A review by andrewspink
Het verborgen leven van bomen by Peter Wohlleben

informative inspiring fast-paced

4.0

I read some rather negative reviews, which put me off this book. They said that Peter Wohlleben over-simplified the science (that it was too dumbed-down) and that it was too anthropomorphic. However, fortunately, a friend recently leant me a copy and I was pleased to discover that it is a book well worth reading.
It is well written, with short, easily digestible chapters, and I would say that it is about the right level for a popular science book. There is an extensive reference section for those who want more. It is true that there was not a great deal new in the book for me. The majority of what he writes I had heard about as a botany student forty years ago. Having said that, the book was peppered with interesting gems of knowledge that I did not know. For instance, that apparently dead tree stumps can survive hundreds of years, supported by their neighbours. I did know that natural forests store more carbon than plantations, but he gave a very nice clear explanation as to why that is. 
There were some things that I was less positive about. He repeats the myth that ivy strangles or at least damages trees when it grows up them. As students, we were taught that people think this because ivy grows up weakened trees and they then cause and effect. I would be interested to see evidence to the contrary, but in this book he just says that he has observed that trees with lots of ivy are not doing so well, which is no proof at all as to which is cause and which is effect. He also lumps all the different moss species together in a couple of places, despite their diverse ecologies, which is a shame.
He writes that saplings remain small underneath the parent trees due to low light levels. That is not entirely correct. It is actually due to the ration of red/far-red light, which switches off or on specific mechanisms in the small trees, preventing them growing.
There is one aspect of the book which is quite controversial, and that is the extensive use of analogies to animal (including human) activities and emotions. I was prepared to be annoyed by that, but actually it works really well; it makes you think about and understand the various mechanisms that he discusses very effectively. I would draw that line at using the word 'pain' though. That is not just a response to a stimulus and a learning mechanism, but has a specific meaning in terms of feelings and emotions. I think it is presumptuous to imagine that trees feel emotions the same way that people do. They must have their own way of 'feeling', which is doubtless beyond our capacity to empathise with, seeing it must be so different.