Okay so months can pick up ultrasonic sounds, plants emit such sounds when stressed, and the moths prefer plants that aren't emitting stress signals to increase likelihood of offspring survival. Every part of that seems pretty amazing.
I was wondering about why the plants are using energy to emit the sounds but since it in effect deters the moths it also increases their chances of survival.
Seems to validate antinatalism. Nature/reality hates weakness. Getting damaged in this reality often causes a self fulfilling prophecy. The alternative is to reject creating new life as an ethical action, since reality is on balance less than good.
Is the sound part real? What frequencies are used to communicate stress? Is this in range of anything I could connect to a raspberry pico or arduino? My flowers desperately need answers :D
This is real! We started our startup based on this principle. Do note that these emissions do not occur often, think about up to 10-100 per hours in stress states.
For a small background read, read this (not our research): https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00262-3
If you are interested I recommend using a MEMS microphone, sampling at 384 or 500 kHz and triggering at frequencies between 20-200 kHz.
> Do note that these emissions do not occur often, think about up to 10-100 per hours in stress states.
I think I must be misreading. If one wants to detect these signals being emitted by plants, why is 10–100 per hour not often? I'd think that having to wait 6 minutes, or, to play it safe, even an hour would still be way more informative than finding out about the stress only when its effects were visible to the eye.
There was research done, that annoys me I can't find the bookmark. But you can measure communication using fungi as the access point.
It's known that fungi can act as a trading point for plants in that lend some, borrow some when plants are in need. If you hook fungi to a device you can measure communication.
"Trees can communicate with each other through networks in soil. Much like social networks or neural networks, the fungal mycelia of mycorrhizas allow signals to be sent between trees in a forest. These mycorrhizal networks are effectively an information highway, with recent studies demonstrating the exchange of nutritional resources, defence signals and allelochemicals. Sensing and responding to networked signals elicits complex behavioural responses in plants. This ability to communicate ('tree talk') is a foundational process in forest ecosystems."
> To be clear, the sounds made by harried plants are not the same as the anxious mumbling you might utter if you have a big deadline at work. The researchers suspect the nervous, popping noise is instead a byproduct of cavitation, when tiny bubbles burst and produce mini-shock waves inside the plant’s vascular system, not unlike what happens in your joints when you crack your knuckles.
It’s the equivalent of stepping on a twig and knowing how dry it was based on the sound of the snap it makes.
It's a tricky question at this point: the clicking sounds seem to be due to a natural increase of cavitation in the plant's stem. But it's hard to judge the extent to which the plant actually evolved to do this vs it being an accident with little selective downside. In the near future genetics might shed some light on whether an ancestor was too quiet/noisy and had increased pressure on relevant genes.
The disadvantages of too much noise are obvious (herbivores) but I haven't seen any convincing explanations on what the plant's advantage would be. There is some speculation on plant-plant communication, but maybe it is about attracting pollinators and seed-dispersers before the plant dies. Just a lot of stuff we don't know yet.
Maybe in a situation where some plants are dehydrated and emitting sounds, and others are healthy and don't - having insects select one over the other helps spread the load a bit?
It is so utterly deranged and insane that NYT says plants are making "mournful cries" when the source paper doesn't support that. When I'm hungry the sounds my stomach makes on its own isn't me weeping and wailing. When I'm flatulent that sound is not a joyful scream.
And you are complaining about use of language? You might disagree with the anthromorphism (a rather common technique) used by the author, but your post is hyperbole. I hope you also realise the irony, as you also use anthromorphism.
Agreed, especially given the idea of plants feeling pain has been used to attempt to discredit or debunk vegetarian ethics—even though it's not true in that sense.
Using a poetic descriptor like "mournful" in this context seems out of place.
The New York Times is relying on their audience's ability to understand that plants are not conscious beings. "Mournful cries" is just an evocative way of describing the auditory signals plants produce under stress—which the article makes clear. I can't understand what's so "deranged and insane" about some stylistic flair.
