Chapter 3: "Librettising" ecology to create Lipote: An Interconnected Journey
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Context of the Research and Influences
3.3 Synopsis
3.4 Developing the Script
3.4.a Communication: Influence from the Science
3.4.b Exploring Different Worlds: Panarchy and Adaptive
3.4.c Soil
3.4.d The Fungal Network
3.4.e The Narrator
3.4.f The Humans
3.4.g The Rainforest
i. A Framework for the Rainforest
iii. Exploring the Rainforest through Cycles of Collaboration
3.4.h The Palm Tree Plantation
3.4.i Lipote as the Loner Tree and the "Fiery Edge"
3.4.j The Strangler Fig
3.4.k The Forest Garden (or Taungya) and the Marriage
3.6 Future Steps and Conclusion
3.4.a Communication: Influence from the Science
Interestingly the science of plant biology and of trees in particular has recently been approaching an anthropomorphic threshold as discoveries have been made surrounding the lived experiences of plants and trees. Famously Suzanne Simard’s work has espoused the fungal and root networks which form the basis of underground communication between trees. She particularly highlights the importance of 'mother trees' which form major nodes in underground forest networks (2021). Both Stefano Mancuso (2007, 2008, 2009) and later Monica Gagliano (2018) are key scientists who promote plants as intelligent systems which have abilities such as memory and respond to changes in the environment18. This has been a contentious debate in science, with many arguing against this conception of plants or trees as intelligent organisms or systems (Robinson et al., 2020).
In keeping with the methods and aims of this research I interviewed three UK-based tree/plant scientists and ecologists: Dr Leah Band, Dr Marcus Eichhorn and Prof. Adrian Newton. Dr Leah Band’s work focuses on exploring the anatomical and mechanical elements within roots (including the influence of different hormones), which enable gravitropism: the ability to always grow downwards. Dr Markus Eichhorn’s work encompasses both natural and managed forest systems, and the impact of these tree communities on the other species in the systems. Prof. Adrian Newton’s work mostly focuses on biodiversity loss and the impact of humans on natural systems.
The conversations with Dr Eichhorn and Prof. Newton highlighted opposing opinions on the study of trees in forests, and also presented various representations of the potential experience of trees. Dr Eichhorn expressed the view that trees only ever act out of competition, explaining that this is why they have such large trunks and biomass above ground, and wanted to stress that he did not see trees as having communities. He did, however, mention later in the conversation that they can act in ways that appear supportive when they have been attacked or are under threat. Prof. Newton mentioned that there are many ecologists who view forests as purely competitive spaces but that it is possible to also see them as mutualistic. The science available today does not always support Dr Eichhorn’s position. Suzanne Simard et al. have shown in their paper on Douglas fir trees and seedlings that proximity to a larger tree and access to the mycorrhizal (fungal) network meant that the seedlings grew better and became more efficient adult trees (2008)19. This suggests a supportive rather than competitive element in the role of trees in a forest.
Dr Eichhorn expressed dissatisfaction with the depiction and association of trees communicating, pointing out that we currently do not have a lot of evidence that the trees themselves are sharing resources, but rather that this process may be happening due to the activities of the fungal network20. He described the transfer of nutrients to and from trees as a conveyor belt from which the trees simply take what is needed or discard what there is too much of. Prof. Newton also emphasised this to us which concerned me, given the need for communication during the story. I did not want to mislead or misrepresent the topic and its scientific basis in the pursuit of this work. However, when looking further to the research I found there have also been some results published that have shown that the roots of trees themselves can also graft together:
root grafting, i.e. the fusion of thevascular system of two or more roots generally from the same species but also rarely between different species, constitutes another underestimated pathway for resource exchanges (Quer et al., 2020: online)21
Dr Eichhorn did also add that the types of questions he raises by worrying about the representation of trees as communities which collaborate and communicate, are questions and knowledge which has not yet been researched, and are also unlikely to receive a lot of traction in the search for funding of scientific research.
The libretto makes use of the idea of support, communication and interconnectivity as a driving element of the character’s relationships. Ultimately the communication in the story is based around sending warnings and sharing resources, which have both been recorded as characteristics of trees in forests. In scene 1 (pp. 2-4) there are many warning messages of this sort: A colleague encounters a crisis’, ‘Interconnected humus standby’, ‘A living sick alarm’, ‘Give and take broadcast: Support! Support!’, ‘Mobilise bilious dispersal unit’, ‘Facilitate the mercy message’.
In scene 4 the Whole Forest and Lipote describe the Palm Tree’s inability to communicate (pp. 12 and 13, lines 275-280 and 301-305). I will discuss the representation of this on stage in further detail in the section 3.5.e:
Lipote: Their roots have no portal
No way to pass a signal
And now it’s out of tune
Dizzied and confused.
So fragile, so confined.
Imprisoned in its mind.
Lipote: What scabrous fronds!
This is no use.
I must move on even further,
Search for someone -
Who speaks the language of this land.
In scene 7 the Rainforest describe the connections they have made during Lipote’s journey (p. 22 and 24, lines 542-544 and 571-573):
Lipote: Many voices touched my hairs
Shared their experience
I found traumas beyond the storm
Bus 1: We shared our worlds
Forged new fungal pathways
Densely matted and deep
Due to the contentious nature of the debate around tree communication and plant intelligence it is important to note the human characteristics performed and present in the story do not make direct scientific claims about the properties of the subjects. As already described the aim of this work is to bring the human closer to the subjects by empathising with them through the human lens. Just as the audience would not have to believe that planets sing when watching The Flowering Desert, the audience in this case will not believe that trees sing and communicate in words and sentences when watching this work. However, should the audience choose to look further into the topic of trees supporting, remembering and communicating they will find a wealth of developing scientific research available to them.
In order to represent the variety of views held on this topic mentioned above, and both the competitive and mutualistic nature of the forests, I chose to make it clear in the various systems represented in this work that not all trees are friendly or willing to share resources. The Palm Trees are unable to communicate effectively and ultimately see Lipote as a source of food. They repeat a mantra and are unable to constructively develop in response to the other trees. They only communicate with themselves and know of words and ideas related to their mission as part of a vast agricultural monoculture system. The Strangler Fig is parasitic in nature. Its text is deceitful and powerful, both involving the trauma of deforestation and of being a killer as in scene 5 (p. 15, lines 361-369).
Strangler Fig: I too have lost friends
I am the only one left here now.
I grew on them and hugged too tight.
Then came the humans.
Their touches of fire and blade,
They destroyed all around but they left me here.
They make their yearly pilgrimage, tie bands around my branches
As I tied around my friends.
In the more mutualistic Rainforest there are even some trees who respond negatively or in fear to the idea of looking for help. You can see from this excerpt that some trees are untrusting of what might be beyond the edge of the rainforest, and cannot be sure that the Lipote will not act out of competition and consume all newly found resources itself. This shows the highly competitive nature of the Rainforest, alongside the potentially altruistic nature of actions, such as the growth of the Lipote, which might help the whole forest. This can be seen in scene 3 lines 189-192 (p.8):
Taking (solo): A volunteer from the fiery edge
Giving (solo): Will feel out the forgotten mud
Taking (solo): How can we be sure, what’s there will not take more?
Giving (solo): Or trust this lonely soul?