Pourquoi les plantes ne font pas de musique : comprendre la sonification végétale

Why plants don't make music: understanding plant sonification

A rigorous scientific approach to interspecies bio-communication

By Renaud Ruhlmann

Introduction: Between science and anthropomorphic projection

Since the 1970s and the publication of the bestseller *The Secret Life of Plants* (Tompkins & Bird, 1973), the general public has been fascinated by the idea that plants can " make music " or "communicate" with us through harmonious sounds. This idea, while appealing from a poetic point of view, rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of actual biological phenomena and constitutes a classic case of scientific anthropomorphism.

This article aims to clarify, with scientific rigor and nuance, what plants actually emit from an electrophysiological point of view , what data sonification is , and why the term " plant music " is not only scientifically inaccurate, but potentially problematic for our understanding of plant consciousness and interspecies bio-communication.

I. What plants actually emit: biological basis

1.1. Plant electrical signals: an established scientific reality

Plants do indeed possess measurable electrophysiological activity , scientifically documented for over a century. Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose (1858-1937), a pioneer of plant biophysics, was one of the first to record electrical responses in plants at the beginning of the 20th century (Bose, 1926). His work, initially controversial, has been progressively validated by modern research.

Types of plant electrical signals:
1. Action Potential (AP)

    • Similar to animal nerve impulses in principle, but fundamentally different in their mechanism
    • Resulting from ionic fluxes (K⁺, Ca²⁺, Cl⁻) across cell membranes
    • It spreads along vascular tissues (phloem and xylem)
    • Propagation speed: 0.5 to 50 cm/second (compared to 120 m/s in human neurons)
    • Biological function : transmits warning signals in case of injury, herbivore attack, or environmental stress


      2.Variation Potential (VP - Variation Potential)

    • Slower and more variable than the action potential
    • Associated with pressure changes in vascular tissues
    • Triggers in response to mechanical, thermal or chemical stimuli


      3. Electrotonic Potential (EP)

    • Gradual changes in membrane potential
    • Non-propagative, localized
    • Linked to gradual physiological changes

Recent searches:

University of Lausanne (Farmer et al., 2017-2022) : When a leaf is injured, it emits an electrical signal which propagates through the veins to other leaves according to a mathematical model, triggering the production of the defensive hormone jasmonate.

Brazilian studies on tomato (Chatterjee et al., 2021) : When attacked, tomato plants transmit electrical impulses to the rest of the plant, enabling a coordinated defensive response.

CNRS, INRAE ​​and Université Paris-Saclay : Mechanical oscillations due to wind activate "molecular switches" on the surface of plant cells, generating electrical signals that allow plants to "listen" to their environment.

1.2. What these signals are NOT

Crucial point : These electrical signals are physiological processes related to survival, growth, and environmental adaptation. They do not, under any circumstances, constitute:

  • ❌ Music
  • ❌ A structured language
  • ❌ A form of artistic expression
  • ❌ An attempt to communicate with humans
  • ❌ "Emotions" in the animal/human sense

As Dr. Monica Gagliano , a behavioral ecologist and one of the most respected scientists in the field of plant cognition, unambiguously puts it:

"Plants have their own true sounds and don't need humans to give them fake sounds and call them plant voices. [...] If I hooked you up to one of those multimeters and told you that the sound obtained by translating your electrical impedance was your voice, it would be immediately clear that it wasn't your voice, but simply a sonification of your electrical impedance — nothing to do with your real voice or sound."
(Gagliano, quoted in HowStuffWorks, 2024)

Photo: Julien Herreros / Monica Gagliano / Renaud Ruhlmann / Marcos O'Farrell - March 2023

1.3 The real sounds of plants

Fundamental distinction : Plants actually emit real sounds , distinct from artificial sonifications.

Research by Monica Gagliano (2012-2017):

Root acoustic communication ( Oecologia , 2012): Corn roots emit ultrasonic clicks around 220 Hz during their growth and orient themselves towards sound sources emitting at the same frequency.

