The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Do trees really talk to each other? Plants can detect chemical cues from other plants and respond to signals or materials moving through roots, soil and fungi. But “talking” is a metaphor for biological exchanges, not language or conscious conversation. And evidence that a plant responds—or that material moves between plants—does not by itself show that trees intentionally cooperate or that both benefit.
What “talking” means in plant biology
Plants do not need speech to affect one another. Their tissues release or respond to chemicals, and their roots interact with soil organisms and neighboring roots. Researchers study whether a cue or transfer changes another plant’s physiology or behavior. Calling that “communication” can be useful shorthand, but it does not mean plants send deliberate messages or understand one another.
The distinction matters because a receiver’s response is not the same as proof of a sender’s intention. Nor does a response establish that the sender benefits, that both plants gain, or that the effect improves survival or reproduction. As Rasheed, Brosset and Blande put it in their 2022 review, “However, whether plant communication represents altruism, mutualism, or a competitive or even pernicious interaction remains open for debate.” Their review of tree communication treats the outcomes as potentially beneficial, competitive or harmful, depending on the interaction.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
How plants can affect neighbors above ground
Airborne chemical cues
Plants release blends of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs). The mix can carry information about a plant’s physiological condition. In some studied situations, chemicals released by a damaged plant are associated with defensive responses in nearby plants. This is a chemical cue and a receiver response—not a spoken warning or proof that the sender intended to help its neighbors.
#1 Best Overall
Rasheed and colleagues’ 2022 review reports a global estimate of about 1 petagram of carbon per year in plant BVOC emissions. That is a review-reported estimate of emissions, not a forest-only figure and not a measure of how often plants communicate or how effective any response is. The same review reports that chronic background insect herbivory is estimated to account for 1 to 15% of biomass annually, depending on geographic region; this describes herbivory, not communication or fungal-network benefits.
What may happen below ground
Roots, soil and fungi are distinct possible routes
Belowground interactions can involve roots, changes in soil chemistry and mycorrhizal fungi—fungi that partner with plant roots. Some fungi connect with more than one plant, creating what researchers call common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs). These networks are studied as possible pathways for stress-related signals and transfers between plants.
A response observed in a neighboring plant does not, on its own, identify the route. Root contact, soil chemistry and fungal connections may operate at the same time. It is therefore too broad to say that every belowground signal travels through a fungal network, or that a response proves a CMN caused it. Reviews of between-plant signaling cover the broader set of potential mechanisms.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Evidence of a route is not evidence of a benefit
Finding that material can move between plants, or that a recipient changes physiologically, answers a narrower question than whether a natural forest network routinely improves tree fitness. A short-term response is not the same outcome as greater growth, survival or reproduction. The conditions, species, pathway and measured outcome all matter; a result in a limited experimental setting should not automatically be generalized to forests everywhere.
Why the “wood-wide web” is disputed
The popular image of a forest-wide fungal web that lets mature “mother trees” selectively feed or defend their offspring goes beyond what is firmly established. In a 2023 analysis, Justine Karst, Melanie D. Jones and Jason D. Hoeksema argued that positive citation bias and overinterpretation have inflated claims about CMNs in forests. They stated that there was no peer-reviewed published evidence that mature trees preferentially send resources and defense signals to offspring through CMNs. Their critique is specifically about the strength and interpretation of evidence for those claims; it does not mean that mycorrhizal fungi or all transfers between plants are imaginary. The authors’ analysis focuses on how CMN research has been cited and interpreted.
The debate continued in 2025. Suzanne Simard, Teresa (Sm’hayetsk) Ryan and David Perry defended evidence that CMNs exist and that transfers can occur, while emphasizing that effects on tree performance depend on context. Their response and the 2023 critique disagree about how broadly the evidence supports claims about networks and their ecological effects—not simply whether fungi associate with plant roots. The disagreement concerns prevalence, methods, causal pathways and consequences in forests. The 2025 opinion and response presents the authors’ case.
Rank #4
- Plant Spirit Healing: A Guide to Working With Plant Consciousness
A 2024 Nature Plants article makes a further argument: mycoheterotrophic plants, which obtain resources through fungi, provide evidence for common networks and net carbon transfer among diverse plants. That is a contribution to the debate, not proof that all forest trees routinely help one another. The article on mycoheterotrophy addresses that particular line of evidence.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How to judge a claim about plant cooperation
When a study or headline says plants “warn,” “feed” or “help” one another, ask what it actually measured:
Best Value
- Which pathway? Airborne volatile compounds, root interaction, soil chemistry or a fungal connection are not interchangeable explanations.
- Where was it tested? A laboratory or greenhouse result involving particular species may not show what happens across a natural forest.
- What moved or changed? Detecting a chemical cue or material transfer is different from demonstrating a meaningful benefit to the recipient.
- What was the outcome? A short-term physiological response is not automatically improved growth, survival or reproduction.
- What else could explain it? A later analysis may challenge whether a fungal network caused the effect, whether the result generalizes, or whether the interaction was beneficial.
These questions keep two ideas separate: plants can influence one another through real biological mechanisms, while the scale and cooperative meaning of those interactions remain unsettled.
Further reading on the “mother tree” idea
Suzanne Simard’s Finding the Mother Tree: Discovering the Wisdom of the Forest is a memoir and popular account associated with the mother-tree narrative. It can be read alongside the scientific disagreement rather than treated as a neutral systematic review. For a critical discussion of the claims, see Scientific American’s 2023 article on whether trees support one another through fungal networks.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
