This image of “European spruce young female cone (length 43 mm) at the time of pollination” by Ivar Leidus is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
From plant-based advance warnings of volcanic eruptions in a previous post, to a botanical system that ‘predicts’ solar eclipses in this one [plus, a look at the process of publishing science].
But, first things first, do we need a vegetation-based method of predicting solar eclipses? Surely, that sort of thing is already known? Yes, it is (e.g., here, here, here, Erik Gregersen), and for many years – up to 3000 CE – into the future. But, what Alessandro Chiolerio et al. (2025) actually report is a phenomenon within trees that appears linked to onset of solar eclipses. What they’ve found is therefore not necessarily something that one should – or even could – use to predict these events.
Having got that out of the way, what did they discover?
Investigating the ‘electrome’ [which word “refers to the collection of electrical activities generated by living cells or tissues in an organism, encompassing all bioelectrical signals, such as action potentials, ion channel activities and electrical potentials across membranes” (Chiolerio et al. (2025)] of spruce (Picea abies), they found that the trees displayed changes in their bioelectrical behaviour that anticipated – or, should one be less definite and say preceded? – a partial solar eclipse, by up to 14 hours. “The electrical activity of all three trees became significantly more synchronised around the eclipse – both before and during the one-hour event”. Furthermore, these changes were co-ordinated so that the studied trees behaved in synchrony, and older trees displayed greater ‘anticipatory behaviour’ than a younger tree [in their words, “The two older trees in the study had a much more pronounced early response to the impending eclipse than the young tree”]. Computer analysis of the bioelectrical data “reinforced the experimental results. That is, not only did the eclipse influence the bioelectrical responses of individual trees, the activity was correlated. This suggests a cohesive, organism-like reaction at the forest scale” [quoted from here].
Although Chiolerio et al. (2025) acknowledge that the cues that generated the observed anticipatory behaviour remain to be determined, they conclude that potential cues might have “temporal patterns dependent on Sun–Moon–Earth orbital dynamics”. Accordingly, they propose that “the relative positions of the Moon and Sun in the sky, which determine the magnitude and variations of the total force of gravity and the lunisolar gravimetric tides, the effects of which are known to regulate several features of plant life [83], might provide a reliable cue of the approaching celestial event”.
In terms of the relevance of the study, the paper ends with this statement, “This insight into the fundamental mechanisms of behavioural propagation across life forms offers a new perspective on how ecosystems achieve resilience and adaptability” (Chiolerio et al. (2025)). While the nature of any resilience isn’t explored further, the notion is developed elsewhere in a very practical, forest stewardship sense, by Monica Gagliano (second-named author of the paper) who is quoted as saying that “we think that it’s going to inspire new science in this direction, but also has deep ramification on how we deal with conservation: it reinforces the idea that the old trees cannot simply be replaced by replanting, they need to be protected because they hold ancestral memories that allow for resilience and adaptation” (quoted by Andy Corbley).
The work is in a scientific journal – and one that is published by as august, prestigious, and authoritative a body as The Royal Society of London (Michael Hunter). Although readers of the scientific paper may not understand all of it [Ed. – Mr Cuttings certainly didn’t with its considerations of such things as ‘quantum field theory’ theoretical analysis, Shannon entropy, Rényi entropy, Lempel–Ziv complexity, and fractal dimension…], but, scientific enquiry has been undertaken, observations have been made, recorded, and reported. So, it should be taken seriously.
The authors may not understand what external events are causing the internal changes in behaviour, but that’s often the nature of science. Oftentimes work is incomplete, but, if it leads on to other questions or encourages others to take the study further, then it has helped humankind to understand the natural world a little better than if the work had not been carried out. Acknowledging that, Gagliano is reported as saying “Still, this is an early study, and we view it as a foundation for broader research” (per Chris Simms) [Ed. – which is particularly important to acknowledge because what’s been found so far is a phenomenon in a few individuals of a single tree species, in specific locations within the Dolomites; How applicable might it be to other species elsewhere on the planet?]
