Does classical music affect plant growth?
I remember hearing in school about how classical music is great for plants and that they will grow around the speakers. I also was told that that evil rock-n-roll kills plants.
I've never seen any evidence of this and I've seen it quoted as a classic example of stupid and unfounded science.
However, I'll say this: If you turn up the music loud enough...and I mean REALLY LOUD, like acoustic weapon loud. Like large pulse-jet engine loud. Like your head inside the gun barrel of the USS Missouri while it dry-fires.
Well....I have to assume that would have some kind of effect
Mythbusters did an episode about this. Based on the results my hypothesis is that sounds with large changes in amplitude and frequency help the most, but that's just a theory I haven't taken the time to back up whatsoever.
Anyway, the Mythbusters episode tested talking nice, talking mean, classical music, rock, and silence (control). Rock was the clear winner, but all noise did better than the control.
Anyway, the Mythbusters episode tested talking nice, talking mean, classical music, rock, and silence (control). Rock was the clear winner, but all noise did better than the control.
In the mythbusters episode, they had a control and then 4 test groups - all groups had identical sun, wind, watering, soil volume, container and soil content.
The control had no simulus. One group had nice voices complimenting them, it's opposite was insulted. A third group was played classical music, and the final group was death metal.
Against the control, all groups but the classical music faired better. Between nice talking and mean talking, there was no difference. However, death metal really seemed to do the trick. The mass and quality of the peas was the greatest by a significant margin.
Taking into account the small scale and timeframe of the experiment, the myth was only deemed 'plausible.'
The control had no simulus. One group had nice voices complimenting them, it's opposite was insulted. A third group was played classical music, and the final group was death metal.
Against the control, all groups but the classical music faired better. Between nice talking and mean talking, there was no difference. However, death metal really seemed to do the trick. The mass and quality of the peas was the greatest by a significant margin.
Taking into account the small scale and timeframe of the experiment, the myth was only deemed 'plausible.'
The only possible mechanism I can think of would be if the vibrations somehow made a difference to the way air circulates around the plant, improving uptake of CO2. Talking to plants regularly might explain the anecdotes of increased growth.
But I've never heard of any study that supports the growth of plants through music.
Athon
But I've never heard of any study that supports the growth of plants through music.
Athon
By "better" may I ask if it was very dramatically better or just somewhat better?
This is why a good experiment would not have a single control, but a large group of them. If you wanted to do this well, you'd want a bunch of different plants in each category. Ideally, a bunch of different kinds of plants in different soils and such... Probably even conduct the experiment several times.
It sounds to me like the sounds had no clearly negative effect, but the fact that the plant that was not stimulated did not grow as fast could also be a fluke.
From a scientific standpoint, for proof...why would you need a bunch of different type of plants? If music even affected one type of plant, in repeat studies, over and over again...there would be your proof that your outside influence, directly or indirectly caused by the music, is indeed having an effect.
Well..I'm assuming that we are trying to establish that it effects "plant growth" as opposed to "carrot growth" or "daisy growth"
I like this type of answer. I really do. This is the kind of answer that researchers have to seriously weigh in on, so as to not fool themselves when discerning cause or effect.
I recently read where some large study showed a certain result. But then the author said that the results could also have been influenced by...well, something on the order you just mentioned.
HOWEVER...regardiong conducting an actual STUDY as opposed to simply asking people who have plants...there is a big difference. I would say if you conducted your study based on just questioning participants,... what you say in your quote could really be a valid point. However, in a controlled study situation where say they feed the plants all the same amount at the same time of day, and they have them in the sun the same way, etc.,...then if they played different music, then there would be no other outside influences other than the music type.
That's what was done in the Mythbusters scenario. The sample size was too small, and they had a watering malfunction (that was claimed to have been a universal problem to all of the plants). As a result the experiment was not conclusive. But from looking at the experiment, I am convinced that it does have some impact. I have no theory about why, but the results were compelling enough to warrant a proper experiment.
I saw that episode myself.
(Notice how the crew likes to watch things blow up or be destroyed?
Did yo see where they launched an oxygen tank through a concrete wall? I liked that. I used to work with oxy/acetylene torch in construction (same tank as what they showed) And I was very familiar with the myth. In fact, I heard that such a ruptured tank could fly through an 8 foot thick wall. But stories like this abound in construction. Just like how this guy told me that a filled cement bucket that was being hoisted overhead...the cable snapped, landed on a guy on the ground, and the guy was so thoroughly smooshed that they had to hose the remains away. I was told that story because *I* was tending to the bucket that day, below.