I think it's possible that certain sounds/frequencies/vibrations/whatever may have an effect on plants, but I certainly don't believe they "conscious" in any way.
I don't talk to my plants, because that would just be silly (ignore the fact that I talk to animals, especially cats, all the time and even ask them questions which they can't possibly respond to), but I do think about them a lot.
Do you talk to your plants?
-
frangipani
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:58 am
- Location: South Africa
- Contact:
Not as much as I talk to my dogs or other 4-legged friends but I do talk to the plants some... 'you need to move over here,' or 'ooh look you're getting bigger!' etc...
Don't know if it helps or not but doesn't matter. It isn't likely that I would stop talking to them no matter how many times it was proven that it didn't help.
Don't know if it helps or not but doesn't matter. It isn't likely that I would stop talking to them no matter how many times it was proven that it didn't help.
I saw the Mythbusters show where they did this and was very interested. However, I really think they did a poor job on that one. Perhaps because none of them seem to have much gardening experience.
The experiments they did (2nd time) would have been great, but they would need a much larger sample size. They can't really just have one greenhouse with each type of music, sound, etc. They really would need to do the experiment many more times to have a measurable result.
The whole idea seems preposterous however, to anyone who has spent time in the wilderness. Think of how many cacti there are even in a fairly popular place like Saguaro NP that probably never "hear" a human voice, let alone more distant areas.
So I would do the experiment with plants that are commonly found with people first. If you get no results, call it quits.
Otherwise, I think the real question would be if domestic plants show different reactions than wild plants - if any reaction is proven at all.
The experiments they did (2nd time) would have been great, but they would need a much larger sample size. They can't really just have one greenhouse with each type of music, sound, etc. They really would need to do the experiment many more times to have a measurable result.
The whole idea seems preposterous however, to anyone who has spent time in the wilderness. Think of how many cacti there are even in a fairly popular place like Saguaro NP that probably never "hear" a human voice, let alone more distant areas.
So I would do the experiment with plants that are commonly found with people first. If you get no results, call it quits.
Otherwise, I think the real question would be if domestic plants show different reactions than wild plants - if any reaction is proven at all.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
Well, all humor aside (for a change), I don't talk to my plants at all. They clearly benefit from my attention, so I try to visit them in the morning before work and again when I come home. On weekends I dedicate a big block of my time to routine maintenance. I've found that if I play a little music in my greenhouse (on a musical instrument) it means that all the little details are completed - otherwise I would be too distracted to finish a tune. So the music they hear is like a finishing touch!
"I like the spikey ones
better than the squashy ones"
better than the squashy ones"
-
CactusFanDan
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:33 pm
- Location: Manchester, England
- Contact:
Hmm... I don't recall ever talking to my plants, but I wouldn't be surprised if I did. As for all this plant emotion thing, I'm fairly sure that plants do not have emotions and the observed phenomena when electrodes are stuck into plants are explainable by other theories.
There are other ways to produce a reading on one of those pieces of equipment. If you noticed the equipment in the video, it shows on the Ammeter display the units being used: Picoamps. Which is 1 * 10^-12 amps or 0.000000000001 amps. For comparison, a common household appliance is around 1-8 amps or something like that.
With that kind of precision, the equipment could actually measure the tiny, tiny movement of electrons that could be caused by a number of different things that'd caused the movement of electrons. Things such as sound waves, a form of pressure wave, could easily cause compression and rarefactions in the covalent bonds present in molecules such as water, and other major constituents of plant tissues. This movement of electrons is what would cause a tiny current. Or, perhaps, it is measuring the current produced by the photoelectric effect that drives the process of photosynthesis. When the light hits the chlorophyll molecule it excites electrons from the chlorophyll, freeing them so they can flow as a current. This is the kind of thing which would be detected by that kind of ammeter.
As for sounds helping plants to grow, I guess it could. There's no good reason why it wouldn't help.
There are other ways to produce a reading on one of those pieces of equipment. If you noticed the equipment in the video, it shows on the Ammeter display the units being used: Picoamps. Which is 1 * 10^-12 amps or 0.000000000001 amps. For comparison, a common household appliance is around 1-8 amps or something like that.
With that kind of precision, the equipment could actually measure the tiny, tiny movement of electrons that could be caused by a number of different things that'd caused the movement of electrons. Things such as sound waves, a form of pressure wave, could easily cause compression and rarefactions in the covalent bonds present in molecules such as water, and other major constituents of plant tissues. This movement of electrons is what would cause a tiny current. Or, perhaps, it is measuring the current produced by the photoelectric effect that drives the process of photosynthesis. When the light hits the chlorophyll molecule it excites electrons from the chlorophyll, freeing them so they can flow as a current. This is the kind of thing which would be detected by that kind of ammeter.
As for sounds helping plants to grow, I guess it could. There's no good reason why it wouldn't help.
someone once told me playing music (preferably classical) for your plants is beneficial for growth
the reason would be that music contains the same frequencies as bird chatter, however I don't know of any scientific proof for that
the reason would be that music contains the same frequencies as bird chatter, however I don't know of any scientific proof for that
With apologies to the late Professor C. D. Darlington the following misquotation springs to
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
Scientific proof is hard to come by I think because there are SOOO many variables at play.
And how about this? IF any plants do like music, does that mean all plants like music. Does every individual within a single species have the same musical tastes? After all, with people, even siblings and certainly parents vs. children have differing tastes. Why then should we assume that each plant will have the exact same taste?
Finally, if the issue is a matter of vibrations -even synchronized in predictable patterns then we can't really say the plants like MUSIC or meaningful speech.
And how about this? IF any plants do like music, does that mean all plants like music. Does every individual within a single species have the same musical tastes? After all, with people, even siblings and certainly parents vs. children have differing tastes. Why then should we assume that each plant will have the exact same taste?
Finally, if the issue is a matter of vibrations -even synchronized in predictable patterns then we can't really say the plants like MUSIC or meaningful speech.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
Rice plants apparently have genes linked to sound reception. Unfortunately you can't read all of this article unless you're a subscriber, but the snippet gives the gist of it...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... waves.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... waves.html
well...
One time I was out in the yard and I was thinking of chopping down one of my cherry trees because it wasn't producing anything, and the next spring I never saw so many blossoms.
Another time I had bought my mother-in-law some colored lilies and one spring they didn't come up, so I thought they had died. That year we had a drought, the next year they came up. How did they know ahead of time?
Many years ago, when my aunt died, all her plants bloomed. Makes you wonder.
Another time I had bought my mother-in-law some colored lilies and one spring they didn't come up, so I thought they had died. That year we had a drought, the next year they came up. How did they know ahead of time?
Many years ago, when my aunt died, all her plants bloomed. Makes you wonder.