What is very obvious to any practicing forest ecologist is that intact, less disturbed forest communities include high levels of biodiversity and demonstrate greater resilience and resistance to disturbance (fire, wind, disease). In other words, they are healthy, robust, and living the good life. Excessively logged and disturbed forests and tree plantations show characteristics only slightly better than a suburban lawn, basically only surviving with some kind of external life support. Trying to argue that the individual trees and their mycorrhizal neighbors are in on this discussion is fun to think about, and does make for superb storytelling (thank you Richard Powers!). But the heart of this issue is not an anthropomorphic interpretation of chemical exchange between tree roots and fungi. The real issue is a political one - is nature driven more by cooperation between species, or is every individual plant and animal only out for themselves? This argument has been raging since Petr Kropotkin published Mutual Aid and the ecologist, Frederic Clements, demonstrated his basis for a cooperative planet in the late 1800s. The evidence leans heavily towards Clements, Kropotkin, and, now, Simard. BTW Mr Darwin also leaned in this direction, although the I've got mine, so sorry for you crowd likes to twist his comments. And this argument about how nature truly functions will play out in a planet altering way across our social sphere here in the U.S. all day tomorrow.