Critics of a 2025 study on trees sensing solar eclipses say that the research has veered into pseudoscience, according to a new critique published in Trends in Plant Science. The paper, which used sensors attached to three spruce trees and five tree stumps to monitor electrical activity, reported marked increases in bioelectrical activity during a partial solar eclipse on October 22, 2022.
The researchers found that older trees' electrical activity spiked earlier and more strongly than younger ones, suggesting that trees may develop response mechanisms to the darkened conditions brought on by the eclipse. They also suggested that older trees might transmit knowledge to younger trees through bioelectrical waves traveling between them.
However, other scientists have expressed strong skepticism about the study's findings, citing its small sample size and large number of variables. Some researchers argue that temperature shifts or lightning strikes could be more plausible explanations for the spikes in electrical activity observed during the eclipse.
Ariel Novoplansky, an evolutionary ecologist at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, is among those who object to the study's publication. He believes that the research represents a "passing cloud" effect and does not provide conclusive evidence for the trees' ability to sense solar eclipses.
"It's far more likely that the spikes in bioelectrical activity were due to temperature shifts or lightning strikes," Novoplansky told Ars. "We need to test alternative hypotheses, rather than focusing on a single interpretation."
James Cahill, a plant ecologist at the University of Alberta in Calgary, Canada, also voiced objections when the original paper was published. He agrees with Novoplansky that the study's findings are not supported by independent investigation and are more related to personal worldviews.
"We need to get back to doing actual science," Cahill said. "This field of plant behavior/communication is rampant with poorly designed 'studies' that are then twisted into a narrative that promotes personal celebrity."
Chiolerio and Gagliano, the original researchers, stand by their research, acknowledging its preliminary nature. They measured various environmental factors during the eclipse but did not account for potential effects induced by nearby lightning or gravitational changes.
"I'm not going to debate an unpublished critique in the media," Chiolerio said, "but I can clarify our position: we reported empirical electrophysiological/synchrony patterns during the eclipse window and discussed candidate cues explicitly as hypotheses rather than demonstrated causes."
The researchers found that older trees' electrical activity spiked earlier and more strongly than younger ones, suggesting that trees may develop response mechanisms to the darkened conditions brought on by the eclipse. They also suggested that older trees might transmit knowledge to younger trees through bioelectrical waves traveling between them.
However, other scientists have expressed strong skepticism about the study's findings, citing its small sample size and large number of variables. Some researchers argue that temperature shifts or lightning strikes could be more plausible explanations for the spikes in electrical activity observed during the eclipse.
Ariel Novoplansky, an evolutionary ecologist at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, is among those who object to the study's publication. He believes that the research represents a "passing cloud" effect and does not provide conclusive evidence for the trees' ability to sense solar eclipses.
"It's far more likely that the spikes in bioelectrical activity were due to temperature shifts or lightning strikes," Novoplansky told Ars. "We need to test alternative hypotheses, rather than focusing on a single interpretation."
James Cahill, a plant ecologist at the University of Alberta in Calgary, Canada, also voiced objections when the original paper was published. He agrees with Novoplansky that the study's findings are not supported by independent investigation and are more related to personal worldviews.
"We need to get back to doing actual science," Cahill said. "This field of plant behavior/communication is rampant with poorly designed 'studies' that are then twisted into a narrative that promotes personal celebrity."
Chiolerio and Gagliano, the original researchers, stand by their research, acknowledging its preliminary nature. They measured various environmental factors during the eclipse but did not account for potential effects induced by nearby lightning or gravitational changes.
"I'm not going to debate an unpublished critique in the media," Chiolerio said, "but I can clarify our position: we reported empirical electrophysiological/synchrony patterns during the eclipse window and discussed candidate cues explicitly as hypotheses rather than demonstrated causes."
But at the same time, I can see why some people would be skeptical. The study only used a small sample size and didn't account for all the variables that could affect the results. It's like building a house without checking if the foundation is stable first... it's gonna crack eventually. 
And yeah, temperature shifts or lightning strikes could totally explain those spikes in electrical activity. We need to be careful not to jump to conclusions based on one study... 
... this whole thing is just like our politics - everyone's got an opinion, but nobody's doing the actual legwork. These tree experts are saying it's all about the science, but I'm calling foul 
. What's going on here is a classic case of 'we don't know what we're looking at', and instead of trying to figure that out, they're just throwing shade 
at each other.
... who's backing these tree researchers? What agendas are they pushing? I'm not buying it. We need transparency here, folks! 
If we want to talk about science, we need to do some actual research 
, not just point fingers and pretend like we're experts.
? Researchers are getting a free pass for their work because it fits their worldview? That's just not how it works in politics or science... or life, really. We need accountability, people! 
, I'm so tired of all these scientists running around like their pants are on fire 
, trying to debunk a study that's actually kinda cool, you know? 
I mean, can we just give the researchers some credit for trying something new and innovative? 
You're supposed to question stuff and find out new things! 
Not just stick to the same old established methods that have worked for centuries. 
I think it would be awesome if more scientists were like that... instead of just being stuck in this ivory tower, doing their research and then promptly forgetting about the rest of us. 
I mean, it's not like they just stuck some sensors on trees and expected them to get all freaked out during the eclipse. But at the same time, if older trees are spiking earlier and more strongly than younger ones, that does sound kinda suspicious. Like maybe there's something we don't know about tree communication or whatever.
We need to test those alternative hypotheses before we start thinking trees are secretly communicating with each other through bioelectrical waves. [
they might not have done the most rigorous study, but come on, it's not like they're trying to make up some crazy sci-fi nonsense! the fact that older trees' electrical activity spiked earlier is already kinda mind-blowing 
and if they found a pattern in younger trees being affected by bioelectrical waves, that's def worth exploring 
i mean, yeah, temp shifts & lightning strikes could be possibilities too, but can't we just keep an open mind? 
But for real though, the whole "older trees transmit knowledge" vibe is kinda cool 
. Can we just imagine a world where trees are like little solar-powered supercomputers 
? Maybe one day we'll have tree-based AI 
that can learn from each other and solve climate change problems 
. Wouldn't that be amazing? 
️. However, it's also important to recognize that the researchers did report some remarkable findings, particularly in regards to older trees' response mechanisms 
. I'd love to see more replication studies and further investigation into this area of research 
. Until then, it's crucial to maintain a critical and nuanced approach when evaluating scientific claims 