You're viewing a single thread.
I'm sorry to say that that is most likely a myth that scientists have been hyping each other up about.
https://www.sciencealert.com/does-a-vast-network-of-fungi-connect-forests-heres-what-we-know
I just want to point out that this source indicates researchers reviewed 1500 papers on the topic and found that unsupported claims had doubled.
However, they never indicate the number or give a percentage of those 1500 papers that featured unsupported claims.
So is it doubling from 2 to 4, or from 700 to 1400? Because that's a major difference.
This is a problem with AI articles on science. They skim other AI articles and repeat without bringing all the important facts with them. Then we get dozens of results for one claim about science, with only maybe one or two original sources.
Then the idea spreads through reddit or whatever forum you prefer.
We know trees share resources, that they have been demonstrated to signal pain and danger to other plants, that they signal food availability to pollinators via electromagnetic fields. We have had hard evidence for all of this.
Yes? Hard evidence? Where?
David Attenborough said it, opinion discarded
..damn, the Borough at work again!
Who is he?
You ever watch any good nature docs?
It's an interesting hypothesis run amok because a core group of biologists WANTED it to be true so badly.
There's a GREAT episode (ep. 425) from the In Defense of Plants podcast that covers the misinformation and misunderstanding perfectly.
Thanks! I’ve listen to a couple of those. The info is good, but there’s something a little off-putting about the guy’s delivery. Not sure what it is.