Plants squeal when stressed

[Penellype]

https://www.newscientist.com/article...when-stressed/

Throws a whole new light on pruning plants

[burnie]

I very much doubt plants can see or hear, let alone shout or squeal.

[Penellype]

In the sense that we see, hear and shout or squeal, no. However plants can definitely detect light and move towards it.

It is easy for us to forget that what we see is a very, very restricted range of the electromagnetic spectrum - bees for example can see much further into the UV part of the spectrum than we can. What we hear is also a very restricted range and other animals have been shown to hear much lower or higher pitched sounds than we can (bats, elephants for example). It is possible that plants make use of wavelengths that we can't hear to communicate, and that seems to be what this study is focusing on.

Plants have been around on this planet for longer than we have, and are entitled to have evolved similarly complex systems. Just because we are unaware of things does not mean that they are not happening.

[burnie]

In the sense that we see, hear and shout or squeal, no. However plants can definitely detect light and move towards it.

It is easy for us to forget that what we see is a very, very restricted range of the electromagnetic spectrum - bees for example can see much further into the UV part of the spectrum than we can. What we hear is also a very restricted range and other animals have been shown to hear much lower or higher pitched sounds than we can (bats, elephants for example). It is possible that plants make use of wavelengths that we can't hear to communicate, and that seems to be what this study is focusing on.

Plants have been around on this planet for longer than we have, and are entitled to have evolved similarly complex systems. Just because we are unaware of things does not mean that they are not happening.

Your examples all have a brain, bees, bats and elephants are very different to plants, too many scientists are guessing rather than proving things, something to do with justifying their jobs I believe.

[Penellype]

Your examples all have a brain, bees, bats and elephants are very different to plants, too many scientists are guessing rather than proving things, something to do with justifying their jobs I believe.

I'm not in a position to comment on whether scientists are guessing or not. However, my argument still stands, as a brain may not be necessary for communication.

[Jungle Jane]

Ive read similar things to do with roses & when caterpillars are eating them the plant lets off a signal to wasps so the wasps come & eat the caterpillars,just found this quickly,there’s other websites though -
https://indianapublicmedia.org/amome...asps-roses.php

[veggiechicken]

Plants react to light, temperature, direction of sun and to touch (like Mimosa pudica). Why should they not be capable of other reactions to stimuli?
I believe they respond to being spoken to kindly too.

[ameno]

I'm not in a position to comment on whether scientists are guessing or not. However, my argument still stands, as a brain may not be necessary for communication.

It depends what you mean by "communication".
Even single-celled organisms can send signals to one another, usually via specific chemicals. And plants have been shown to do the same.
However, there is no actual thought or even instinct behind either the sending or receiving of these signals. These organisms lack even a nervous system, much less a brain.
It's simply an evolved reaction. They have evolved to release X chemical when Y happens, and to react in Z way if X chemical is detected, because by doing so they are more likely to survive. That's just how evolutionary pressure works.
So plants are no more communicating with each other than parts of a machine are which are designed to respond to certain situations in a certain way (pressure release valves, say, or mechanical thermostats).

[Penellype]

It depends what you mean by "communication".
Even single-celled organisms can send signals to one another, usually via specific chemicals. And plants have been shown to do the same.
However, there is no actual thought or even instinct behind either the sending or receiving of these signals. These organisms lack even a nervous system, much less a brain.
It's simply an evolved reaction. They have evolved to release X chemical when Y happens, and to react in Z way if X chemical is detected, because by doing so they are more likely to survive. That's just how evolutionary pressure works.
So plants are no more communicating with each other than parts of a machine are which are designed to respond to certain situations in a certain way (pressure release valves, say, or mechanical thermostats).

I agree there is (probably) no "thought" process behind sending of this sort of signal. However, evolution is pretty ruthless at weeding out unnecessary expenditure of energy, and therefore it is reasonable to expect that if this sort of signal can be detected as being sent by plants under specific conditions, there is likely to be an evolutionary advantage in them doing so.

I find this sort of thing extremely interesting, which is why I posted the link to the article.

[Greenleaves]

Don't they say that trees have a heartbeat?

[toomanytommytoes]

The study referenced in the article can be read in full here - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...07590.full.pdf

[burnie]

Evolution has provided many adaptations for living things to thrive and survive, but to then try and give descriptions that are humanoid based to things we cannot communicate with is stretching credibility to it's limits. Science used to be based on fact, then it changed to probability, now I have become very sceptical, I am not alone, so much "crying wolf" means that people no longer trust or listen to "science", the current intransigence towards climate change is a classic example.

[Penellype]

I'm not sure anyone is trying to give humanoid descriptions to plants. The way science works (or should work) is that someone comes up with an idea or suggestion and sets up an experiment to test this theory. Good practice will include a control experiment under neutral conditions. They then publish the results of the experiment, and ideally other scientists then attempt to disprove it by repeating or modifying the experiment and conditions. In many cases you can then establish facts - in this case the fact seems to be that plants stressed either by drought or by being cut make more detectable noise than plants that are not subject to these stresses. The results ideally need verifying by other scientists.

Modern science has 2 difficult issues. The first is that many of the things we are now studying, such as health effects and climate, do not lend themselves to a control experiment. if you are testing the effect of a type of food for example, you can't force a statistically significant sample of people to eat an identical diet and do identical exercise under identical conditions over a meaningful period of time. All you can do is monitor people who do and don't eat that type of food and see whether there is any significant difference. You can then come up with a probability that any difference is caused by the different food. Because of other differences, the probability may well be small, but still significant, or it may be masked by other factors. Climate is even harder - we don't have a control experiment at all, we can't go back and vary the conditions and repeat the experiment, and the system being studied is extremely complex. Probability of certain outcomes is the best we will ever be able to do.

The second problem, which is more serious, is the way research is funded. Grants appear to be given based on the number of papers that are published, with an emphasis on new and exciting discoveries. This funding may come from companies who have a vested interest in the results, for example drug companies funding medical research. There is pressure to publish and results may not be thoroughly tested due to this pressure, especially if they are favourable. Worse, there is little incentive for others to test published results to verify them. In my opinion this is why people are starting not to trust science, which I find very disturbing. Research is expensive and time consuming and what the solution to this is, if there is one, I have no idea.

[burnie]

Like most things in life these days, money and results driven.

[Logunner]

I know it's true.... Heard them in a Harry Potter movie, so it must be true.

OK time to be serious. They just don't.