New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Researcher Argues That Plants Can See

Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University and author of the new book What a Plant Knows, says we discount plants' ability to appreciate light. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“A plant sees what we see. A plant sees light.”

Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University and author of the new book What a Plant Knows.

“So if you take someone who’s completely blind and by surgery in some way giving them a camera, allow them to see just shadows, would we see that that person now has rudimentary sight? He doesn’t see pictures, but for that person being able to differentiate shadows is definitely sight. If we would let them be able to differentiate between red and blue, then that would be even slightly more sight.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“That’s what plants do. They don’t see pictures. But they see colors, they see directions, they see intensities. But on a certain level, plants might think that we’re visually limited. Because plants see things that we can’t see. They see UV light and they see far red light, and we can’t see that at all. So I think we can say that plants see. It knows quite a bit, much more than we give them credit for.”

—Steve Mirsky 

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

[Hear the entire interview with Daniel Chamovitz on an upcoming episode of the Scientific American Science Talk podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe