Quantitative Phytoacoustics

• Quantitative phytoacoustics is a rigorous study that measures and models acoustic phenomena in plant tissues using calibrated instrumentation and model-driven signal analysis.
• It employs advanced techniques such as piezoelectric transducers, laser vibrometry, and acoustic microfluidics to capture detailed acoustic signatures and propagation characteristics.
• Applications include mapping hydraulic vulnerability, monitoring fruit ripeness, and developing predictive models for plant signaling and precision agriculture.

Quantitative phytoacoustics is the rigorous study, measurement, and modeling of acoustic phenomena both generated by, and propagating within, plant tissues, as well as the biophysical and physiological responses of plants to sound waves. Unlike traditional, qualitative approaches, quantitative phytoacoustics employs calibrated instrumentation, model-driven signal analysis, and anatomically resolved biophysical parameters to elucidate and predict the acoustic signatures and mechanical responses of plant organs, tissues, cells, and intracellular signaling networks, including communication-theoretic frameworks for information transmission and reception in the plant context.

1. Instrumentation and Acoustic Signal Acquisition

Quantitative phytoacoustics relies on reproducible setups integrating piezoelectric transducers, laser ultrasonics, optical Doppler vibrometry, and/or sensor arrays, each calibrated for sensitivity and frequency response. In xylem cavitation studies, a home-made PZT transducer (4×4 mm face, center frequency ≃230 kHz, –3 dB bandwidth 200–260 kHz, sensitivity ~5–10 mV MPa⁻¹ at 200 kHz) is coupled to plant stems using a glycerin interface, with signals amplified (×10³) and digitized at ≥1 MS/s to capture pulses with full width at half maximum (FWHM) ranging from 20–150 µs and amplitudes 0.5–2 mV depending on ambient and induced conditions (Fernández et al., 2012).

Laser-based, non-contact vibrometry enables surface and bulk-wave capture for velocity and modulus extraction in fruit tissues, using pulsed Nd:YAG excitation (1064 nm, 270 mJ, 10 ns) and LDV detection with >1 MHz bandwidth. Configurations support spatially resolved, time-of-flight analysis for direct and surface waves in layered geometries, with displacement fields digitized at 1 MS/s (Cobus et al., 2022).

Acoustic microfluidics leverages motile plant or algal cells as in situ field probes. For instance, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cells (8.0 ± 1.1 µm) distributed in a silicon–glass microchannel (w = 375 µm, d = 50 µm) subjected to MHz standing waves redistribute according to local energy density, which can be quantitatively mapped via bright-field microscopy and curve-fitting of spatial cell-density distributions (Kim et al., 2021).

2. Spectral and Temporal Analysis of Plant Acoustic Emissions

Time-domain and spectral analysis classify phytoacoustic signals by pulse morphology, frequency content, and propagation features. In corn stems, “Type 1” (broadband, FWHM 20–40 µs, peak 0.12–0.15 MHz, bandwidth 0.05–0.18 MHz) and “Type 2” (low-frequency, FWHM 80–150 µs, peak 0.04–0.05 MHz) pulse classes delineate cavitation modes and their tissue filtering signatures. Pulse rise time, amplitude distributions, and energy statistics inform source and attenuation models (Fernández et al., 2012).

In lavender under drought, principal component analysis (PCA) of 15-dimensional feature sets from AE captures—encompassing amplitude, rise-time, frequency, and energy—enables unsupervised separation of hydraulic (cavitation, Phase 1: PLD ≈11.7%, PLC ≈90%, median amplitude 68 dB, median frequency 250 kHz) from cellular damage events (Phase 2: PLD ≈22.3%, EL ≈75%, median amplitude 72 dB, median frequency 320 kHz). Event labeling follows linear discriminants in the PC₃–PC₄ plane, supporting dynamic hydraulic vulnerability curve reconstruction (Lamacque et al., 2021).