Cavitation clicks : Sounds produced when water columns break in the xylem under water stress (cavitation phenomenon).

Mechanical sounds : Cracking, friction, movement of plant tissues.

Gagliano points out : "The acoustic signals emitted by plants are so numerous that it seems very unlikely that they are all due to cavitation. [...] In fact, a recent demonstration now indicates that plants generate sounds independently of dehydration and cavitation-related processes."

These genuine sounds are in the ultrasound range (inaudible to the human ear) and stem from specific biophysical processes, not from "musical" productions. We discussed this at length with Monica, as she is Italian and very familiar with the history of the "Music of the Plants" brand. As a scientist, she explains that this type of sonification does not respect the consciousness or the true communication of plants, but rather interprets and distorts the real message. Therefore, if one wishes to sonify a plant, it is crucial to understand how the device operates transparently in order to grasp what humans have chosen to hear and filter from the biodata offered by the plant kingdom.

II. Sonification: what is it really?

2.1. Scientific definition

Sonification is defined as "the representation of data in the form of non-verbal acoustic signals for the purpose of transmitting or perceiving information" (Hermann, 2002; Kramer et al., 1999).

Formal criteria for sonification (International Community for Auditory Display):

  1. C1 : Sound reflects objective properties or relationships in the input data
  2. C2 : The transformation is systematic (precise definition of the data→sound correspondence)
  3. C3 : Sonification is reproducible (same data = same sound result)
  4. C4 : The system can be used with different data

2.2. Sonification: an arbitrary translation

Crucial point : Sonification is a human interpretation , a design choice.

Concrete example:

When a "plant music" device measures a variation in electrical resistance of 50 to 100 Ohms on a leaf:

  1. Raw signal : 50 Ω → 100 Ω (objective data)
  2. Arbitrary mapping choice :
    • Designer A: 50Ω = C (262 Hz), 100Ω = G (392 Hz)
    • Designer B: 50Ω = Bass (110 Hz), 100Ω = Treble (880 Hz)
    • Designer C: 50Ω = filtered white noise at 200 Hz, 100Ω = sine wave at 1000 Hz

The result : Three completely different "musics" derived from the same biological data . Which one is the plant's "true voice"? None . They are all artifacts of human interpretation .

Furthermore, the devices from " Music Of The Plants " are not all calibrated with the same mapping. We have a 2019 Device U1, which corresponds to the original manufacturing process, while the models from 2020 onwards are no longer manufactured in the same way, and they have also changed the distributor's name. Previously it was SOLERA, and now it's STREAMPATH SRL—in other words, a very lucrative business in place. As the Italians told us when we were co-organizing the International Festival of Music of Plants, the French would be the ones explaining the science of "the music of plants." In other words, the people who manufacture and sell these machines are incapable of explaining to you correctly and with scientific rigor how their own equipment works!
So how can you trust a company that can't transparently explain what information the plant emits?

Anthropomorphism and intellectual fraud with devices at the highest prices on the market. And as an aside, in 2020, when I was co-organizing FIMP, someone from Damanhur came to present their products (Device U1 and Bamboo) in true salesman fashion. He suggested I feature my "plant song" albums, at the time "La mélodie des végétaux" Vol. 1, "Mastermind of the mint," and "Are You Sage?" with "music of the plants" on the cover, even though I produced them with Edoardo Taori's "plantsplay" device, not theirs.
Where is the respect for plants here? None, just business to sell more devices under the guise of "music"... and what about the true message of plants then, what about that?

2.3. History of scientific sonification

Sonification has been used in scientific research since the 1950s (Supper, 2012):

  • Geiger counter (1928): Click rate = radiation level
  • Seismology : Conversion of seismic waves into audible sounds
  • Astronomy : Sonification of Hubble Telescope Data
  • Neuroscience : Translating neural activity into sound patterns

In all these cases , the scientists are explicit: these are not the "natural sounds" of radiation, earthquakes or neurons, but auditory representations of data chosen to facilitate analysis.