I don't know about you, but I already feel enough guilt about how we eat animals. I even feel bad about throwing away a stuffed animal. We don't need some journo shoving another knife through our collective hearts about eating vegetables.
> It is so utterly deranged and insane that NYT says plants are making "mournful cries" when the source paper doesn't support that. When I'm hungry the sounds my stomach makes on its own isn't me weeping and wailing. When I'm flatulent that sound is not a joyful scream.
The system is in complete harmony. Sometimes the predators are in the ascendancy, sometimes the prey. Our science has little comprehension of the grandeur of the totality of Nature's balance, simply because the willful ignorance of the vast majority of the human race keeps us so out of balance in its destructively selfish competitions.
We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a selflessly compassionate ethos, instead of selfishly cruel indifference. When we choose compassionate service to all (including the Earth, herself), we not only improve the lives of those around us (and foment our own internal peace and happiness), but we also clariy our perception, allowing us to more deeply grok Nature's intricately beautiful systems that provide our sustenance.
Only in caring for each other, we will learn how to properly care for our blessed mother Earth.
This is an antiquated view and it would do all of humanity a great service if we could leave it behind. Humans are not the only ones capable of selfless compassion. Any emotion you may have, animals also have, and there are many examples of animals showing compassion without any benefit to themselves. We have examples of plants showing selfless care for other plants in need, sending them nutrients. This whole idea that humans are somehow special is silly. It used to be a widely held belief that we're the only intelligent species, but these days we know better. Animals have emotions just like us, but sadly we largely haven't shaken off our human centric view here yet.
Why the hate for Anthropocenterism? The Anthropic principal and fine tuned universe seem to suggest that humans really are “special” in a cosmic sense.
Ah yes, I can tell that my cat is also struggling with whether to lease a Mercedes or keep fixing this stupid Chevy, which I deeply love because of all the fun places I've driven it (like work, and the gas station). Perhaps that's why she keeps biting me. Good kitty!
We are the only creatures that can choose compassion over selfishness. The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by and incorporating the Creator's loving compassion for us in their every behavior.
Our intelligence is not only on a far different order than theirs via our capability for abstract thought (not oft used, TBF), but we also have a moral compass (conscience) that tries to influence our behavior towards the selflessly compassionate and away from the selfishly callous. We can choose either, the free will being our real distinguishing feature and is the reason we have a conscience and access to mind.
Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply, "So long as you keep feeding me, I'll keep licking my everywhere, and then licking your face. So keep it coming, or I'll have to show you who the alpha is around heeerrrre."
We are a part of this chaos, not its masters, nor its caretakers. To say we are the only creatures capable of compassion is to elevate ourselves on a pedestal Nature does not recognize. The crocodile may carry its young gently in its jaws, and the antelope may pause to nuzzle its dying calf, but these acts, too, are not born of some selfless ethos but of impulses evolved to ensure survival. Compassion, even in us, is no purer than the physics of a falling tree crushing the undergrowth beneath it. It is Nature's practicality dressed in the robes of morality.
This notion that by choosing compassion we align ourselves with some grand system of interconnected beauty—this is human hubris disguised as virtue. When we care for each other, we do not rise above Nature; we merely enact one of its many mechanisms, one more strategy for persistence in the face of inevitable decay. The Earth does not need our care. She has endured extinction events that wiped out almost all life and reshaped her surface with volcanic fire and freezing ice. She will endure us, too, with the same impassive grandeur.
To truly perceive Nature is not to grok some intricate beauty but to confront the void, the merciless indifference, and to marvel at how, against all odds, life writhes and endures within it. Compassion, then, is not a gift we bestow upon the world—it is a small defiance, a trembling candle held aloft in the endless darkness. We do not save Nature; we survive it. And that is enough.
You are truly eloquent at speaking for yourself and your cohort's stubborn insistence on your ignorance.
For you, all these things are true, because you have chosen that perspective, and that is your inalienable right.
You can't explain the Placebo Effect, while you are proving the Nocebo Effect every time you try to argue against the truth.
