The green planet: The secret life of plants* by Simon Barnes, 2022. Witness Books (an imprint of Ebury Publishing, part of the Penguin Random House group of companies).

This blog item is along the lines of, βif you liked that, youβll like thisβ (Kristin Iversen), as The Green Planet by Simon Barnes is appraised. However, there are caveats to the βlikeabilityβ side of thingsβ¦
Overview of book
The Green Planet is a little over 300 pages devoted to the glory of the natural world that is plants. The book consists of a very short Introduction, and five main chapters, each of which examines some of the plants, and aspects of their ecology, in different habitats. Thus, we have chapters headed (and presented in this order): Tropical Worlds, Desert Worlds, Seasonal Worlds, Water Worlds. The final chapter, Human Worlds examines the clash that often occurs when, and where, people and plants meet. The book concludes with 3.75 pages of 4-columned Index. In addition to the text, the book is extensively illustrated, with a picture on pretty much every other page, and all (I think) in colour.
The Green Planet is an unapologetic celebration of the wonders of plants and how they survive in four major environments, and β as important β how humankind is affecting those habitats and the ability of plants to survive there. On the one hand Itβs a great series of essays on the ingenuity and resilience of plants when faced with challenges of surviving in what β to us at least β are often hostile environments. On the other, itβs a cautionary tale of the fragility of the natural world and how desperately it needs our consideration, conservation, care, and compassion if it β and we β are to survive on this planet that we all share.
Barnes certainly gets across his message that plants are βjust as aggressive, competitive, and dramatic as the animalsβ [from the bookβs back cover], and ably demonstrates the strange and wonderful life of plants, βa life full of remarkable behaviour, and continuous surprisesβ [also from the back cover], and goes some way to allowing readers to “discover the secret heroes breathing life into our world” [yep, this too from the back cover]. But, and above all, The Green Planet is a book devoted to plant biology and ecology β and who can argue with that?
Similarity to the TV series of the same name
Although the bookβs front cover declares that it accompanies the landmark series β The Green Planet, produced and broadcast by the BBC in 2022 β the book is not just a text-based version of the TV programmes. For example, the order in which the habitats are presented in the book differs to the broadcast order, which was Tropical, Water, Seasonal, Desert, and Human. [Iβm curious to know why there is a difference in habitat ordering; it didn’t affect my enjoyment of the book, Iβm just interested to knowβ¦]. The text in the book is not simply the transcript of the TV programmes. If it were, that would be a rather slim book because the text narrated in each of the TV episodes (by (inter)national treasure and legendary natural history broadcaster extraordinaire Sir David Attenborough) was fairly minimal β to a great extent the images did most of the βtalkingβ. Text-wise, and quite rightly so, The Green Planet (the book) is much more expansive and provides further explanation and information additional to that from the TV programmes. And, although sumptuously and abundantly illustrated, the book’s illustrations are no match for the televisual feast of the TV programmes.
Whilst additional facts were welcome, I was a little surprised to note that at least one fact from the TV programmes wasnβt included in the book. For example, one of the awesome aerial shots of stands of Euphrates poplar (Populus euphratica) in the Taklimakan Desert (China) from the TV programme is reproduced in the book (running across pages 84 and 85). Although that was nice to see, the book doesnβt mention the name Euphrates. Instead, the book refers to the trees as βpoplarsβ and ‘desert poplars’ within the text [consistent with that, Euphrates isnβt included in the index, but β and rather curiously β neither is the mentioned-in-text desert poplar nor poplarβ¦]. Rather more surprisingly, Barnes makes no specific mention of the underground, root-root interconnections between these trees that were highlighted in the TV programme. These underground tree-tree connections, which apparently allow water to be shared amongst individuals [see entry No. 2 in “10 weird and wonderful plants from The Green Planet“], are very important to the plantβs survival in this extreme habitat. Such notes of caution aside, The Green Planet is pretty faithful to the TV series of the same name. So, if you liked the TV series, youβll probably also like the book.