But, before taking this story further, a short consideration of the journey that a manuscript undergoes before it is published in a scientific journal is appropriate, and necessary.
How scientific work is assessed
As some sort of ‘seal of approval’ [not that everything written asnd published is necessarily correct, only that the investigation presented has been assessed and agreed that it represents evidence-based work], the paper by Chiolerio et al. (2025) has been subjected to peer review. Peer review (Ed Taboada) is the name of the process in which individuals, independent of the work carried out and of the people undertaking the investigation, who are judged suitably knowledgeable and competent to examine the work and express a view as to whether it has been carried out and reported ‘properly’ so that it is suitable for publication.
And, it’s an open and transparent process – at least in this instance – because the evidence trail that led to the conclusion to publish the work is available for examination from the paper’s on-line site here. To give readers an idea of what was involved – in peer review generally, and for this paper specifically, I summarise what took place.
Initially, three individuals reviewed – anonymously – the original submitted manuscript. They assessed the work that was undertaken, how it was carried out, interpreted, and reported. As a result of those assessments, one reviewer recommended rejection [i.e. that the work should not be published in the journal], the other two recommended major changes to the manuscript before they would consider it to be acceptable. The journal’s editorial team assessed those three reviewers’ reports and decided to give the authors the opportunity to make appropriate changes – to the manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments – and resubmit to the journal. This Chiolerio et al. duly did.
That revised version of the paper was then subject to renewed scrutiny. This time by two individuals (who may or may not be the same as two who reviewed the initial manuscript [one assumes the reviewer recommending rejection wasn’t invited to comment again]). One of these pair of reviewers was anonymous, the other was named [Ed. – which indicates to me that this is a new, fourth, individual who didn’t assess the first-submitted version]. Reviewers’ comments for that revised manuscript included: “I am impressed with the way the authors have responded to my remarks and made corresponding revisions in their manuscript. … I am sure it would make a significant contribution to the topic of complex systems science” [10.1098/RSOS.241786/V2/REVIEW1], and “This intriguing study uses symmetry breaking in cross-correlation functions calculated through electrical potential time-series measurements from spruce trees of different ages and infers whether and to what extent individual trees respond to a solar eclipse together, functioning as a larger living collective. I recommend acceptance after the following minor corrections are made” [10.1098/RSOS.241786/V2/REVIEW2] (which reviewer was named).
In summary, the published paper by Chiolerio et al. (2025) had undergone the expected – and currently accepted – degree of scrutiny under peer review.
So, that’s that, then? Another serious, sensible, scientific study enters the world’s accumulated knowledge base of scientific articles. But, what will become of it?
Chiolerio et al. may refer to it in their follow-up publication that expands upon this initial study. Others may also refer to the work [in other words Chiolerio et al. (2025) gets a citation (Luc Beaulieu)] in their publications. Or, and as is often the case for a high proportion of scientific papers, having been presented to the world it is often not followed up or discussed much, i.e. not cited by others (see Derek Lowe; Richard van Noorden; Dahlia Remler). And there this work may have stayed – like so many other papers that languish, lost in a sort of literary limbo in a library – to see no more the light of day.
But, this publication has taken on a renewed life since publication [Ed. – and one suspects that Chiolerio et al. (2025) will be cited more than other papers because there will be those who need to refer to the work in discussing why it should not have been published in the first place [see ‘This should not be published’?!?].]
Reaction to the work
The work attracted considerable attention in the media, with sensationalist headings such as “Trees Synchronize Their Bio-electrical Signals During Solar Eclipses: ‘The Wood Wide Web in Action’” by Andy Corbley, “Echoes of “Avatar”: Spruce Trees Communicate During A Solar Eclipse” (Keith Cowing), Julia Musto’s “The trees are talking to each other — but only during this time”, and “Spruce Trees Are Like Real-Life Ents That Anticipate Solar Eclipse Hours in Advance and Sync Up” (although somewhat tempered by what is effectively a sub-heading of “Trees sync their bioelectric signals like they’re talking to each other”) from Tibi Piui.