The fact is that the last time you tried this, I addressed every single word you conjured up, so much so that it took a two-part reply. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42330991)
In the words of Eugene Parker, "We'll see who falls flat."
And, in case you weren't aware, the "void" of the vacuum of space is actually filled with potential energy. That's because we're all one in this creation, all of which was created for us, the only beings here that can appreciate the sublime laws that interrelate space, time, matter, energy, and more still.
No, we are not its masters, just its caretakers, if we so choose.
Mowing shows a general disregard for nature by most people.
People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best mimics nature without any inconvenience. Even in parks well maintained and clearly marked trails see vastly more traffic than people just picking a random path through the woods. People seem to desire hiking trails of arbitrary distances not to actually explore.
I disagree. The agricultural revolution shows clear signs of using land that could otherwise be used by other species, not to mention the destruction of species that were there before we began tilling the soil. Additionally, the rich humans you call out are selling their product to the masses, who happily support their enterprise.
> We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a selflessly compassionate ethos
Many cetaceans' brains showcase extremely complex and large insular cortex and neocortex regions of their brain, even when compared on a relative scale to their rest of their brain compared to human brains. Additionally, the complexity and granular size of their folds are much more than human brains. It is inconceivable that some of these cetaceans are not capable of the emotions of humans. In fact, it's even a pretty strong argument that these cetaceans possess more intelligence and emotional regulation than humans.
Well, they have a different environment with a greater need for extremely close social groups, so sensitivity to emotion may, indeed, be greater than ours in some ways.
That said, we have a conscience aka moral compass, a mind capapble of abstract thought and comprehension of morality, as well as a free will to choose whether or not to consider someone else's happiness in our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors.
Look at all the wonderful structures we design and build, and then how awfully we treat out-groups. We are capable of so much better, but why don't people give a sh_t?
I know why, and I've explained it in my comment history.
As human beings, we can create our own reasons for anything we do, from the horrific to the beautiful, from the selfish to the selfless. We can conjure reasons to oppress other human beings, or contrive reasons to help them be happier. We can believe any truth or any lie or anything in between. It's all our choice what to beleive, for good or ill.
Behind all this is our unfettered freedom of choice via our free will, which allows us to either acquiesce to our conscience's proddings or to oppose them to our own and others' unhappiness.
So, yes, many people feign compassion for some kind of payback, or public plaudits, so, yes, not all acts of compassion are performed selflessly. But the universe knows, sister; it keeps a full tally of all our acts and the intentions behind them. The key understanding is that we are to develop ourselves so that we not only act compassionately but that we also do so out of selfless service, caring not for any kind of payback from those we serve. We should leave it to the universe to pay us back, and it will, guaranteed, just as those that wrong us will eat the dish made of that they have reaped from their sowing.
We do not begin our lives in this state of goodness; we start off with a mix of selfishness and selfishness, across 19 pairs of vice and virtue pairs. It is our human potential, and responsibility, to transmute those vices into their corresponding virtues, for the benefit of ourselves and those around us. The universe does not make us do so, we must choose it of our own free will, but it has given us a karmic system whereby our happiness increases as we do so to others, and vice versa.
Therein resides the realm of peace and happiness, even in the eye of the maelstrom. The universe loves you, sister. I explain this in great depth in my past week's posts. We love you, and may peace be with you.
A recent book, the Light Eaters, summarises much of the recent research into plant behaviour like this, including how maligned and misreported it has been over the past 50 years or so.
Readit News
Deleted Comment
That reminds me of this particularly beautiful section from one of the newer Cosmos episodes, on how insects perceive light reflected from flowers:
https://youtu.be/YJL63kv2_xg
This is real! We started our startup based on this principle. Do note that these emissions do not occur often, think about up to 10-100 per hours in stress states. For a small background read, read this (not our research): https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00262-3
If you are interested I recommend using a MEMS microphone, sampling at 384 or 500 kHz and triggering at frequencies between 20-200 kHz.
There is several people who have made these solutions for detecting bats using pico's: https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/raspberry-pi-bat-detector-17-0...
