Plant are more aware of their environment then you can imagine. Everything in our world is made up of vibrations everything just vibrates at a different frequency and that gives everything its uniqueness whether it be a noise, steel, a dollar bill, yo mama, water, lights, or elements. Considering this then YES plants do respond to vibrations. They respond positively to vibrations they prefer like water, light, certain elements and friendliness. And they respond negatively to vibrations they don't prefer. A good book on this subject is The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird. It is full of true data that you can look up regarding peer reviewed articles in very prestigious journals. It was written in the 70s and this researched has been pushed under the rug for whatever reason. Plants can feel the negative energy (vibrations) of a person that is about to chop it in half versus the positive vibration when a person is about to give it water. Notice in both circumstances i said "about". So they can pick up on the vibration of our intent. This is because our mind sends out signals (vibrations). And yes they do seem to show positive reactions for classical baroque music. Plants are highly aware of their environment and more so than we might think. Why else do you think they've survived on this earth for billions of years? Why does a plan like rice have 32,000-56,000 functional genes where humans only have 30,000-45,000? They are just as complicated as humans. Their evolutionary journey has just taken them on a different path than ours. So it's for this reason that we like to consider ourselves the more evolved and sophisticated species.
Now that is some out there thought. I love it. We are just slaves to these plants. They have been the ones using us this whole time to guarantee their survival then when we are long gone they will still be chillen and in greater numbers because of us. lol Don't let them take over your brain like this guy. lok naa jk man.
Actually I know for a fact they don't like any smoke because is can clog the stomata. The fact that the plants can sense their surroundings like weed smoke in the air or bad feelings or thoughts of people I don't know about...
Actually what you say is quite intriguing. There is actually an interesting book about why you propose. It's called The Botany if Desire by Michael Pollan. It's actually looks at it from the angle you proposed kinda from the plants perspective.... How they've have domesticated us instead of the other way around and some have been more successful than others...like the apple or cannabis...or corn!. And yes it talks about these plants as examples. Some plants have benefitted by being able to evolve to be able to intrigue our wants and desires. If certain plants like the flytrap can do it to flys why can't others intrigue us to an extent to where it benefits them? It is an interesting read...especially the chapter on cannabis for all you stoners.
Love pollans work,but I think you may be reading too much into it. There has to be direct reasons for traits to survive, not arbitrary one like the grower attitude.
Actually if you blow smoke on them they probably are cool with that. They appreciate the increased concentration of CO2 in your breath. They will however momentarily reduce their stomata openin but not close. This is because since the CO2 concentration has increased they can reduce stomata opening while still being able to absorb more CO2 and save water by transpiring less. The actual smoke in the air shouldn't affect them...plants are used to particulates in the atmosphere. Now of smoke were blown on them constantly you're probably right...it could build up a residue like it does on your glass. The plant could cope with this by regenerating cells and sloughing off old cells but that takes away energy from growth.
It is more than the growers attitude... It's our physical actions on the plant as well. It has created evolutionary pressure on plants to express traits that we fin desirable....for whatever reason it may be....taste, looks, its toxins etc
Now again you are acting like plants have attitude or intentions. If it ain't pertanant to sex, life doesn't bother with it. What you're not getting from BoD (or simply ignoring), is that all the plants had some sort of reason to be used. BUT would of been still stuck in whatever region they came from if we (Humans) hadn't found and bred em. Sure there is an attraction for us, but for the cannabis plant, there is what benefit to "catch the vibe" of a homo sapien? seeds are digested by humans, and cannabis is air pollinated.....no direct sexual benefit. Yes it has chemicals that make us feel good....so does tabacco and it's a poison. You're confusing secondary chem compisition with primary sex drive..... the main force in Darwinism.
Idk if you were trying to prove something or not, but don't birds and the wind move seeds? and how would you know if a plant doesn't get any "benifits" from air pollination, like the man said their genes are more complicated which means they have different abilities. Believe it or not plants can transfer water to each other even when isolated. Don't underestimate a plant. They are the key to nature and wisdom. Some plants move on their own, forests move over time. Check out Ivy's or palms, the ivy grows untill it finds furtile soil then plants a seed. Palms grow towards the direction they want to move to and over multiple months, they move a couple inches.
Cannabis is air pollinated(aka no birds or bees needed to procreate) only a few species of plants tranfer water(none related to cannabis, all are spread via rhyzome), palms are phototropic (just like cannabis). Sorry guys but being debunked IS part of the scientific method.
