What makes plant tick?

My botanical origin myth has me entering university as a maths/physic nerd and emerging a botanist. In truth, I emerged a phycologist – an algal nerd – but I transitioned through botany to get there. My first-year curriculum was packed with advanced physics and ‘pure’ maths (I wasn’t keen on the ‘applied’ kind), leaving room for a discretionary subject. I chose botany because I was curious about the natural world but didn’t want to cut up animals.

What eventually converted me to the plant (and algal) world – as I’m fond of saying – was the image of a plant cell projected onto a wall in the Old Botany Theatre, at the University of Melbourne. Within the cellulose impregnated cell-wall there were sacks of DNA, to run the show, and others crammed with photoreceptors and the apparatus needed for the solar-powered conversion of carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugar. Along with other bibs and bobs. Who would have known?

A teacher friend took me aside once after I told this story and answered this question for me. Well, she said, ‘You, for a start’. Despite me having not studied biology at secondary school, it was apparently inconceivable I hadn’t been told in junior science that plants were made up of cells containing things like nuclei and chloroplasts.

In any case, the image did the trick. I dropped maths and physics and headed full throttle into botany, seasoned with a little organic chemistry and genetics to help me better understand what went on inside those cells. 

By inclination, then, I seem to be a reductionist. To understand, I first break something down into its constituent parts, then reassemble as each part becomes knowable. Add to that my acquired trade as a taxonomist, where I look for characters – shared and unique – to make sense of the world created by those plant cells, and you begin to understand why detail matters to me.

To honest, though, an encounter with an unknown plant or alga typically begins with its gestalt, and then moves on to a more considered assessment through reducing it to a collection of traits. I apply the same approach in this first selection of essays, starting I’m sure with a preformed views of some kind and then picked away at the question until I confirm my bias or – and yes it does happen, good scientist that I am – I persuade myself to change my mind.

Some of these phenomena are well understood but often misconceived. That includes why we don’t water our gardens in the middle of day, why some hydrangeas are pink, and why (almost) no amount of plant and flower material in your bedroom will suffocate you.

Others present me with that inconvenient or uncomfortable truth that we just don’t know. An observation that cannot be easily explained, or one that is no better understood through reductionism. This includes plants that seem intelligent, plants that ‘talk’ and why patting a plant might be good for it. In time I expect these extraordinary ideas to be proved or disapproved, but for now, they mock me like the smile of Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire Cat who, it must be said, was often right.





Just when you thought it was safe to return to the garden, scientists warn us of plants screaming, complaining or, on a quiet day, chattering amongst themselves. Not singing, says one commentator helpfully, but another believes they are ‘literally crying out for help’.

Perhaps I was too hasty in my previous essay to dismiss sentience in the vegetable kingdom. The idea of a sensitive plant may be more than a poetic allegory. If they can communicate with each other, and with animals, then it’s not a big stretch to say they have feelings.  Things are certainly getting curiouser and curiouser. Or perhaps just dumber and dumber.

First up, plants do make sounds. A few years ago, I interviewed Melbourne scientist turned music composer, the late Martin Friedel, about how he converted the sound of clicking sap, burrowing insects, singing birds, swaying branches and even base notes from water moving through roots into music for human ears. Friedel took his highly sensitive microphones into forests and botanic gardens, capturing every utterance he could associate with a tree.

That made sense to me. You can hear most of these noises if you listen carefully. On the other hand, the plaintive cries and complaints captured in recent experiments are what we call ultrasonic, which means the frequency of the sound is above what most humans can detect. A good microphone will pick them up, but it doesn’t make for very interesting listening given we still can’t hear anything.

If we could, we would hear a an occasional (ultrasonic) blip – maybe one per hour – from a healthy, and apparently relaxed, plant. If you drop the pitch and slow these noises down, they sound like popcorn popping or a knuckle cracking. Add some stress to the life of a tomato, tobacco, wheat, maize, cactus or grape vine (just some of the plants tested) and they become decidedly chatty.

[...] 

*    *    *

Another teaser from my new book of 50 essays, The Sceptical Botanist: Separating Fact from Fiction (CSIRO Publishing, 2025), available from 1 August 2025 at CSIRO Publishing and all good bookstores. 

Today, the introduction to a chapter of 10 essays about the way plants work. The short extract from the second essay in this chapter was first published earlier this year, in the February issue of Gardening Australia magazine.

Jerome Entwisle provided the cartoon for this essay, here and in the book. 

Comments