Critical assessment of book
Everything thatβs published and/or in the public domain can expect to be scrutinised and critically appraised. That certainly applies to books that come within my reach. However, that isn’t criticism for its own sake, itβs always intended to be a legitimate appraisal of any perceived shortcomings of the tome. An entry point for that sort of assessment is to understand the audience for whom the book was written and/or its purpose. Unfortunately, nowhere could I find out the bookβs intended readership. I will therefore assume it is intended for the intelligent lay reader who has some interest in plants. As for purpose, I think thatβs pretty clear. Page 319 of the book states that βThis book is published to accompany the television series entitled The Green Planet, first broadcast on BBC One in 2022β. The spine of the book has βBBC Booksβ in clear lettering. The bookβs front cover has βBBCβ boldly placed above the bookβs title. And the back cover of the book has βBBC Earthβ stamped upon the bottom left corner. Clearly, the book can be viewed as a BBC creation. For those who may not know, BBC is the initialism for the British Broadcasting Corporation.** Based in the UK, the BBC claims to be βthe worldβs leading public service broadcasterβ.
The Green Planet (the book) can therefore be judged according to its proudly-proclaimed BBC credentials: How well does it do in that respect? In particular, does it achieve the three goals of the BBCβs mission to βinform, educate and entertain”?
Does it inform?
Yes (sort ofβ¦).
On almost every page there is a plant-related or -relevant statement β many of which were new to me (which is always nice to see). For example: the vines that host the parasitic plant Rafflesia can be more than a kilometre long; in 70 years Costa Rica lost 80% of its forest; a big cactus can take in getting on for 800 litres in the course of a single rainstorm; aggregate annual temperature in the southwestern United States has risen by 1.2 degrees between 1950 and 2010; bumblebees are able to alter the frequency [of their buzzing] to suit the flower [in buzz pollination]; the bladderwort is the fastest plant on Earth; duckweed holds more protein than soy beans; itβs been claimed that dams cause more plant extinctions than deforestation; monocultural farming reduces the number of worms in the soil; and there is a rule of 10% in relation to the invasiveness of alien plant introductions.
However, the information value of some of those facts isnβt as high as it could be. For example, which species of cactus can take in getting on for 800 litres in the course of a single rainstorm? Regarding the aggregate annual temperature in the southwestern United States having risen by 1.2 degrees between 1950 and 2010, what units are these β Fahrenheit or Celsius?
There are other examples where there are doubts about what species is actually meant, and the information value of the book is thereby also diminished. For instance, Barnes tells the fascinating tale of the relationship between the mountain tree shrew and a pitcher plant on Borneo that involves laxative-laced nectar. He also states that there are 10 different species of pitcher plant on Mount Kinabalu, where the shrew-plant interaction takes place. Unfortunately, Barnes appears to make no mention of which pitcher plant species is involved with the shrew. Elsewhere, there is a fascinating account of the reproductive ecology of the βpoison arrow treeβ in Queensland. Nowhere in the book can I find the scientific name for this plant mentioned (absence of scientific names is a general feature of the book). And thatβs an issue because we are also told that βThe poison arrow tree is a widely spread groupβ (p. 60), which I infer to mean that there are several species, all called poison arrow trees. Which one has the mentioned relationship with the metallic starlings? Inclusion of scientific names for all plants would have been really helpful β from a general information point of view, and helping to specify particular species.***
But! Thereβs a major problem with all of those βfactsβ [see Does it educate? section below].
Does it entertain?
Yes.
The green planet is well written, very well-written. Which is probably no surprise when one reads that Simon Barnes is a best-selling author of natural history books, and an award-winning sports journalist with The Times newspaper. All of which literary activities have no doubt contributed to perfecting his highly-readable and entertaining writing style. Examples of Barnesβ phrasing include: βIt is the genius of humankind to create from rainforest a place that is teeming with death” (p. 74); βIn the manner of the Sleeping Beauty, with the sun playing the part of the handsome prince” (p. 147); βIt is a matchless opportunity for them to feast, fight and fornicate” (p. 242); βSo now, as humankind wobbles on the tightrope above the abyss of destruction, let us seek for balance” (p. 308).
