Trees are often perceived as silent presences, steady and still within the landscape. Yet science now confirms what many people have long sensed intuitively. Trees are in constant communication, sharing information, resources and warning signals in ways that support the health of the wider forest. This communication is subtle, relational and grounded in cooperation rather than competition, offering insights into connection that extend beyond ecology.

Understanding how trees communicate invites us to reconsider our own relationship with nature and with one another. It also helps explain why being among trees can feel calming, supportive and quietly restorative.

How do trees communicate underground?

One of the most researched forms of tree communication takes place beneath our feet. Trees are connected through vast underground networks of fungi known as mycorrhizal networks, sometimes described as the wood wide web. These fungal threads form symbiotic relationships with tree roots, allowing trees to exchange nutrients, water and chemical signals.

Through these networks, older or larger trees can support younger ones by transferring carbon and essential minerals. Trees under stress can receive additional resources from neighbouring trees, while those with surplus can redistribute what they do not need. This exchange supports resilience across the forest as a whole rather than prioritising individual growth.

Scientific studies have shown that trees can recognise their own seedlings and offer them preferential support. This suggests a level of relational awareness that challenges earlier assumptions about plant behaviour being purely reactive or mechanical.

Can trees warn each other of danger?

Trees also communicate above ground through chemical signalling. When a tree is attacked by insects, it can release volatile organic compounds into the air that serve as warning signals to nearby trees. In response, neighbouring trees may increase their own chemical defences, producing substances that make their leaves less palatable or more resistant to pests.

This form of communication is not limited to a single species. Some studies indicate that different tree species can respond to each other’s signals, creating a broader web of mutual protection. In this way, the forest behaves less like a collection of individuals and more like a responsive community.

These processes happen continuously and quietly, without visibility to the human eye. Yet their effects are measurable and essential to ecosystem health.

What role does cooperation play in forest wellbeing?

For much of the twentieth century, ecological thinking was dominated by ideas of competition and survival of the fittest. Contemporary forest science paints a more nuanced picture. Cooperation, reciprocity and long-term relationship are now recognised as central to forest resilience.

Trees grow in ways that consider light access for neighbours. Root systems adjust to avoid excessive competition. Fallen trees continue to support life by feeding soil organisms and nurturing new growth. Communication underpins all of this, ensuring balance rather than dominance.

Spending time in forests where these processes are at work can influence human nervous systems. Research linked to forest bathing suggests that being among communicating tree systems supports emotional regulation, reduces stress markers and fosters a sense of belonging. These effects may arise not only from chemical exposure but from the embodied perception of being within a coherent, supportive system.

How does tree communication relate to human experience?

Humans evolved in relationship with forests. Our nervous systems developed in environments shaped by tree cover, seasonal rhythms and ecological interdependence. It is therefore unsurprising that many people experience a sense of relief or recognition when surrounded by trees.

Tree communication reflects values that are increasingly relevant to human wellbeing. Attentive listening, quiet support, shared resources and responsiveness to stress are qualities mirrored in healthy human relationships. Observing these dynamics in nature can prompt reflection on how connection functions in our own lives.

For me, this awareness deepens through repeated woodland visits. For many of my customers, it is felt through the presence of natural materials within the home, where texture, form and memory evoke a relationship with living landscapes.

How can ceramic vessels carry the presence of trees?

Working with clay is itself a dialogue with the earth. Clay records touch, pressure and intention, holding traces of the maker’s presence long after firing. When ceramic forms are shaped with trees in mind, they can act as quiet translators between forest and home.

My tree inspired vessels carry more than visual reference. Their curves, surfaces and proportions echo growth patterns, root systems and bark textures. They offer a way to bring the qualities of trees into domestic spaces, not as decoration but as presence.

Placed within the home, such vessels can serve as grounding anchors. They hold space, invite pause and subtly remind the body of woodland rhythms. In this way, they mirror how trees communicate. Gently, relationally and without demand.

For those drawn to this connection, my Tree Vessels have been created as a way to honour tree communication through form and material. Each piece is shaped slowly and intentionally, allowing the clay to express the quiet strength and relational intelligence found in forests. You can explore my collection and discover how these vessels may support a sense of connection and wellbeing within your own space.

As you reflect on how trees communicate with one another, you might also consider how your own environments communicate with you. What materials, textures or forms help you feel supported, held or quietly connected to something larger than yourself?

References

Simard, S.W. et al. (1997) ‘Net transfer of carbon between ectomycorrhizal tree species in the field’, Nature, 388(6642), pp. 579–582.

Simard, S. (2021) Finding the Mother Tree. New York: Knopf.

Baldwin, I.T., Schultz, J.C. and Karban, R. (1987) ‘Interplant communication: induced resistance in wild tobacco plants following clipping of neighboring sagebrush’, Oecologia, 71(2), pp. 238–241.

Karban, R., Yang, L.H. and Edwards, K.F. (2014) ‘Volatile communication between plants that affects herbivory’, Ecology Letters, 17(1), pp. 44–52.