Propagation through tissue imposes frequency-dependent attenuation, empirically modeled as α(f) ≈ α₀ (f/f_ref)ⁿ (e.g., α₀ = 0.07 cm⁻¹ at 0.05 MHz, n ≈ 1.2), causing low-pass filtering with distance. Signal bandwidths and time-of-flight data inform models of tissue filtering and modal propagation (Fernández et al., 2012, Cobus et al., 2022).

3. Theoretical and Biophysical Source Modeling

Quantitative approaches formalize acoustic source mechanisms via hydrodynamic and elasticity theory. Cavitation emissions are modeled by Rayleigh–Plesset dynamics for xylem-embedded bubbles:

$$\rho\left(R\ddot{R} + \tfrac{3}{2}\dot{R}^2\right) = P_{\rm vap} - P_\infty(t) - \frac{2\sigma}{R} - \frac{4\mu\dot{R}}{R}$$

where R = bubble radius, P_\infty local pressure, σ surface tension, μ viscosity. In the small-oscillation limit, the bubble behaves as a damped resonator with frequency

$$f_0 = \frac{1}{2\pi R_0} \sqrt{\frac{3\gamma P_0}{\rho}}$$

and damping ratio ζ set by viscous and radiation loss, with Q ≈ 10 matching observed pulse decay (Fernández et al., 2012).

For fruit tissues, P-wave and Rayleigh surface wave propagation in spherical or layered geometry are modeled using the scalar Helmholtz equation and Rayleigh-wave dispersion relations, enabling extraction of layer-specific elastic moduli (Young's modulus E, bulk modulus K, shear modulus G) as a function of ripening stage (Cobus et al., 2022).

Anatomical segmentation of seagrass aerenchyma using WSI and machine-learning curvature descriptors supports calculation of void fraction f_v, cell and void size distributions, and membrane metrics, which serve as input parameters for effective-medium acoustic models, e.g. density

$$\rho = (1 - f_v)\rho_{\rm cell} + f_v \rho_{\rm air}$$

and impedance Z = ρc, where c = \sqrt{K/\rho} (Debeir et al., 2019).

4. Quantitative Acoustic Field Probing and Calibration

Chlamydomonas motile cell distributions under imposed standing acoustic waves enable quantitative, real-time mapping of local energy density E_ac and pressure amplitude p₀ via analysis of trap boundary locations. In a microchannel of defined geometry, the acoustic radiation force balances cell swimming, with cell-density peaks marking nodes of the standing-wave field:

$$F_{\rm rad}(y) = 4\pi a^3 k_y E_{ac} \Phi \sin(2k_y y)$$

and energy density extracted from observed boundary positions (Kim et al., 2021). Measured E_ac matches passive-particle-tracking references within 1% across 0–100 J m⁻³, with temporal resolution and species flexibility provided by the motile cell approach.

This method enables standardized, label-free calibration for acoustofluidic devices and supports determination of acoustophysical properties (contrast factor, compressibility) under operational conditions.

5. Anatomical Quantification and Link to Acoustic Properties

High-throughput imaging and segmentation—such as WSI of paraffin-embedded seagrass blades—enables extraction of tissue composition, void fraction, cell and membrane size, and fiber-strand geometry along the longitudinal axis. Novel curvature-based border descriptors (e.g.,

$$h(i) = 2\frac{(\mathbf p_0 - \mathbf p_i) \times (\mathbf p_1 - \mathbf p_i)}{\|\mathbf p_1 - \mathbf p_0\|}$$

and related area measures) improve void–cell discrimination, raising classification scores to ~0.79. Regionally grouped statistics (base, middle, apex) yield anatomical gradients: void fraction decreases base→apex (15→10 %), cell and void diameters decrease accordingly, and vein count diminishes along the blade (Debeir et al., 2019).

While explicit formulas for tissue moduli are not provided, these morphometric outputs furnish necessary parameters for computational models (multiple-scattering, finite-element) to predict acoustic velocities, impedance, attenuation, and waveguiding. Morphology→property workflows are a central theme in quantitative phytoacoustics.

