How and why does music help plants grow faster?

Answer 1

A 2007 study in South Korea in rice fields showed that sounds at 125Hz and 250Hz made genes rbcS and Ald, that are known to respond to light, more active whereas sound waves at 50HZ made these genes less active.

See related link below to original article:

This is an Epigenetic change. Contrary to popular belief no species is hard wired by it's genetic code. Genetic expression changes based on environmental conditions. To give an example of impact it is worth noting that every finch in the world has the same gene for beak and diet, but the timing of when the gene turns on and it's intensity of activity determines the beak shape and diet.

Source: PBS Broadcast, "What Darwin Never Knew"

There are many studies that show how both plants and animals adapt their own genetic expression based on environmental conditions. This is evidence that species change not by random mutation as previously thought, but through a real time reaction to the environment.

To put it simply plants adapt themselves to their environment as easily as animals. They respond to light, touch, and sound. The wave-length of what is favorable and unfavorable to plants are similar in humans and other animals suggesting as well that the reason we like and dislike music has more to do with the way vibrations influence genetic expression than conscious preference.

______________

Old Answer: (kept intact because it made references to older studies despite not having any recent facts included)

______________

The real answer is yes

I don't believe anyone really knows the answer to this question. I've searched the Internet looking for information on this, but the only scientific information I've located is from the original 1970s experiments conducted by Dorothy Retallack. Since that time, no serious experimentation appears to have been done. Retallack's work showed that music does indeed have an impact on plant growth. The plants she experimented with didn't respond well to Rock Music (Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix and The Beatles), but responded well to classical (in particular, north Indian classical). Some other experiments since that time have shown that all music and even talking have a detrimental effect on plant growth, though it's unclear what the duration of exposure was in the most recent experiments. It appears the duration of musical stimulus is just as important as the type of music. Plants (and humans) respond best to about three hours of music per day; more than this has a detrimental effect on both plants and humans, regardless of the type of music.

It's all conjecture as to how or why, since little to no solid experimentation has been done since Retallack's work. Very few theories have been postulated, most of them suggesting that either plants have some form of consciousness or that it is not the plants themselves that respond to music but rather their caretakers who do. Retallack's experiments were conducted in such a way as to preclude the latter hypothesis.

In the absence of further study, what we're left with is the possibility that plants actually do have some form of consciousness. Which, from a purely Western scientific perspective, is impossible, since plants have neither a central nervous system nor ears.

However, in Eastern thought, consciousness is prevalent throughout reality, and is not limited to those lifeforms that have a central nervous system. In some Eastern schools of thought, even rocks are said to have some form of awareness, though this awareness would probably be extremely limited compared with human cognizance. Native Americans, too, have traditionally held the belief that the plant and animal worlds are very much aware.

Okay the answer for how is that it helps stimulate the brain and also depends on what music you play like classical, smooth , and also rock can help.

Answer 2

Radish and Basil are two plants that grow faster to classical music. The song I used was called The Meadow.