And β from a sheer entertainment point of view β Barnes’ words are enlivened with umpteen cultural, literary and other references, such as: βThe idea that plants need water is part of the bleeding obvious, as Basil Fawlty [irascible owner of the hotel named Fawlty Towers from the TV series of the same name] would sayβ (p. 80); Lewis Carrollβs Alice in Wonderland; the character βHot Lipsβ Houlihan in MASH (the book, TV series, and film); the film Withnail and I; George Orwellβs Animal Farm; Goldfinger by Ian Fleming; John Wyndhamβs The Day of the Triffids; the musical comedy, The Little Shop of Horrors (which is somewhat strangely cited in the Index); and Voltaireβs Candide (Matthew Sharpe). Whether such references give us a clue to the anticipated age of the bookβs intended readership, I couldnβt say. They certainly added interest to Barnesβ writing.
Does it educate?
Short answer: Not really. Long(er), reasoned answer: Read on.
For all of the great number of facts presented in The Green Planet (and thereβs probably one for every other page), NONE of them are evidence-based. Or, to be more accurate, Barnes provides no sources to substantiate any of the statements he makes. And that deficiency is compounded by the absence of any indication of further reading the reader could undertake to find out more about plants β and maybe stumble across the source(s) of some of the bookβs facts. And, somewhat curiously, no books or articles or sources appear to be acknowledged by Barnes as having been consulted to provide any of the facts stated in the book.
Although thereβs good use of proven pedagogic practices such as recap, repeat, and reinforcement by appropriate cross-referring between chapters, the real educational value of leading by example and providing oneβs sources is absent. Amongst the true aims of education should be the desire to encourage its recipients not to accept or believe everything they’re taught or told (Rachel Denning). In the context of a factual book such as The Green Planet, it means that readers should rightly be sceptical of the written word β especially where and when it isnβt backed up by evidence.
That doesnβt necessarily mean that what is written is wrong, itβs just not as βrightβ as it could be. Where sources are stated the curious can check them and β hopefully β reassure themselves of the accuracy of whatβs been stated by the author and as a result be better informed. Providing one’s sources isnβt just a courtesy to your readers, it helps β in that BBCβs mission-guided way β to educate them. Plus, it gives the author due credit for the scholarship thatβs surely been undertaken to garner the veritable tsunami of facts that are presented in The Green Planet. And itβs not just me who thinks this way (Iβve mentioned this need for evidence-based plant writing on more than one occasion, e.g. here), The Wandering Botanist is also of this view, which is supported by commentators to her blog item. And, more generally, Josh Brolin supports the need for writers to state their sources.
Does this really matter? Canβt we just trust the author? The uncritical acceptance of the words of others β especially if theyβre not supported by evidence is always a dangerous thing to do because it can lead to the casual acceptance of falsehoods, and the perpetuation of errors. Has Barnes made any erroneous statements in The Green Planet? Yes, he has.
The most serious of which is the error regarding crassulacean acid metabolism [CAM] on pages 103-105, although it’s not called by its name. Barnes tells us that cacti have evolved the ability to take in carbon dioxide during the day β and to store it. And that this feat allows them βto perform one of natureβs great contradictions; they can photosynthesise in the darkβ (p. 103). So much is stated as fact in the book. Unfortunately, it contains errors.
Cacti donβt take in CO2 during the day, they do so during the night. Now, that fact is somewhat remarkable because the majority of plant species (the approximately 95% that donβt have CAM (Shanon Trueman)) have evolved the ability to take CO2 in during the day, through their stomata (Karen Blaettler). But, cacti do store the CO2 β as part of a molecule of malic acid β within the cellβs vacuole (Travis Garcia et al., New Phytologist 204: 738-740, 2014; https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13127) for later use in photosynthesis. The neat trick that cacti β and other plants that use CAM β have evolved, and which helps them to take in CO2 during the night, is that their stomata are open during these hours of darkness (which is contradictory to the great majority of plants in which stomata typically open during daylight). Nevertheless, cacti β like all other photosynthetic plants β undertake photosynthesis during daylight. However, in the case of cacti, their stomata are closed during the day, which thereby inhibits uptake of photosynthetically-essential CO2 from the atmosphere. For cacti (and other CAM plants) this lack of access to the atmospheric, external source of CO2 is not a problem; the CO2, thatβs been stored overnight, is released within the plant where it is incorporated into organic molecules by photosynthesis during the sunlit daytime. If what Barnes has stated was fact then nocturnal photosynthesis by cacti should rightly be considered βone of natureβs great contradictionsβ (p. 103). Sadly, that isnβt what happens.****
Not only does this CAM issue underline the importance of including sources, it also makes a case for having a botanical specialist check over the book before publication. I have no idea if this happened or not. Presumably (hopefully!), that didnβt take place, or inclusion of this major mis-fact would represent a serious failure of such oversight. Yes, I could do what Iβm urged to do by Elsa in Frozen and just βlet it goβ. But, to do so β and especially having raised the matter publicly β risks creating a TBR [truth-by-repetition] (Tim Brinkhof), should that mis-fact be taken as correct by readers and repeated. That, as a Botanist who is keen to improve the publicβs understanding of botany, I cannot knowingly allow.