6. Plant Acoustic Reception, Signal Transduction, and Communication Modeling

A recent end-to-end communication-theoretic framework models plant acoustic sensing from pressure stimulus through biophysical transduction and intracellular signaling (Merdan et al., 30 Nov 2025). For a typical environmental stimulus (200 Hz, 20 μPa, λ ≈1.7 m, clay soil transmission with 15–30 dB loss over 1 m), the model proceeds:

• Channel propagation: Waveforms traverse soil by Biot–Kelvin-Voigt dynamics, with pink-noise background.
• Cell wall and mechanosensitive channel: Pressure is converted to force/stress on MCA2 channels in root cells, with opening probability determined by sigmoidal stress–voltage dependence.
• Calcium influx and signaling: Open channels drive Ca²⁺ influx (Nernst–Planck electrodiffusion), cytosolic Ca²⁺ concentration rises from 150 nM to 230±10 nM within 50 s in response to the stimulus.
• Ca–ROS feedback and auxin redistribution: Hill-law activation of NADPH oxidase produces apoplastic H₂O₂, which gates further Ca²⁺ influx via annexin channels, amplifying the signal. Downstream, auxin transporter redistribution produces spatial PIN2 gradients, resulting in root bending.

Communication-performance metrics are derived:

• Bit–error rate (BER) as a function of signal frequency, amplitude, and stimulus duration (e.g., BER<5% for 200 Hz/20 μPa/150 s).
• Thresholds for acoustic-induced Ca²⁺ signaling and morphodynamic response.

This framework links physical acoustics to actionable, quantifiable physiological changes, establishing a foundation for precision agriculture and biosensing applications.

7. Applications, Limitations, and Future Directions

Quantitative phytoacoustics underpins diverse applications:

• Hydraulic vulnerability: Dynamic mapping of xylem embolism via AE and PCA-based discrimination of hydraulic vs. non-hydraulic events allows for the construction of sigmoidal vulnerability curves (e.g., PLD₅₀ ≈11%, Ψ₅₀ ≈ –4.2 MPa in lavender) (Lamacque et al., 2021).
• Fruit ripeness and quality monitoring: Laser-based, depth-resolved measurements non-invasively track modulus and wave-velocity softening in fruit tissues, with bulk modulus and Young’s modulus declining 25–40% over 74 hours in kiwifruit (Cobus et al., 2022).
• Microfluidic device calibration: Motile cell probes rapidly and precisely map acoustic energy distributions in optofluidic chips, supporting standardization (Kim et al., 2021).
• Predictive modeling: Anatomically resolved imaging yields parameter sets for finite-element or multilayer models of tissue acoustics, with future integration of in situ modulus mapping (Debeir et al., 2019).

Key limitations include (i) incomplete tissue parameterization (bulk modulus mixing rules, viscoelasticity modeling), (ii) spectral range constriction by transducer bandwidth, (iii) limited spatial resolution of in situ modulus or attenuation mapping, and (iv) idealizations in source and channel models (neglect of anisotropy, pit-membrane geometry).

Advancements are poised to include high-fidelity sensor arrays, micro-CT validation, finite-element modeling of anisotropic tissues, and molecular-probe integration to link acoustic stimuli with gene expression, subcellular signaling, and developmental outcomes.

---

References

• Fernández et al., "Natural and laser-induced cavitation in corn stems: On the mechanisms of acoustic emissions" (Fernández et al., 2012)
• Debeir et al., "Characterization of Posidonia Oceanica Seagrass Aerenchyma through Whole Slide Imaging: A Pilot Study" (Debeir et al., 2019)
• Kim et al., "Rapid measurement of the local pressure amplitude in microchannel acoustophoresis using motile cells" (Kim et al., 2021)
• Vergeynst et al., "Detection of acoustic events in Lavender for measuring the xylem vulnerability to embolism and cellular damages" (Lamacque et al., 2021)
• Yıldız and Akan, "An Acoustic Communication Model in Plants" (Merdan et al., 30 Nov 2025)
• Cobus & van Wijk, "Non-contact acoustic method to measure depth-dependent elastic properties of a kiwifruit" (Cobus et al., 2022)