And interest in the work – and no doubt inspiration for some of the ‘less-objectively reported’ headlines – was further heightened by comments in the science reporting media from Monica Gagliano (second-named author of the paper by Chiolerio et al. (2025)). For instance, “This is a remarkable example of the wood wide web in action, and we think that it’s going to inspire new science in this direction, but also has deep ramification on how we deal with conservation: it reinforces the idea that the old trees cannot simply be replaced by replanting, they need to be protected because they hold ancestral memories that allow for resilience and adaptation,” quoted by Andy Corbley (apparently, from Gagliano’s contribution to a video produced by Southern Cross University). And: “This study illustrates the anticipatory and synchronized responses we observed are key to understanding how forests communicate and adapt, revealing a new layer of complexity in plant behaviour” … ”Basically, we are watching the famous ‘wood wide web’ in action!” (quoted by Keith Cowing). Gagliano went further in saying that the findings support calls for the preservation of “wise old trees” because “The fact that older trees respond first — potentially guiding the collective response of the forest — speaks volumes about their role as memory banks of past environmental events” (quoted by Keith Cowing), and “This discovery underscores the critical importance of protecting older forests, which serve as pillars of ecosystem resilience by preserving and transmitting invaluable ecological knowledge” (quoted by Keith Cowing).
Mention of trees ‘talking’ to each other, and transmitting ecological knowledge, via the wood-wide web (Shiella Olimpos), and the notion of ‘wise old trees’ are usually guaranteed to garner interest, and maybe reaction, from those who might not normally read the scientific paper itself and get to the reality of the work that’s been described. Or receive comment from those, who, if they do the necessary reading, may object – understandably – to over-hyped ‘bigging-up’ of the significance of the work, as evidenced by sensationalist news headlines in the science reporting media. But – as I pen this post on 10th June 2025 – I’m not aware of that sort of reaction. However, …
‘This should not be published’?!?
… what I am conscious of is criticism of the work, that is more nuanced than the knee-jerk reaction to such notions as ‘talking trees’, because it goes to the heart of the scientific method and the role of peer review. These concerns were presented in the article by Chris Simms for LiveScience with the arresting title “’This should not be published’: Scientists cast doubt on study claiming trees ‘talk’ before solar eclipses”. Simms’ scientific news item begins with “Claims that spruce trees synchronize their responses to a solar eclipse were widely reported recently — but many researchers are sceptical of the results”. After summarising the work of Chiolerio et al. (2025) it considers some of the criticisms that have been raised.
You’ll need to read Simms’ article for full details, but a major doubt comes from James Cahill (a plant ecologist at the University of Alberta in Canada), who is quoted as saying: “There is strong concern among my colleagues that this paper was published… The paper doesn’t meet what I would say are the basic standards needed for science. Its sample size is three, which is very low…”. Elaborating on the fact that Chiolerio et al. (2025) only examined three living trees in their study but made statements about different bioelectrical behaviours between young versus old individuals, Cahill said “they only have one young plant and it’s in a different site. And it’s not even young, it’s 20 years old”.
And that’s a reasonable criticism; the paper tells us that Chiolerio et al. (2025) compared the bioelectrical activity of “two healthy, ∼70-year-old trees: one in full sun (site D) and one in full shade (site F), and one healthy, ∼20-year-old tree in full shade (site G)”. In other words, that’s three individual plants in different sites, of different ages, and exposed to different light regimes. Small sample size – even without potentially confounding issues of different sites, ages, light regimes, etc. – is always a matter of concern in scientific investigations because the few individuals studied might be unusual and their responses may not be typical of those of the species as a whole. The more individuals that are tested – i.e., a bigger sample – and found to display the same behaviour, the more representative and reliable that finding is deemed to be. Another scientist, Justine Karst (a forest ecologist also at the University of Alberta in Canada), echoed Cahill’s concern saying “I don’t think anything can be concluded from an experiment that does not include replicates” (per Chris Simms).
