Skip to content
NatureHQ

Claim check

Do plants scream when you cut them?

Misleading

The words are defensible; the impression they create is not.

Stressed plants do emit ultrasonic clicks — a few dozen an hour, at frequencies no human can hear, produced by water columns snapping under tension. Nothing indicates they are produced for a listener, and no listener has been identified.

The claim as it circulates

“Scientists have recorded plants screaming when cut or deprived of water.”

Where you may have met it: Google autocomplete for "do plants make sounds when cut" and "do plants feel pain and scream"; Coverage of the 2023 ultrasonic recording study; Vegetarian and vegan debate, in both directions

Taking it apart

What was claimed
That plants scream when cut or stressed, and that this has been recorded.
What was actually observed
Ultrasonic microphones recorded tomato and tobacco plants in an acoustically isolated chamber and later in a greenhouse. Drought-stressed and cut plants emitted airborne clicks in the 20–100 kilohertz range at rates of tens per hour, against near-silence from untouched controls, detectable several metres away. A classifier could distinguish drought-stressed from cut from control recordings above chance.
What the evidence supports
That plants emit airborne ultrasound under stress, that the emissions differ measurably by cause, and that an animal with suitable hearing could in principle detect and distinguish them. The paper's own word for this is "informative", which is the technical description of a cue.
What it does not support
Screaming, in any sense. The sounds are inaudible to humans, occur at a rate closer to a dripping tap than a cry, and arise from cavitation — water columns breaking under tension, the same physics as a cracking knuckle. Nothing indicates they are produced for a receiver, which is what would make them a signal. No receiver has been tested, so no communicative function is established.

The finding is genuinely interesting and the framing is doing enormous unearned work. "Scream" implies distress, a voice, and something the sound is for. What was measured is a passive physical consequence of a plant running short of water, which happens to carry information about the plant's state.

The open question is the good one: does anything listen? Moths choosing where to lay eggs, and herbivores choosing which plant to eat, would both benefit from knowing which plant is struggling. That work is under way, and until a receiver is demonstrated this remains a cue rather than communication.

The claims underneath

Each one carries its own evidence, scope and caveats. Expand any of them to reach the studies.

Plants do click under stress, in a range no human can hear, and nothing is known to listen

Emerging evidence

Real findings exist, but too few or too recent to be settled.

Tomato and tobacco plants subjected to drought or cutting emit airborne ultrasonic clicks in the 20–100 kilohertz band at rates of tens per hour, against near-silence from unstressed controls, detectable at a range of several metres. A classifier trained on these recordings distinguishes drought-stressed from cut from control plants above chance, including under greenhouse conditions. The mechanism is understood as cavitation — water columns under tension breaking within the xylem. No receiver has been shown to use the emissions, and no evidence indicates the sounds are produced for a receiver.

Who this applies to
demonstrated in two crop species under controlled conditions
Studied in
Solanum lycopersicum, Nicotiana tabacum

You may have heard

“Plants scream when you cut them”

Everything in that sentence except the fact that a sound occurs. It is ultrasonic, so no human has ever heard one. It happens at a rate of a few dozen an hour, which is closer to a dripping tap than to a scream. The mechanism is water columns snapping under tension inside the stem — the same physics as a cracking knuckle — and nothing suggests it is produced in order to be heard. The paper's own word is "informative", which means a listener could in principle learn something from it. That is the definition of a cue. Whether anything actually listens is being investigated and is not yet answered.

Why we rate it this way, and what the caveats are
Emerging evidenceModerate confidence

The emissions themselves are measured cleanly and the classifier result is solid. Everything about biological function is open: no receiver has been tested, and whether anything uses the information is unknown.

Caveats

  • Two crop species under controlled conditions; the greenhouse extension rests on a smaller dataset.
  • Classifier performance above chance is not evidence that any organism can use the information.
  • Nothing indicates the emissions are produced for a receiver, which is what would make them a signal rather than a cue.

Still unanswered

  • Do moths, or any other organism with ultrasonic hearing, actually use these emissions when choosing where to lay or feed?
  • Do the emissions occur at comparable rates in the field, where wind and other noise sources are present?

Last reviewed 2026-08-11

The evidence (2 studies)

Go deeper

Plant communication

Plants do send chemical signals. The best evidence says they are talking to themselves, and the neighbours are listening in.

Last reviewed 2026-08-11