When you are in the forest, do you hear harmonious melodies, music coming from the trees? So why should we trivialize such an absurd term as "plant music" if, in nature, we don't hear any sound coming from a plant?

III. The problem of "plant music": anthropomorphism and distortions

3.1. Cleve Backster's problematic legacy

Cleve Backster (1924-2013) , a polygraph specialist, published his famous experiment in 1968: he connected a lie detector to a plant and observed reactions when he "thought" about burning a leaf.

Major methodological problems :

  • Uncontrolled variables (temperature, vibrations, humidity)
  • Lack of a double-blind protocol
  • Impossible to reproduce by other researchers under controlled conditions
  • Unjustified anthropomorphic interpretations ("the plant is afraid", "the plant reads my thoughts")

Lasting consequences : According to Michael Pollan ( The New Yorker , 2013), the book The Secret Life of Plants, inspired by Backster, has caused:

  • A slowdown of several decades in serious research on plant behavior
  • A stigmatization of researchers interested in plant cognition, as I have observed for some years now with the research produced by NATURASOUNDS
  • Scientific self-censorship due to fear of being associated with pseudoscience because science does not take into account the importance of the observer and their intentions.

Monica Gagliano sums it up like this: "Quite simply, the machines that translate the 'biofeedback' of plants into music have nothing to do with science — the whole story has nothing to do with science or the sound of plants."

3.2. The misuse of the term "plant music"

A. Conceptual confusion

The term "plant music" falsely implies:

  1. Intentionality : That the plant "chooses" to produce these sounds
  2. Artistic expression : That the plant has a form of musical aesthetic
  3. Directed communication : Let the plant speak to us
  4. Anthropocentrism : That plants must express themselves in our human terms (scales, tones, rhythms)

B. Problematic Reductionism

By claiming that the devices reveal the "voice" or "music" of plants, we:

  • Reduces the fascinating complexity of plant physiology to a sonic gimmick
  • Masks the true bioacoustic phenomena (root clicks, ultrasound, cavitation)
  • Distracts from rigorous scientific research
  • It trivializes genuine plant communication (chemical, electrical, acoustic).

C. Impact on research and public perception

Stefano Mancuso , a pioneer in plant neurobiology, and Francis Hallé , a world-renowned botanist, insist on the importance of not anthropomorphizing plants while recognizing their cognitive complexity.
We regularly exchange ideas with members of Stefano Mancuso's team, including engineers, because they advocate biomimicry and a very respectful approach to plants. Similarly, Francis Hallé enjoyed hearing about our fieldwork with young audiences and our bio-communication sessions using sound to raise awareness of plant consciousness by explaining this harmonious, biocompatible language, which is not music. Francis greatly appreciated our approach and our desire to share these multi-sensory experiences with children.

The risk: by accustoming the public to a romanticized and inaccurate vision, we:

  • Creates unrealistic expectations
  • Discredits serious plant science
  • It prevents a true understanding of plant capabilities.


    Photo: Francis Hallé / Renaud Ruhlmann - April 2022

IV. Sonification devices: differences and objectivity

4.1. Classic devices (example: MIDI Sprout, Music of Plants)

Operating principle :

  1. Measurement of electrical impedance or conductivity between two points on the plant
  2. Conversion to MIDI notes via a predefined algorithm
  3. Assignment to musical scales (pentatonic, major, etc.)
  4. Adding effects (reverb, delay, harmonization)

Limitations and biases :

  • ❌ Arbitrary choice : Why a pentatonic scale rather than an atonal one?
  • ❌ Musical constraints : The data is "forced" into human-like harmonic structures
  • ❌ Excessive smoothing : Filtering to make the result "musical" = loss of information
  • ❌ Preconceived interpretation : The designer imposes what "sounds good"

Usefulness : These devices have undeniable educational and contemplative value, but should not be presented as revealing "the true music" of the plant.

4.2. The Pocket Scion: towards greater objectivity

Fundamental difference : The Pocket Scion positions itself as a tool for raw sonification rather than pre-established musical interpretation.

