Scientists debunk a myth: do trees really have feelings?

32 plant and forest researchers from all over the world published an article in the journal Trends in Plant Science in which they examined all these claims

Researchers tested claims made in two popular books about trees having human-like qualities and emotions. Their findings, published in Trends in Plant Science, challenge many of these claims as unscientific.

The Secret Life of Trees: What They Feel and How They Communicate by Peter Wohlleben published in 2015 and "The Search for the Mother Tree: Discovering the Wisdom of the Forest" by Susan Simard published in 2021.

They warn against the anthropomorphization of plants and point to problems such as the flawed "mother tree" concept and the dangers of making decisions based on attractive but inaccurate narratives, especially in the context of climate change adaptation.

Many of the attributions in popular publications lack scientific evidence

Plants are often attributed abilities similar to those known in animals or humans. For example, it is argued that trees have feelings, so they can care for their offspring, like mothers.

32 plant and forest researchers from all over the world published an article in the journal Trends in Plant Science in which they examined all these claims.

The group of researchers led by Prof. David G. Robinson, emeritus professor of cell biology at Heidelberg University's Center for Organismal Studies (COS), analyzed the claims in these two popular books and concluded that the hypotheses are presented as facts. They warn against the "anthropomorphization" of plants.

A critical examination of popular claims

The article examined the claims in two widely distributed books about the hidden life of trees and the search for the "Mother Tree".

The researchers report that in these books trees are attributed human characteristics and behaviors, including the ability to feel pain and pleasure, communicate with each other, and act altruistically.

Based on the existing research literature, Prof. Robinson and his colleagues provide detailed evidence that the main claims are scientifically indefensible.

The researcher from Heidelberg points out that a large number of research articles on the meaning of intersexual competition (ie between different tree species) clearly refutes the claim that trees of the same species support each other and preserve each other's lives.

The "mother tree" myth

According to Prof. Robinson and his colleagues, new research also renders the "mother tree" concept inapplicable. Many of the publications based on this concept, which claims to validate the targeted transfer of carbon from old to young trees via associated mycorrhizal fungi, are flawed by the lack of control variants. "And in places where the data really indicate such a transfer, the amount of carbon that is transferred is so small that it is physiologically meaningless for the receiving tree," says Prof. Robinson. The researchers also criticize the fact that both books cite sources of evidence that have not been peer-reviewed.

Potential implications and conclusion

Finally, the authors point out the deadly consequences such claims can have if political decisions are made "on the basis of false but pleasant messages" rather than scientific facts, Robinson adds.

for the scientific article

More of the topic in Hayadan:

• The non-mysterious life of plants
• The truth about the secret life of plants
• Things donors know: how evolution can create emotions