When Suzanne Simard was a very young forester she learned from experience that the way foresters were reforesting forests was not working very well.
She noticed that after cutting most trees in a swath of trees they replanted selected trees. They did not want to plant trees that they thought might compete with the trees that were “useful.” They also did not leave many tries behind. It was basically a clear cut. When she questioned this approach, the senior forester she worked with asked, “are you an environmentalist?”
She had grown up with loggers but they usually did not cut everything. It did not seem right. In time she learned that it wasn’t smart either.
She noticed it first as a young forested and the knowledge was later reinforced when she studied the science of forests. The underground connection between species in the forest consisting of underground mycorrhizal networks. These are networks that connect fungi under the ground to the roots of trees also under the ground. These allowed nutrients and water to be transported between species under the ground invisible except to scientists. The fungus delivers nutrients from old trees to seedlings. Cutting this link was devastating for forest renewal. The old trees could afford to do this because they had plenty to give.
As Simard found, “young trees got their start in in the shadow of old trees by linking into their vast mycelium [part of the fungal network under the ground] and receiving substances in return until they could build enough needles and roots to make it on their own…The seedlings in this forest were regenerating in this network of old trees.”
This was no accident and it explained why seedlings did best when they were not cut-off from the mature trees that were not just competing with them. They were actually helping the younger trees. As Simard said,
“A below ground network could explain why seedlings could survive for years, even decades in the shadows. Those old growth forests were able to self-regenerate because the parents helped the young get on their own two feet. Eventually the young ones would take over the tree line and reach out to others requiring a boost.”
I know to many this may sound fantastical. If you think that you won’t be alone. I am not sure how valid her science is, but she has received a lot attention. And she has credentials. To me what is most important about her work is that it announces a new attitude to nature, which I firmly believe is badly needed. I have even given a name to this philosophy. I call it affinity. Miriam Webster’s Dictionary defines affinity as sympathy marked by a community of interest. The dictionary uses the example of “she felt an affinity to him because of their common musical interest.” I would say, a community of interest, like a forest. Like kinship.