Approach :

  1. Raw data : Measurement of bioelectrical variations without musical presuppositions
  2. Pure frequencies : Translation into Hz (hertz) rather than into tempered notes
  3. OSC/MIDI raw : Output of usable digital data
  4. Transparency : The user sees the actual values ​​and controls the mapping

Scientific advantages :

✅ Reproducibility : Raw data can be reshared and reanalyzed
✅ Objectivity : Less bias from prior interpretation
✅ Flexibility : The user consciously chooses their sound mapping
✅ Educational value : Helps understand the difference between signal and interpretation

Pocket Scion workflow example:

 Signal bioélectrique → Voltage brut (0-5V)
 ↓
 Conversion ADC
 ↓
 Données numériques (0-1023)
 ↓
 OSC : /plant/data + valeur brute
 ↓
 L'UTILISATEUR décide du mapping :
 - Fréquence pure (220-880 Hz)
 - Contrôle de synthétiseur
 - Modulation de timbre
 - Etc.

Important distinction : Even the Pocket Scion remains a sonification (arbitrary translation of data into sound). The difference is that it:

  • Make this translation explicit and finally make this audio translation transparent
  • Gives the user control between raw data and the use of MIDI language
  • It does not claim to reveal the "music" of the plant

4.3. Recommendations for ethical use

For manufacturers and practitioners :

  1. Honest terminology : Talk about "sonification" or "sound translation", not "plant music".
  2. Technical transparency : Explain what is being measured and how it is translated
  3. Scientific context : Reference actual research (Gagliano, Mancuso, Hallé, Ruhlmann, etc.)
  4. Clear boundaries : Acknowledge that this is a human interpretation

For users :

  1. Critical thinking : Understanding that the sound produced is an artifact of the system
  2. Curiosity : Exploring the underlying biological phenomena
  3. Respect : Do not project human intentions or emotions onto the signals
  4. Complementarity : Using sonification as a gateway to plant science


    Discover our proposed device with training and support for your scientific, therapeutic or artistic projects to co-create and produce fruitful collaborations that respect living beings (click on the photo to access our proposal)

V. Plant consciousness and bio-communication: the real questions

5.1. What do we really know about plant cognition?

Current scientific consensus (Gagliano, Mancuso, Hallé, Trewavas):

✅ Plants perceive their environment through numerous sensors (light, gravity, touch, chemistry, sound)
✅ Plants process information and make "decisions" that optimize their survival
✅ Plants memorize information (short and long term)
✅ Plants communicate chemically with other organisms
✅ Plants learn (see Gagliano's experiments on Mimosa pudica , 2016)

Open questions :

❓ Is there a form of plant "consciousness"?
❓ How can we define cognition without a brain or neurons?
❓ What is the nature of a plant's "subjective experience," if it exists?

Stefano Mancuso (founder of plant neurobiology) proposes the concept of distributed intelligence : plants do not have a centralized brain, but a decentralized information processing network, similar to the Internet or insect colonies.

I also invite you to read my book, "The Secret Melody of Plants," where I discuss plant consciousness through my personal experiences of plant bio-communication, beginning with my first interactions with the cacao trees of Guatemala. Many of us on Earth can communicate with living things and maintain these exchanges without needing artifice or communication devices. That's why I've been conducting research for the past five years to develop ethical devices that respect the song of plants, rather than imposing an anthropomorphism that facilitates business rather than a coherent sharing of a fundamental life experience: the ability to communicate with other living intelligences through the voice of the heart.


5.2. True plant bio-communication

Chemical communication (the best documented):

  • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) : Airborne molecules emitted in response to stress
    • Example: Acacia trees attacked by herbivores emit ethylene, which is detected by neighboring acacia trees that increase their production of toxic tannins (Farmer & Ryan, 1990)
  • Root signaling : Chemical exudates exchanged via the soil and mycorrhizae
    • "Wood Wide Web" network (Simard, 2021): Trees sharing carbon via fungal networks

Electrical communication (under study):

  • Propagation of action potentials along the phloem
  • Long-range coordination for defensive responses
  • Possible role in wind perception (CNRS, 2021)

Acoustic communication (preliminary research):

  • Root ultrasonic clicks at 220 Hz (Gagliano, 2012)
  • Vibration detection in water and predators (Appel & Cocroft, 2014)
  • Arabidopsis ( Arabidopsis ) detecting the chewing sounds of caterpillars (Appel, 2014)

Crucial point : All these forms of communication are functional (survival, reproduction, defense), not aesthetic or expressive in the human sense.

