In a world where plants are often attributed with human-like abilities, a group of 32 international plant and forest researchers, led by Prof. David G. Robinson, a professor emeritus for cell biology at the Center for Organismal Studies (COS) of Heidelberg University, have set out to critically examine and debunk such assertions. Their findings, published in the review journal Trends in Plant Science, caution against “anthropomorphizing” plants and underscore the importance of relying on scientific evidence.
The researchers focused their scrutiny on two popular publications that delve into the hidden life of trees and the quest for the so-called “mother tree.” These books ascribe human characteristics and behaviors to trees, suggesting they can feel pain and pleasure, communicate with one another, and even act altruistically.
However, Prof. Robinson and his co-authors argue that these assertions lack scientific foundation, drawing upon existing research literature to support their case. They highlight the contradiction presented by numerous research papers on intraspecies competition, which challenge the notion that trees of a single species support each other and ensure mutual survival.
Furthermore, the concept of the “mother tree,” often posited as a vital component in facilitating the transfer of carbon from older to younger trees through networked fungi called mycorrhizae, comes under scrutiny. The authors argue that many publications endorsing this concept lack proper control variants, undermining their credibility. Even when such a transfer appears to occur, the researchers contend that the quantity of carbon transferred is too minuscule to have any physiological significance for the recipient tree.
In addition to these scientific concerns, the authors also critique the books for citing sources that have not undergone peer review, raising questions about the reliability of the evidence presented.
Prof. Robinson and his colleagues stress the potential consequences of such unfounded claims, particularly in the context of forest adaptation to climate change. They caution that political decisions based on “pleasant-sounding but false messages” rather than scientific facts could have dire implications for the future of forests.