Random thing about plants

[KASASpace]

So, I heard somewhere that some people did a study on plant growth, and found that plants that have at least sounds of the natural habitat actually grew better.

I have no idea if this is true, so could someone bring me up on this?

It would be helpful on a trip out to Mars....

[Roastduck]

If anyone can post a link to that study, I would LOVE to read it. Seems unlikely, and I want to be learned otherwise.

[rpayne88]

I know Mythbusters tested that in one of their episodes. I don't remember the results, though.

[Roastduck]

I know Mythbusters tested that in one of their episodes. I don't remember the results, though.

Mythbusters tested whether talking to plants makes them grow faster

[Ralathon]

Mythbusters also had too small a sample size to reliably say anything about the results.

I've never heard of this study before, and the result doesn't seem very logical. Plants don't have brains, so how could they distinguish between random noise and environmental sound?

[Kasuha]

I've never heard of this study before, and the result doesn't seem very logical. Plants don't have brains, so how could they distinguish between random noise and environmental sound?

Vibrations may improve water transport towards roots, for instance.

[Sirrobert]

Mythbusters also had too small a sample size to reliably say anything about the results.

I've never heard of this study before, and the result doesn't seem very logical. Plants don't have brains, so how could they distinguish between random noise and environmental sound?

They can still communicate through pheromones.

You don't need a brain for basic responds to inputs

[Nuke]

Mythbusters tested whether talking to plants makes them grow faster

plants love death metal.

[KASASpace]

Okay, maybe not the environments sounds, but it might help with seeds and root transport, as Kasuha mentioned.

[Sillychris]

Mythbusters is an entertaining and at times informative show.

They are not scientists nor do they practice good science in any episode I have seen.

I would like to point out the episode where they "bust the myth" that crashing into a parked car at 100 is not the same as crashing into a car head on, both travelling 50.

I would do this by crashing into a car head on at 50, then crash into a parked car at 100.

Mythbusters decided that crashing into an immovable concrete wall at 100 was the equivalent of crashing into a parked car at 100 and declared the myth busted.

Does anybody else see the flaw in logic here?

Also, I may have gotten the specific numbers wrong but I know for sure they used one speed then doubled it.

[78stonewobble]

Vibrations may improve water transport towards roots, for instance.

Yeah I'd think that was the most logical explanation as well. Maybe not water, but that the plants have somehow evolved to also benefit from those vibrations (even if it's a small benefit).

[Nuke]

Mythbusters is an entertaining and at times informative show.

They are not scientists nor do they practice good science in any episode I have seen.

I would like to point out the episode where they "bust the myth" that crashing into a parked car at 100 is not the same as crashing into a car head on, both travelling 50.

I would do this by crashing into a car head on at 50, then crash into a parked car at 100.

Mythbusters decided that crashing into an immovable concrete wall at 100 was the equivalent of crashing into a parked car at 100 and declared the myth busted.

Does anybody else see the flaw in logic here?

Also, I may have gotten the specific numbers wrong but I know for sure they used one speed then doubled it.

my general opinion of documentary stations (with the possible exception of pbs) is that they are pandering to your typical armchair scientist. ive had to stop watching them because every time they bring up an oversimplified and often incorrect, imprecise analogy it made me want to put my head through a wall. it might make some people feel 30 iq points smarter for watching it, but you can get more information reading the wikipedia entry on the same subject, and those are shady, sketchy and in need of serious citation.

also dont fool yourself, most people watch mythbusters for the explosions.

[Idobox]

In defense of mythbusters, they teach the most basic principle of science : test your hypotheses.

Sure, the experiments are very often flawed and full of biases or uncontrolled variables, but still, it tells people not to accept things without testing them, and it's pretty big for a show about explosions.