If you want something off the shelf look into something like this: https://batsound.com/
I think I must be misreading. If one wants to detect these signals being emitted by plants, why is 10–100 per hour not often? I'd think that having to wait 6 minutes, or, to play it safe, even an hour would still be way more informative than finding out about the stress only when its effects were visible to the eye.
It's known that fungi can act as a trading point for plants in that lend some, borrow some when plants are in need. If you hook fungi to a device you can measure communication.
"Trees can communicate with each other through networks in soil. Much like social networks or neural networks, the fungal mycelia of mycorrhizas allow signals to be sent between trees in a forest. These mycorrhizal networks are effectively an information highway, with recent studies demonstrating the exchange of nutritional resources, defence signals and allelochemicals. Sensing and responding to networked signals elicits complex behavioural responses in plants. This ability to communicate ('tree talk') is a foundational process in forest ecosystems."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4497361/
And would highly recommend this book: https://www.merlinsheldrake.com/entangled-life
> exchange of nutritional resources, defence signals and allelochemicals
Only one of these three things qualifies as "information" in my book (defence signals). How is this an "information highway"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/science/plant-sounds-stre...
> To be clear, the sounds made by harried plants are not the same as the anxious mumbling you might utter if you have a big deadline at work. The researchers suspect the nervous, popping noise is instead a byproduct of cavitation, when tiny bubbles burst and produce mini-shock waves inside the plant’s vascular system, not unlike what happens in your joints when you crack your knuckles.
It’s the equivalent of stepping on a twig and knowing how dry it was based on the sound of the snap it makes.
https://www.kariega.co.za/blog/do-giraffe-make-trees-talk-to...
This one, for example, picks up to 200kHz for €1050:
https://avisoft.com/ultrasound-microphones/cm24-cmpa/
The disadvantages of too much noise are obvious (herbivores) but I haven't seen any convincing explanations on what the plant's advantage would be. There is some speculation on plant-plant communication, but maybe it is about attracting pollinators and seed-dispersers before the plant dies. Just a lot of stuff we don't know yet.
It doesn't have to be an advantage in emitting clicking sounds, just more advantageous to the plant overall lifelong wellbeing to be that way.
(This is not my field, but I wonder) is it more expensive to be silent than noisy?
This study (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5543975/) hints that repairing cavitation damage is expensive.
I now wonder if they use the sound to communicate with other plants to try to get clouds to form faster
And you are complaining about use of language? You might disagree with the anthromorphism (a rather common technique) used by the author, but your post is hyperbole. I hope you also realise the irony, as you also use anthromorphism.
Using a poetic descriptor like "mournful" in this context seems out of place.
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/plants-emit-ultras...
Is that founded on a basis of scientific fact, or Human Superiority Complex?
Nytimes has never been reliable
Deleted Comment
The author is Gennaro Tomma, a freelance journalist.
https://gennarotomma.it/
We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a selflessly compassionate ethos, instead of selfishly cruel indifference. When we choose compassionate service to all (including the Earth, herself), we not only improve the lives of those around us (and foment our own internal peace and happiness), but we also clariy our perception, allowing us to more deeply grok Nature's intricately beautiful systems that provide our sustenance.
Only in caring for each other, we will learn how to properly care for our blessed mother Earth.
Ah yes, I can tell that my cat is also struggling with whether to lease a Mercedes or keep fixing this stupid Chevy, which I deeply love because of all the fun places I've driven it (like work, and the gas station). Perhaps that's why she keeps biting me. Good kitty!
Our intelligence is not only on a far different order than theirs via our capability for abstract thought (not oft used, TBF), but we also have a moral compass (conscience) that tries to influence our behavior towards the selflessly compassionate and away from the selfishly callous. We can choose either, the free will being our real distinguishing feature and is the reason we have a conscience and access to mind.
Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply, "So long as you keep feeding me, I'll keep licking my everywhere, and then licking your face. So keep it coming, or I'll have to show you who the alpha is around heeerrrre."
