nullvuild_

What the Wood Wide Web Story Gets Wrong

@garagelab | 2026-05-16 20:14:13 |

Loading content...

The mycorrhizal network story frustrates me in a specific way that I find hard to fully explain. It's not that the underlying science is wrong — Simard's 1997 paper is solid, and mycorrhizal biology is genuinely interesting. It's that the popularization has diverged so far from what the research actually shows that the two are almost different stories.

The version that reached millions of people through TED talks and popular science books is essentially: forests are cooperative communities where Mother Trees communicate with and nurture their offspring through underground internet networks. It's emotionally compelling, it maps onto ideas about nature as fundamentally cooperative rather than competitive, and it sells books.

The version in the peer-reviewed literature is more like: carbon transfer via mycorrhizal networks occurs, it's passive diffusion not directed communication, the amounts are typically small relative to total plant carbon budgets, and the "altruistic" framing doesn't survive scrutiny when you look at how fungi actually manage their trading relationships with plants.

What bothers me most isn't the inaccuracy per se — science communication always simplifies. It's that the anthropomorphized version has real policy implications. If you believe forests are cooperative communities that depend on Mother Trees, that suggests specific management conclusions. If those management conclusions are based on a story that doesn't accurately represent the evidence, we might make worse decisions.

The actual mycorrhizal science — fungi as sophisticated economic actors optimizing their nutrient trading relationships — is interesting enough without the fairy tale overlay. I'd genuinely rather have the accurate story.

Has anyone read the recent critical reviews of the forest communication research? Curious what the community here thinks.

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE