At 9:23 PM 3/1/96 +0000, Mendocino Middle School Lab wrote:
> Hello, I am a eighth grader at the Mendocino Middle School in
>northern California. I am researching a project on how plants respond to
>different types of music. I am interested about whether certain plants
>will produce more crops, or put out more growth when treated to different
>types of music. Or, if the plants will die, or wilt. I chose this topic
>because I have been around plants all my life and would like to find out
>about different ways to grow them. This subject has always had some
>interest to me, and when I saw the topic from a list of possible topics I
>immediately focused on it.
>>I already know about :
>*the experiments included in *The Secret Life Of Plants* by Peter
>Tompkins and Christopher Bird,
>*that some plants subjected to music have thrived or wilted,
>*how sound travels and how the human ear receives it,
>*how pitch and frequency are included in sound waves.
>>I am interested in knowing about:
>*tests that have been previously done,
>*how plants interpret sound,
>*whether plants have been more affected when the music is applied to seeds
>and sprouts, or when they are fully out of the ground,
>*why do people think that *The Secret Life Of Plants* isn=BCt science,
>*any other information, web sites???
Danae,
I can see that you have been thinking about this and
formulating some good questions. I'd like to encourage
you to investigate your questions thoroughly. You might
think of a hypothesis and test it carefully. You could
make a valuable contribution to science, if your work
is done properly!
You need to do a real experiment. This means you grow
some plants in one setting (with music) and some identical
plants in a control setting (without music). It is
critical that there is only ONE difference between the
two settings (and that ONE difference is the music).
The kind of plants must be the same. The number of plants
should be at least ten in separate pots. The light, water,
temperature, and fertilizer must be the same between the two
settings. It is important that the music not filter
through walls or across benches into the control setting.
It is VERY difficult to create this kind of set up because
anywhere that you could be sure there are NO other differences
between settings, it is hard to isolate the experimental (with
music) from the control (with NO music).
I know of no evidence where this kind of careful experiment
has shown an effect of music upon growth. It may exist, but
I haven't seen it. I have not attempted to do this very
careful experiment because my greenhouses would lack the kind
of sound isolation that is needed.
There does not appear to be any kind of sound-sensing apparatus
in plants as there is in our mammalian auditory canals. Further,
there appears to be no equivalent of a neural system to convert
sound (vibration) to any kind of biochemical response. It seems
unlikely that a plant could sense or respond to music. Moreover,
there certainly is no apparent "center of consciousness" that
could be entrained to appreciate different musical "tastes."
In the apparent absence of experiments and mechanisms, most
plant scientists are skeptical of claims that plants respond
to music. Experiments lacking suitable controls and lacking
documentation of control of variables other than music cause
many projects to be labeled "pseudoscience." A well-documented
and careful experiment with clear outcomes is what it takes
to give an idea credibility. That is the task. Good Luck!
I'd like to cite you one example. When I was young, a few
scientists reported that plants could respond to touch. It
was called thigmotropism. Many researchers in those days
laughed the idea off as "pseudoscience." A few determined
researchers kept at work to eliminate the extra variables
and to make the science believable. They succeeded, and now
there are chapters on thigmotropism in every plant physiology
textbook. The reason "pseudoscience" became "science" was
careful work to show that the touch variable was effective
when all other variables were controlled. Determination,
persistence, caution, precision, skepticism are all marks
of good scientists.
PS: when reading about science, always ask yourself whether
you have seen documentation of suitable control, or whether
the author is asking you to "believe" in undocumented control.
A second important question to ask yourself is whether you
are reading about an isolated case, or the results of several
projects carried out in different labs by different researchers.
Good science is quantifiable, repeatable, and the result of
collaborative effort.
If you have other questions or would like more advice, please
don't hesitate to write again.
ross
________________________________________________
( )______________________________________________)
\ Ross Koning \
\ Biology Department \
\ Eastern CT State University \
\ Willimantic, CT 06226 USA \
\ Koning at ecsu.ctstateu.edu \
\ http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/default.html \
\ Phone: 860-465-5327 \
) Fax: 860-465-5213 )
/______________________________________________/