Interestingly, the question of sample size – and replication – didn’t appear to be something that was considered problematic when the manuscript was peer-reviewed. Nor was this questioned when the manuscript was exposed to world-wide scrutiny and comment by being uploaded to a preprint site* – bioRxiv – prior to its submission for consideration by the Royal Society’s Open Science journal, in which publication the study was published [see the preprint here] [Ed. – when last I checked – on 10th June 2025 at 10.15 BST – the preprint had received no comments and had been on that site since posting on 27th October 2023, with the one sentence summary, “Trees anticipate and respond collectively to a solar eclipse”].
Responding to the concern about sample size, Chiolerio is quoted as saying “Due to the complexity of the field setup — monitoring trees 24/7 in alpine conditions — we focused on a small number of carefully selected individuals. Despite the sample size, the data were robust and consistent across trees and sites”. Furthermore, Gagliano is reported as saying “this is an early study, and we view it as a foundation for broader research” (per Chris Simms).
Additionally, Karst also expressed reservations about the way that the work has been reported in the media. Karst is critical of the notion of the so-called ‘wood-wide web’ [WWW] (Matt Huggins; Claire Marshall; Shiella Olimpos) – and is first-named author of an important paper, entitled “Positive citation bias and overinterpreted results lead to misinformation on common mycorrhizal networks in forests”, that considered the evidence for the existence of the WWW (Justine Karst et al., 2023). It’s not too surprising therefore that she is quoted by Simms as saying, “I hoped that after the wood-wide web fell apart, journalists would be more skeptical about research claiming that ‘trees talk’”.
In fairness to the journalists, mention of the wood-wide web seems to be down to comments by Gagliano in conversation with the media and interpreting the work for a non-specialist audience (see here, here, and here) – outside of her words in the scientific paper. Interestingly, demonstrating that some journalists do form their own view of scientific work, and whilst accepting the notion of a living network of trees, Tibi Puiu states that “And what it sees is a living network: trees communicating not through fungal threads or root systems [i.e., the WWW], but through pulses of electricity”. [Ed. – and, in fairness to Gagliano, the wood-wide web isn’t mentioned by name in the text of Chiolerio et al. (2025). However, the WWW is strongly alluded to by stating that their bioelectrical findings “align with prior research [several sources cited] highlighting the interconnectedness of trees within forest ecosystems”.]
Since the paper by Chiolerio et al. (2025) does not examine mycorrhizal connections between the trees that were studied – i.e., it doesn’t explicitly examine any WWW in the study – it’s probably inappropriate to speculate upon any involvement of this network in co-ordinating the bioelectrical behaviour between the trees. It’s always wise not to go beyond the data.
In summary…
What can we conclude from this story?
Scientists are still finding intriguing plant behaviours (whose interpretation and biological relevance may still remain to be determined), the peer review process is not necessarily perfect (but, It’s probably the best system we have in assessing the ‘worth’ of scientific work), the media have an influential role in how science is reported (and need to ensure it is not over-hyping the work), and scientists might be advised to choose their words more carefully when interpreting their work for a non-scientific audience.
For more on this story, see Jack Knudson, Chris Simms, here, here, Monica Gagliano & Prudence Gibson, here, here, here, Keith Cowing, Harsh Vardhan, Andy Corbley, Julia Musto, and Tibi Puiu.
* In posting an investigation on a preview site authors are able to make their findings immediately available to the scientific community – and, indeed, anybody who has access to the internet – and receive feedback on draft manuscripts before they are submitted to journals. It’s a bit like having a round of peer-reviewing before the journal’s formal peer review process. In that way one trusts that the version that is submitted to a journal is as robust as it can be, and much-better-able to satisfy the journal’s peer-reviewers.
REFERENCES
Alessandro Chiolerio et al., 2025. Bioelectrical synchronization of Picea abies during a solar eclipse. R. Soc. Open Sci. 12: 12241786; http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241786
Justine Karst et al., 2023. Positive citation bias and overinterpreted results lead to misinformation on common mycorrhizal networks in forests. Nat Ecol Evol 7: 501–511; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01986-1
Plant Cuttings 
Leave a comment