is no sound in a vacuum. Ear drums are tuned to a
| particular frequency range. But you can feel a deep bass in
| your chest, and that is why deaf people often enjoy deep
| bass music.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Sound waves in air are generally very weak and couple
| poorly to solids due to impedance mismatch. That's why
| ears have ear drums and other clever mechanisms to detect
| them.
|
| Plants don't have ear drums and you can't feel a an
| insect buzz in your chest.
| sethammons wrote:
| of course I can feel an insect buzz in my chest. Cicadas
| are amazing in full bloom. I don't find it unpalatable
| that plant mechanoreceptors could pick up sounds that I
| cannot.
| calibas wrote:
| You don't need an ear drum to hear, your hearing comes
| from tiny hairs connected to mechanoreceptors.
|
| Guess what we've found in plants? Tiny hairs (trichomes)
| connected to mechanoreceptors.
|
| So plants have the nearly the same physical structures
| that animals use for hearing, but not only that, they
| also have similar mechanosensitive ion channels too.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685652/
| thinkling wrote:
| If you find this interesting, I strongly recommend the book _The
| Light Eaters_ by Zoe Schlanger [0]. She discusses this finding as
| well as other sense-abilities of plants. Recent science has found
| pretty amazing things.
|
| If I recall correctly: flowers are often shaped like dish
| antennas to collect sound vibration, and plants can distinguish
| the frequency of wing beats of their preferred pollinator from
| frequencies of other insects, and will act only for their
| pollinators.
|
| [0] https://www.amazon.com/Light-Eaters-Unseen-Intelligence-
| Unde...
| marojejian wrote:
| I listened to that book and enjoyed it. But that said, I'm torn
| between friendliness to the general concept, and skepticism
| based in part on the bias of proponents to deeply _desire_
| plants to display something like intelligence (a bias I share).
|
| For example the most amazing claims in the book were around the
| ability of Boquila trifoliolata to dynamically mimic other
| plants.
|
| see this old HN thread:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31301454
|
| But when one looks more closely the research, the behavior
| isn't as dramatic as Zoe made it sound, and the research may
| not be so strong, e.g. :
|
| https://press.asimov.com/articles/plant-vision
| igorbark wrote:
| i definitely agree that it would've been nice to have images
| in the book as it was hard to get a sense of exactly how well
| Boquila was mimicking neighbouring plants!
|
| but in reference to the linked article, i will say that the
| researchers interviewed in the book (and i got that sense for
| Zoe as well) were in agreement with you that the research
| didn't support a vision-based mechanism. but everyone agrees
| that the imitation is going on. the researchers in the book
| suggest a gene transfer-based mechanism instead! (mentioned
| briefly in your linked article)
| csours wrote:
| Daft Punk is pollinating at my house! (My House!)
| Huxley1 wrote:
| I never really thought of plants as responding to sound like
| this. I always imagined them reacting to light, chemicals, or
| maybe touch, but the idea of them picking up vibrations from
| specific insects is kind of mind blowing.
|
| It makes me wonder how many other forms of input plants might be
| sensing that we simply don't recognize yet. Nature keeps
| surprising me the more I read about this kind of stuff.
| lutusp wrote:
| > Plants hear their pollinators, and produce sweet nectar in
| response
|
| This is called "anthropomorphizing," the assignment of human
| traits to non-human entities without evidence. Assigning human
| traits to non-human processes tends to distort evidence to fit a
| preconceived narrative.
|
| Look at the title. The terms "hear," "produce," and "in response"
| all imply human motivations to a process that may instead be an
| unsentimental evolutionary process in which nature blindly
| selects an outcome based only on fitness.
|
| This is why Charles Darwin was reluctant to publish his theory --
| it implied that nature blindly created outcomes solely based on
| fitness, not recognizable human qualities as this article
| suggests. Darwin believed people would reject his theory because
| it was unsentimental, unromantic, sometimes cruel. And he was
| right -- people accepted natural selection only after evidence
| prevailed over sentiment.
|
| This doesn't imply that nature isn't beautiful, it only argues
| that nature isn't modeled after people. And those who think
| nature has no sense of humor ... haven't heard about the
| Platypus.
| sethammons wrote:
| Plants don't like being anthropomorphized. Btw, I disagree with
| your definition.
|
| You are inserting "sentiment" to "hear," "produce," and "in
| response." These are physical actions. Or do you assert trees
| don't produce fruit in response to good growing conditions?
|
| In response to the rock falling, a large sound was produced,
| and it startled a fox that heard it. No anthropomorphism.
|
| Anthropomorphism is assigning human qualities onto non-humans.
| Like my first sentence.
| lutusp wrote:
| > Or do you assert trees don't produce fruit in response to
| good growing conditions?
|
| That's correct -- it's not a response as that term is
| defined, indeed use of the word "response" implies a
| misunderstanding of natural selection and suggests
| inheritance of acquired traits.
|
| In a population of trees in the same environment, some
| produce more fruit due to random genetic variations between
| individuals. For chemical and biological reasons those
| specific trees blindly ascend over other genotypes and are
| over time more likely to prevail over those less fit. That's
| not a response as we understand the word, it's a product of
| mathematics and genetics.
|
| > In response to the rock falling, a large sound was
| produced, and it startled a fox that heard it. No
| anthropomorphism.
|
| In fact, assuming we assign a human emotion to the fox, as
| you did, that would be an example of anthropomorphizing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-12 23:02 UTC)