I was just trying to give insight into a different angle of thinking. I wouldn't be so sure of your argument Wharfrat.... just like I am not positive of mine. They both just offer different perspectives of the evolutionary pathways that plants have taken; even though we know where this path has led them to as of now. None of us can know for sure how the thousands of genes in plants have combined to develop what we see today, or why. I think we can both agree that humans have impacted many plants since our existence and vice versa. We have chosen to utilize and spread plants we find useful and some of these more so than others (corn, cannabis, rice). A series of complicated genes could have been put together for the sole purpose to render itself useful to us so that it can spread itself and its offspring across many continents. It helps me to grasp this "theory", if you will, by considering the Venus Flytrap or the Angler fish (with the light attached to its head to lure prey). They both "influence" other species for their own benefit. When these genes were first being experimented with, many a years ago, how did these 2 species "know" that they should try and influence other species for their own benefit? The influence they are provoking is desire. How did they "know" the desire of their prey? What on earth made them take this route?...because it is so far from the norm. Although it has been beneficial to their survival. We like to think of ourselves as the influencer on plants but we might be the influencee through the eyes of some species. Some of this world's dominant species like corn rice and cannabis have been so successful because we find them useful and desirable. You must agree that this is largely a reason why these species are everywhere. I feel that it is an argument that can not be debunked considering the complexity of plants and their evolution. And to give you examples where we find parts other than their sex organs useful because I know you'll bring up the aspect of sex and its role: Turf grass Hemp Bamboo ...even wood I'm sure everyone can name a few I know I brought up animal evolution in my example of the Angler Fish but it was just to help demonstrate a viewpoint.
I recommend reading The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird. It is an interesting read that details the research of many scientist. The research presented in the book can be found and read in greater detail if one chooses and it does employ the scientific method. The book is more reader friendly than research articles and can be read by anyone for entertainment purposes. It shines light on the idea that plants are way more aware than one might think. I challenge anyone to read the book and not have it change the way you think about plants. The topic of the book is closely related to the topic of this thread.
well talking to plants will stimulate because u are breathing a concentrated form of c02 on them i breathe on mine all the time. plus added c02 for the plants is great i use yeast and sugar in 1 gallon containers use two containers for my lil grow closet
yes and the reason they are so successful is man has changed the genetics of em.. would you like to bring up Canis lupus familiaris as a case point in genetics and humans ? there was no intent, no planing ( Pollan even say this BTW), no noting but the fact it is useful to en evolving organism ...man. And THAT ORGANISM is the driving force in these plants, not the plants themselves . they use whats called Rhyzomes (except hemp .. um dude did you really mean to add that?) a very early form of Asexual reproduction. and FTR Grasses were one of the first plants to make the transition to land, what you are seeing is left over aquatic DNA expre3ssign itself in a anew environment. you keep acting like plants have intent and consciousness. they don't. period.even Pollan agrees on this point
sorry hippies bullshit written by stoned out hippies that book is full of more bullshit then the Bible. chakras for your plants.. pull the other one fuckers
go back to beginners please .. breathing on your plants will not raise CO2 levels need to effect plant respiration, and the Sugar, yeast method has been debunked so many times. And outside of those lame ass micro PC grows, is totally worthless
No I have never said that they have a consciousness. I leave that for each person to decide on their own. Im not into bashing the beliefs of others or debunking conventional or non-conventional thought and research. I said that they are aware of their environment and considering some research I suggest that they are much more aware than we might think. I gave some food for thought about the original topic of this thread (plants responding to vibrations) by giving insight into a unique perspective. I used those 2 books as examples. As far as responding to vibrations of music, I do not know whether they do or not, nor do I have. A belief whether they do or not. I think it is something that could be fairly easily determined and prob already has. (I haven't read into it. I would like to hear people's input that have). However I believe that plants DO respond to vibrations but not all vibrations. As I said in an earlier post they respond very well to the energy frequency (vibration) of Nitrate and not so much to Arsenic. Also to light and water. Plants may or may not respond at all to some frequencies like that of a nearby rock. Would the vibration of music behave like the vibrations plants like and have a positive reaction, no reaction at all, or even a negative reaction? What the hell blast some KMK and I'm sure they'll be happy! After all, cannabis has manipulated KMK for its own benefit right.... some might argue its the other way around. But I think thousands of years of evolutionary pressure on cannabis led it to put the right genes together to produce great sinsemilla "knowing" that KMK would come along and spread it across the world...hehe
So after reading all of this thread I see wharfrat has responded to EVERYTHING I was going to respond to with EVERYTHING I was going to say! Thanks a lot
So maybe I'm not the best one to be doing experiments since I'm bizie all the time but I didn't take a picture at the start of this which was last week but I assure you all the clones were exactly the same, roots and all. They are sage & sour and I have 3 running but one with a air pump next to the stalk. I use a commercial pump for vegging and this pos walmart one on the plant is just for unrooted clones. I took all the clones from the same part of the mother plant and out of 6 I picked the 3 that were most identical. Check out what I have in one week of stimulation. From the tops everything has looked somewhat the same and once I put the put next to the plant it almost didn't look happy, well at first. I was thinking man this thing must be making the stomata close like I was reading that person on that one site talking about so I didn't even bother talking a picture and I figured it was 'debunked' (ha, I like that word) but then after a week I looked at the roots and was like wow I have never seen such a huge difference. Even when a air stone is directly under the roots of one plant I have never seen such a increase in root vigor so quickly on a plant. Even though I know this is not the case as the stone for these plants I used is a 12' so it spreads even through the 3 plants specifically for this exp. Also them being in the same tub is just something I do for the short veg period. They will each be getting a 5 gal tub on a recirculating dwc. It is quite obvious there is something going on here the roots are more abundant on the stimulated plant and now the top is even starting to look like its bringing on new growth faster then the other two. I mean sure its a kinda bs experiment since there is only 3 plants involved and I am not a scientist with a lab but it does carry some merit to it. Also I am going to keep doing this experiment on different plants to see if the results are consistent.