This notion that by choosing compassion we align ourselves with some grand system of interconnected beauty—this is human hubris disguised as virtue. When we care for each other, we do not rise above Nature; we merely enact one of its many mechanisms, one more strategy for persistence in the face of inevitable decay. The Earth does not need our care. She has endured extinction events that wiped out almost all life and reshaped her surface with volcanic fire and freezing ice. She will endure us, too, with the same impassive grandeur.
To truly perceive Nature is not to grok some intricate beauty but to confront the void, the merciless indifference, and to marvel at how, against all odds, life writhes and endures within it. Compassion, then, is not a gift we bestow upon the world—it is a small defiance, a trembling candle held aloft in the endless darkness. We do not save Nature; we survive it. And that is enough.
For you, all these things are true, because you have chosen that perspective, and that is your inalienable right.
You can't explain the Placebo Effect, while you are proving the Nocebo Effect every time you try to argue against the truth.
The fact is that the last time you tried this, I addressed every single word you conjured up, so much so that it took a two-part reply. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42330991)
In the words of Eugene Parker, "We'll see who falls flat."
And, in case you weren't aware, the "void" of the vacuum of space is actually filled with potential energy. That's because we're all one in this creation, all of which was created for us, the only beings here that can appreciate the sublime laws that interrelate space, time, matter, energy, and more still.
No, we are not its masters, just its caretakers, if we so choose.
It is the extremely few extremely rich humans that are abusing nature.
People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best mimics nature without any inconvenience. Even in parks well maintained and clearly marked trails see vastly more traffic than people just picking a random path through the woods. People seem to desire hiking trails of arbitrary distances not to actually explore.
Anyone choosing to eat meat is feeding into the system of abuse and torture. Anyone.
This statement has been modeled as the "predator–prey model":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equatio...
Does a crow have no agency to be the first to food and challenge the leader or the scout who keeps watch for the others while they feast?
Can a dolphin not choose to align more closely with play than rape?
It seems to me that animals have much more agency than we choose to believe / allow.
Only we can think abstractly about the needs of the group, the happiness of others.
Many cetaceans' brains showcase extremely complex and large insular cortex and neocortex regions of their brain, even when compared on a relative scale to their rest of their brain compared to human brains. Additionally, the complexity and granular size of their folds are much more than human brains. It is inconceivable that some of these cetaceans are not capable of the emotions of humans. In fact, it's even a pretty strong argument that these cetaceans possess more intelligence and emotional regulation than humans.
That said, we have a conscience aka moral compass, a mind capapble of abstract thought and comprehension of morality, as well as a free will to choose whether or not to consider someone else's happiness in our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors.
Look at all the wonderful structures we design and build, and then how awfully we treat out-groups. We are capable of so much better, but why don't people give a sh_t?
I know why, and I've explained it in my comment history.
Behind all this is our unfettered freedom of choice via our free will, which allows us to either acquiesce to our conscience's proddings or to oppose them to our own and others' unhappiness.
So, yes, many people feign compassion for some kind of payback, or public plaudits, so, yes, not all acts of compassion are performed selflessly. But the universe knows, sister; it keeps a full tally of all our acts and the intentions behind them. The key understanding is that we are to develop ourselves so that we not only act compassionately but that we also do so out of selfless service, caring not for any kind of payback from those we serve. We should leave it to the universe to pay us back, and it will, guaranteed, just as those that wrong us will eat the dish made of that they have reaped from their sowing.
We do not begin our lives in this state of goodness; we start off with a mix of selfishness and selfishness, across 19 pairs of vice and virtue pairs. It is our human potential, and responsibility, to transmute those vices into their corresponding virtues, for the benefit of ourselves and those around us. The universe does not make us do so, we must choose it of our own free will, but it has given us a karmic system whereby our happiness increases as we do so to others, and vice versa.
Therein resides the realm of peace and happiness, even in the eye of the maelstrom. The universe loves you, sister. I explain this in great depth in my past week's posts. We love you, and may peace be with you.
Emergence Magazine: The World Is a Prism, Not a Window
https://emergencemagazine.org/interview/the-world-is-a-prism...