In a recent study published in Trends in Plant Science, scientists have critically examined claims put forth in two widely-read books asserting that trees possess human-like qualities and emotions. Their rigorous analysis casts doubt on many of these assertions, emphasizing the importance of avoiding anthropomorphism when discussing plant behavior and revealing the potential pitfalls of making decisions based on appealing yet unsubstantiated narratives, particularly in the context of addressing climate change.
Numerous attributions made in popular literature lack solid scientific support.
Plants are often ascribed with abilities akin to those found in animals and humans. For instance, there is a suggestion that trees have emotions and can nurture their offspring, resembling maternal care.
In an article published in Trends in Plant Science, a team of 32 international researchers specializing in plant and forest studies delved into these claims.
Under the leadership of Professor David G. Robinson, a distinguished expert in cell biology at the Centre for Organismal Studies (COS) at Heidelberg University, the researchers systematically analyzed the assertions presented in two prominent publications about forests. Their ultimate finding is that conjecture is being treated as established fact, leading them to caution against anthropomorphizing plants.
Rigorous Examination of Popular Assertions
The article scrutinized the claims made in two widely acclaimed books that delve into the hidden aspects of trees and the search for the so-called “mother tree.”
The researchers highlight that these works attribute human traits and behaviors to trees, including the capacity to experience pain and pleasure, engage in communication, and act altruistically.
Drawing from the existing body of research literature, Professor Robinson and his co-authors offer comprehensive evidence that the central claims lack scientific validity.
Professor Robinson points out that numerous research papers on intraspecies competition contradict the idea that trees of the same species support one another and ensure each other’s survival.
Debunking the “Mother Tree” Concept
According to Professor Robinson and his colleagues, recent studies have also cast doubt on the viability of the “mother tree concept.”
Many publications relying on this concept, which posits a targeted transfer of carbon from older to younger trees through networked fungi (mycorrhizae), are deemed flawed due to a lack of controlled experiments.
Furthermore, Professor Robinson states, “Even in cases where the data does suggest such a transfer, the amount of carbon transferred is so minuscule that it holds no physiological significance for the receiving tree.” The researchers also critique the fact that both books cite sources that have not undergone peer review.
Potential Implications and Closing Remarks
In conclusion, the authors of the study highlight the potentially dire consequences of accepting such claims as fact when making decisions about forest adaptation to climate change. They caution against political decisions being based on appealing but scientifically unfounded messages rather than solid empirical evidence, underscoring the need for rigorous scrutiny.
Reference: “Mother trees, altruistic fungi, and the perils of plant personification” by David G. Robinson, Christian Ammer, Andrea Polle, Jürgen Bauhus, Roni Aloni, Peter Annighöfer, Tobias I. Baskin, Michael R. Blatt, Andreas Bolte, Harald Bugmann, Jerry D. Cohen, Peter J. Davies, Andreas Draguhn, Henrik Hartmann, Hubert Hasenauer, Peter K. Hepler, Ulrich Kohnle, Friederike Lang, Magnus Löf, Christian Messier and Torgny Näsholm, 19 September 2023, Trends in Plant Science. DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2023.08.010
The authors of the article represent various academic institutions, including the University of Göttingen, as well as research centers in Austria, Canada, Chile, Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA. Their expertise spans the fields of biology, forestry, and plant science.
Table of Contents
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Tree Emotions
Q: What were the key findings of the study about trees and emotions?
A: The study found that claims suggesting trees have human-like emotions, such as feeling pain, pleasure, and acting altruistically, lack scientific support. It debunked the “mother tree concept” and warned against anthropomorphizing plants.
Q: Who conducted the research mentioned in the article?
A: The study was conducted by a team of 32 international researchers, including Professor David G. Robinson from Heidelberg University. These experts specialized in plant and forest studies, representing various academic institutions worldwide.
Q: What were the potential implications mentioned in the article?
A: The article emphasized the dangers of making decisions related to forest adaptation to climate change based on scientifically unfounded narratives. It highlighted the importance of relying on rigorous scientific evidence rather than appealing but unsubstantiated claims.
Q: What is anthropomorphism, and why did the study caution against it?
A: Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits and emotions to non-human entities, like plants in this case. The study cautioned against anthropomorphizing plants because it can lead to inaccurate understandings of their behavior and potential consequences for decision-making.
Q: How did the study address the “mother tree concept”?
A: The study found that the “mother tree concept,” which suggests the transfer of carbon from older to younger trees through networked fungi, lacked strong empirical support. It highlighted flaws in studies supporting this concept, including a lack of controlled experiments and insignificant carbon transfer.
Q: What publication featured the study’s findings?
A: The findings of this study were published in the journal “Trends in Plant Science” in September 2023. The reference for the article is provided in the text.
Q: What fields of expertise were represented by the authors of the study?
A: The authors of the study came from diverse academic backgrounds, including biology, forestry, and plant science. They represented institutions in various countries, including Austria, Canada, Chile, Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the USA, and the University of Göttingen.
3 comments
scientists say trees got no emotions, like no feelings. they studied stuff and found books were wrong, so we cant think trees feel like people do. climate change needs science, not stories.
these scientists, they check books and say no, trees don’t cry or laugh, not like us. they also say ‘mother tree’ idea is silly, not real. we must listen to science, not make up things.
study in trends in plant science, shows trees not like humans, no emotions. books wrong, need proof before believing stuff. we need facts for climate change decisions.