Several recent scientific studies have claimed discoveries about it. The claim is that trees talk to one another through vast underground networks of fungi. This system, supporters say, would allow trees to warn each other about dangers and stay alert. A fresh study, building on years of prior work, now argues that those claims are not proven.
A recent publication in Nature Ecology and Evolution presents new findings that challenge the core statements behind this belief. The article, produced by a team from multiple universities, reexamines the idea at the heart of forest communication and in doing so questions some of the long held assumptions.
Historically, researchers noted that common mycorrhizal networks, or CMNs, create underground links among the roots of many plant species. These networks were thought to move nutrients and information through the soil, enabling trees to coordinate responses. Prominent researchers, including scientists from Canadian institutions, suggested that forests function like a vast plant internet, with signals flowing to help trees face pests, diseases, and other threats.
there is no proof of this
In their review of more than 1,500 scientific papers, the authors of the new study find that the idea of widespread CMNs transmitting meaningful signals and nutrients is not yet supported by enough evidence. The researchers caution that the public should distinguish popular beliefs from what science currently confirms. The study emphasizes that CMN research has sparked curiosity, but popular ideas often run ahead of solid data.
There are underground fungal networks, yet their functions may not match the dramatic claims previously made by some researchers or agencies about their role in forest communication.
Still, the existence of these fungal networks is not in question. The new analysis notes that while these networks do exist, the evidence is not strong enough to show that they enable trees to communicate in a way that affects forest health or survival.
Another major point is that not all forests have been thoroughly mapped for CMNs. In many cases, our understanding of how these networks form and function remains incomplete. This uncertainty underlines the need for careful interpretation of findings and cautions against drawing firm conclusions from limited data.
Regarding nutrient transfer, the evidence remains mixed. Some studies suggest that trees might share resources through mycorrhizal connections, but the scale and impact of such transfers are unclear. In some scenarios, relationships that appear beneficial could be neutral or even slightly detrimental to certain plant groups. The overall effect on forest growth and resilience is not yet clear.
Additionally, the idea that mature trees send warning signals to other individuals through these networks is not supported by peer reviewed work cited in the current analysis. The researchers argue that more robust, controlled studies are needed to confirm any signaling mechanism and to determine its practical relevance for forest management.
Experts warn that distorting scientific results can undermine public trust in science. Sound evidence is essential when guiding forest practices and policies. Until stronger data emerges, forest managers should avoid relying solely on CMN-based explanations to justify decisions and should continue to evaluate new findings as they become available.
References: Nature Ecology and Evolution, specific article on CMNs and forest signaling. The publication highlights the need for cautious interpretation and further investigation into how underground networks relate to tree health and ecosystem dynamics.
The environment department is continuing to monitor new research and to translate findings into practical guidance for forest stewardship.