Plants respond to herbivory with an increase in chemical defenses. Early defense signaling depends on a plant’s ability to detect, identify and respond to these attacks quickly and appropriately. Plants receive multiple cues at the site of insect attack, including insect oral secretions, tissue damage, and vibrations caused by insect feeding, triggering signaling pathways that generate local and systemic defense responses. All three cues have been been shown to contribute to plant defense, but chewing vibrations is the only one that can directly generate systemic responses because of the speed of vibration transmission within a plant. Previous work in our lab has established that insect-feeding vibrations can cause plants to increase the production of chemical defenses without predator oral secretions or tissue damage. Playback of feeding vibrations produced by the White Cabbage caterpillar (Pieris rapae) on the plant Arabidopsis thaliana can directly induce or prime the induction of chemical defenses. The way in which plants detect feeding vibrations is unknown, although mechanosensors are likely to be involved. Plants contain multiple families of mechanoreceptors, including Mechanosenstive channels of Small Conductance-Like (MSL), Two Pore Potassium channels (TPK), and Mid1-complementing activity (MCA). In this study, we focused on Mechanosensitive conductance Small (MscS) channels located between the cell wall and the plasma membrane in higher plants and respond to many of the same stimuli as the Mechanosensitive (MS) channels in animals, including temperature, salinity, osmotic pressure, and cell wall damage. To identify channels in the MSL family that may be responsible for the perception of insect feeding vibration, A. thaliana wildtype-plants (col-0) and MSL lack-of-function mutants received either caterpillar feeding vibrations or a silent sham along with a second stimulus of Methyl Jasmonate (MeJA) or water. When treated with insect feeding vibrations, the triple mutant containing non-functional genes for MSL4, MSL5, and MSL6 showed diminished or no response to vibrations in levels of plant chemical defenses in contrast to the wildtype and the double mutant containing non-functional genes for MSL9 and MSL10. This indicated that one if not all of the channels from the triple mutants are responsible for plant perception of insect feeding vibrations. To determine if  MSL4, MSL5, or MSL6 played a role in plant perception of insect feeding vibrations, wildtype and individual lack-of-function MSL mutants were subjected to the same treatments as the first experiment. Each of the individual lack-of-function mutants failed to inhibit chemical defense responses to insect feeding vibrations. Therefore, all three channels are likely involved in plant perception of insect feeding vibrations.