5.3. Respect for plant diversity

The risk of anthropomorphism :

Monica Gagliano warns: "On one hand, it helps people connect and get closer to plants. But at the same time, it's dangerous. Underlying this story is that humans are the most important point of reference. For plants to communicate with us, they must do so on our terms."

Proposal for a plant-based ethic :

  1. Recognizing otherness : Plants are neither "green animals" nor "immobile humans"
  2. Accepting the incomprehensible : Their "experience of the world" largely eludes us.
  3. Valuing difference : Their distributed cognition is fascinating because it is different
  4. Avoid reductionism : Do not reduce all their complexity to our categories
  5. Epistemological humility : Admitting the limits of our understanding

Francis Hallé insists that plants are radically different organisms from animals:

  • No mobility (except for growth)
  • No predation (except in exceptional circumstances)
  • Modularity (can survive the loss of 90% of their biomass)
  • Potential immortality (no programmed senescence)

VI. Use sonification responsibly and in an informed manner

6.1. Sonification as a pedagogical tool

Legitimate uses :

✅ Awareness : Creating an emotional connection with the plant world
✅ Pedagogy : Making invisible phenomena (electrical signals) tangible
✅ Art and meditation : Contemplative experiences with nature
✅ Exploratory research : Detecting patterns in data through listening

Terms :

  • Transparency on what is measured and how it is translated
  • Scientific context : Link to actual research and what each device translates to, so as not to "sell a dream".

6.2. From gadget to deep understanding

Recommended progression :

  1. Initial wonder : Sensory experience with a sonification device
  2. Question : "But what actually produces these sounds?"
  3. Learning : Understanding the underlying plant physiology
  4. Further study : Study scientific research (Gagliano, Mancuso, etc.)
  5. Ethical reflection : Rethinking our relationship with plants

6.3. Towards a "plant-based acoustic ecology"

Suggestion : Rather than making plants "speak" in our own terms, let's develop an ability to listen to the true sounds of plants :

  • Ultrasonic recordings of root clicks
  • Hydrophones in the trunks to capture sap flow
  • Contact microphones for mechanical movements
  • Botanical stethoscopes for internal activity

These sounds, even though they require frequency transposition to be audible, are the true sounds of plants , not artifacts of electrical translation.


Photo: Renaud Ruhlmann with the Paulownia tree at Le Corbusier's Villa Le Lac in Corseaux, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland.

VII. Conclusion: Towards an authentic relationship with the plant world

7.1. What we have learned

  1. Plants don't make music , but they have a fascinating electrophysiological life that exhibits a form of harmony through the pursuit of homeostasis.
  2. Sonification is a human translation , not a revelation of the plant's "voice" because each device has different filters and algorithms.
  3. Anthropomorphism , while appealing, is reductive and potentially harmful
  4. True plant sounds exist (root clicks, ultrasound) and deserve to be studied.
  5. Scientific research (Gagliano, Mancuso, Hallé, Ruhlmann) reveals an astonishing complexity of plants
  6. We need to combine cultures because if we only use the Western point of view, we reduce our potential for understanding these phenomena.
    For example, this study produced by Princeton University (where Joel Sternheimer studied), the University of Cambridge, and the Max Planck Institute explains that Pythagoras was wrong and that there is no universal harmony according to his theory because the tempered scale he calculated is not necessarily the most judicious or relevant to use, especially when discussing biological relationships. In India, Eastern music has more nuances, with 22 shrutis instead of the 12 semitones found in the West. Thus, Eastern music offers far more nuances with quarter tones than Western music.
    For plants, it is obvious that the more nuances are offered, the more precise and rich the emission will be, and especially for its biocompatible potential for therapeutic purposes.


7.2. The role of tools like the Pocket Scion

The Pocket Scion and similar devices have a legitimate place provided that :

  • ✅ Be transparent about how they work
  • ✅ Recognize their nature as sonification tools , not "translators"
  • ✅ To serve as gateways to scientific knowledge
  • ✅ Encourage critical thinking about our relationship with plants

7.3. Questions to ask yourself

Before using or promoting a "plant music" device, ask yourself:

  1. What data-to-sound mapping is used? Is it explicit and transparent?
  2. Why this choice of scale/tone rather than another?
  3. What are we actually measuring ? Impedance? Electrical potential? Conductivity?
  4. What is the biological function of the measured signal?
  5. How can this be presented without excessive anthropomorphism?
  6. What can the user learn about plant physiology?

7.4. Towards ethical bio-communication

The real question is not "how to make plants talk", but:

How can we, as humans, learn to better perceive and respect plants in their radical otherness?

This implies:

  • Humility : Accepting that we will never fully understand "what it's like to be a plant"
  • Scientific curiosity : Supporting rigorous research (Gagliano, Mancuso, etc.)
  • Artistic creativity : Using sonification as art, not as pseudoscience
  • Environmental ethics : Protect plants for what they are, not for what we imagine them to be.

7.5. A call for nuance

This article does not aim to "kill the magic" of the human-plant relationship and these sonic and musical exchanges. On the contrary, it argues for an authentic magic , based on:

  • The fascinating reality of plant physiology
  • The real sounds that plants produce
  • The cognitive complexity revealed by science with awareness
  • A deep respect for plant otherness and its real electrophysiological communication

The real wonder is not that plants "make music," but that they exist with modes of cognition, communication, and existence radically different from our own—and that we are only just beginning to understand them.

Scientific references

Basic research

  • Bose, J. C. (1926). The Nervous Mechanism of Plants . Longmans, Green and Co., London.
  • Gagliano, M. et al. (2012). “Towards understanding plant bioacoustics”. Trends in Plant Science , 17(6), 323-325.
  • Gagliano, M. et al. (2016). "Learning by Association in Plants". Scientific Reports , 6, 38427.
  • Farmer, E.E. & Ryan, C.A. (1990). "Interplant communication: Airborne methyl jasmonate induces synthesis of proteinase inhibitors in plant leaves". PNAS , 87(19), 7713-7716.
  • Simard, S. (2021). Finding the Mother Tree: Discovering the Wisdom of the Forest . Knopf.
  • Mancuso, S. & Viola, A. (2015). Brilliant Green: The Surprising History and Science of Plant Intelligence . Island Press.
  • Hallé, F. (1999). In Praise of Plants: Towards a New Biology . Éditions du Seuil.
  • Pelt, JM. (1996). The secret languages ​​of nature . Fayard.

Plant electrophysiology

  • Volkov, A.G. (Ed.). (2006). Plant Electrophysiology . Springer, Berlin.
  • Chatterjee, SK et al. (2021). "Fruit Herbivory Alters Plant Electrome: Evidence for Fruit-Shoot Long-Distance Electrical Signaling in Tomato Plants". Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems .
  • Farmer, EE et al. (2020). "Wound activation of jasmonate signaling: extending the squeeze cell hypothesis". Journal of Experimental Botany .

Sonification and critique

  • Hermann, T. (2002). Developing Model Based Sonification . PhD Thesis, Bielefeld University.
  • Kramer, G. et al. (1999). "Sonification Report: Status of the field and research agenda". International Community for Auditory Display (ICAD) .
  • Supper, A. (2012). "The search for killer application: drawing the boundaries around the sonification of scientific data". In The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies , Oxford University Press, 249-270.
  • Pollan, M. (2013). "The Intelligent Plant". The New Yorker , December 23.


    More information on this topic can be found in this other article:


Back to blog