 Email
 Print |
They're all ears
New research suggests plants can hear. Is this the start of acoustic farming?
Prince Charles was widely ridiculed 20 years ago when he declared on television that he talked to his plants. “I just come and talk to the plants, really. It’s very important to talk. They respond, don’t they?” In the 1990s, Dutch princess Irene van Lippe-Biesterfeld caused a similar furor when she wrote in her book Dialogue with Nature that she talked to trees. But what was once dismissed as eccentricity has recently gained some scientific credibility. Researchers at the National Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology in Suwon, South Korea, have discovered two genes in rice that react to sound.
The Korean study, which succeeds a series of similar but often controversial studies conducted in recent decades, is significant because if plants really do respond to sound, a whole new, ecologically friendly field could be inaugurated: acoustic farming.
The Koreans began their research by playing 14 differ- ent pieces of classical music, including Beethoven’s Mondschein Sonatas, to rice plants in their laboratory. At first, they detected no reaction to the music from the rice genes. That changed, however, when they ex-posed the rice to spe- cific sound frequencies. The genes rbcS and Ald became more active at frequencies of 125 and 250 hertz and less active when exposed to lower 50 hertz frequencies. To rule out the possibility that light could affect the results, the study was repeated in the dark. The outcome was the same.
According to the Korean team, the results indicate it might be possible to turn certain crop genes on and off through acoustic signals—for example, genes that determine when a plant flowers. This could decrease costs and would be more environmentally friendly than the current method of activating genes using chemicals. “These results suggest that sound could be an alternative to light as a gene regulator,” the researchers wrote in Molecular Breeding (published online on July 20, 2007). The possibility of regulating crop growth with sound offers—eco-friendly—prospects for agriculture. Sound could replace chemical fertilizers as a way to stimulate growth, and sound could also be used—instead of pesticides—to keep weeds at bay.
The Korean researchers were also able to isolate the genes and use them in different combinations. The effect of sound on the genes remained the same. This finding suggests it might be possible to transplant the sound-sensitive genes into another organism to realize the same effects.
Scientists have reacted with skepticism to the intriguing results of the Korean study. Among other things, they point out that on an actual farm, windy conditions could cancel out the effects of the sound. Such criticisms miss the bigger question: Can plants hear? Plants have a variety of other senses. They respond to light. They have “taste”—they grow better when they receive more nutritious food. Plants also react to wind by becoming more rigid. So the idea that sound could influence plants isn’t as strange as it might appear. Ultimately, sound—like light—is just another part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Back in 1994, the French physicist and musician Joel Sternheimer created a stir when he filed a patent application for this approach. Sternheimer claimed he could influence certain plant amino acids and proteins with particular “compositions.” His trial produced tomatoes that were two-and-a-half times larger—and sweeter—than normal. Since then, not much has been heard about Sternheimer’s work, which is now mostly referenced in holistic circles as proof that everything is connected.
The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, published in 1973, has a similar message. The book’s cover blurb— “a fascinating account of the physical, emotional and spiritual relations between plants and man”—speaks for itself. Tompkins and Bird describe various experiments. The American lie-detector expert Cleve Backster plays a prominent role in the book. In the 1960s, Backster conducted experiments on plants using his lie detector. He was curious to see whether plants—like the humans he interrogated every day—would also respond to physical threats. As part of his experiment, he decided to set one of his plants’ leaves on fire. He was appalled to see the pen on the graph paper surge upward, even before he got out the matches! Did the plant read his thoughts?
When Backster returned with the matches, he saw another sharp peak on the graph paper. In a subsequent experiment, Backster had five students walk through a room past the same two plants. One of the students was instructed to destroy one of the two plants. Backster didn’t know himself which of the five students had done the deed, but when the students separately re-entered the room, he could clearly tell who had demolished the plant by the intense reaction on the lie detector hooked up to the other plant.
Backster, the director of the Backster School of Lie Detection in San Diego, California, published the results of his study in the International Journal of Parapsychology. More recently, he has presented his findings during conferences at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology in California. His work remains controversial. That is not surprising. The concept that plants can hear, and even observe, doesn’t fit very well into the conventional mechanistic image of the world.
| Tools:
Discuss
| Email
| Print
| RSS
| Weekly Newsletter Save/Share: |
It's not very clear why Juriaan's article has sparked such a furious response. Apart from anything else, the article appears to have been written in a spirit of inquiry and questioning, rather than presenting anything as fact. There are no doubt more details on the experiments mentioned in the article, which may answer some of the questions about any lack of 'empricism' and 'critical thinking'? And what are 'right' and 'wrong' questions? Who is placed to make those decisions?
Interestingly, various principles in quantum theory may suggest that previous concepts such as 'empiricism', i.e. 'objective' observation, may not be valid anyway? Wasn't the most famous experiment in quantum study to date about the effect that the act of observation has on the nature of sub-atomic particles re: their 'wave' and 'particle' natures? As far as can be gathered, only portions of quantum theory have been made available and used in physics and other disciplines until now, with others either rejected or suppressed due to their possible implications on any paradigm presently based on 'classical' physics. And part of quantum theory is the investigation of the possibility that there is a fundamental oneness to the universe: this would put the experiment about 'plant stress' in perspective as a way of showing that each thing in the Universe has validity in its own right, and not separate from - and a more resource for - humanity. The 'food' implicatons of the experiment do not invalidate this view, as it then begs the question of how much we should consume of anything to meet our basic needs, rather than our wants and desires?
It also has to be mentioned that for something to appear in a peer reviewed journal doesn't necessarily make it the only possibility. It is an attempt to posit information on a particular subject at a given point of time, which never means to say that this information may not be superceded in time by new discoveries. Also, articles have appeared in such journals as 'the Lancet', 'Nature', et al. which have then been revoked on the basis of 'external' pressure from those unhappy with the findings of an article or its possible implications/repercussions: the case of the experiments of Jacques Benveniste involving the 'memory' of water is one of the most notable examples of this phenomenon, even though new research into his original experiments have been shown to be reproducible (please see relevant article in the journal 'Physica A').
And how much can science as it is presently practised be trusted anyway? There are examples of science working not for itself as a means of investigation into the universe on all levels, but as a 'helpmate' of others with various motives: the issue of vaccination is just one of these, with the benefits of this system of medicine (such as 'eradication' of illnesses) being touted at the expense of the possible drawbacks (such as possible growing chronic health epidemics among the last two generations of children), which are all too frequently suppressed to enable governments to continue unhindered towards their own aims and goals. Another similar example might be drug testing - remember thalidomide? Where has been the long-term testing of possible effects of many of these medications on people? How have some of them been introduced so quickly? And why is there still an assumption that a rat, rabbit or chimpanzee will respond to anything in the same way as a human?
Is it not possible to be open to possibilities not yet available to us with present theories and hypotheses? Isn't it the goal of science to posit a hypothesis, then establish experiment/s to test it, and be prepared to change this hypothesis if the testing doesn't prove/confirm it, given the parameters of the experiment/s used?
In any case, science is, after all, merely a way of expressing reality, but is not the reality itself, just as any words are merely a means of communicating and indicating reality, rather than reality itself.
Finally, thank you, Juriaan, for giving us yet another interesting article to consider as we may!
posted by adamgilliland on 12/ 9/2007 7:07 pm