Taking all of this into account, I have to conclude that The Green Planet doesnβt really fulfil its BBC remit to educate. Maybe, the bookβs plant-curious readership will be sufficiently motivated and encouraged to delve deeper into the literature to find out more about the bookβs facts. I hope they will. But, theyβll have to do it on their own, in the absence of any information on sources or guidance from the author.
What would Auntie think?
I think sheβd agree that, judged against the three goals of the BBCβs mission statement, The Green Planet entertains, and informs, but doesnβt really educate. Although, in the immortal words of the sadly-departed Marvin Lee Aday [aka Meat Loaf], βtwo out of three ainβt badβ, I believe that the βBeebβ (as the BBC is affectionately known (John Rabon)), via its spokesperson Simon Barnes on this occasion, can β and should β do better.
Our planet β and its plants β is crying out for more plant-minded individuals. Helping to cultivate a plant-literate population is therefore a very important, worthwhile, and highly desirable goal. The Green Planet was ideally placed to contribute to that; as a text-based product, the book could be expected to add true depth and understanding to the more image-based βplantfestβ that was the TV series. Unfortunately, by excluding sources, Barnes has missed a golden opportunity to capitalise upon the interest in plants that the TV series has helped to generate, and do its bit in building a botanically knowledgeable public.
Summary
The Green Planet by Simon Barnes is sub-titled The Secret Life of Plants.* This is an acknowledgement that the lives of plants are largely secret to so many of us that share their planet. Hopefully, Barnesβ book, and the BBC TV series that it accompanies, will help to share those secrets with a wider audience who will come to appreciate plants more. And, maybe β just maybe β people will view plants with renewed respect and admiration, and look after them just a little better as a result. If The Green Planet plays its part in improving the publicβs botanical literacy, that will be a good outcome. If a new version of the book could be produced that is evidence-based, that would be a brilliant outcome [Iβm always interested in discussing plant-based projects]β¦
* Which is not to be confused with The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins & Christopher Bird, an altogether different book about plants (Elsa First)…
** Many other definitions of BBC are available, see here.
*** I could only find four instances where full scientific names of plants were provided. The first was Rhipsalis baccifera (Reza Raihandhany & Adhityo Wicaksono, Philippine Journal of Science 151(1): 205-213, 2022) (a cactus unusually found in βparts of Africa and in Sri Lankaβ (p. 101)). Second was Ceratocaryum argenteum (Pablo GΓ³mez Barreiro) (βa grass species with a smart lifestyleβ (p. 178)). Third was Macarenia clavigera (Dylan Baddour; Murray Carpenter) (whose βmost obvious challenge is to hold tight to the rocks throughout the yearβ (p. 204)). For none of those three does Barnes tell us whether they have common names or not β theyβre certainly not mentioned if they do. The fourth instance is Furcraea parmentieri, where Barnes has to use the scientific name because βThe plant doesnβt have a common nameβ (p. 302). Occasionally, just the genus was mentioned (e.g. Desmodium (βthe sticky pea of Madagascarβ (p. 69))). More often than not only a common name was mentioned in the text.
**** Unfortunately, there is a bit of a problem here. Unless you already knew about CAM, youβd probably not spot that error, which makes this sort of βmis-factβ a difficult one to deal with. Avoiding inclusion of erroneous statements is to a large extent dependent upon how scrupulous the author is in checking facts to ensure that what is presented is correct (or is as accurate as can be having undertaken appropriate due diligence). But, at least with the sources(s) stated, the sceptical reader has the opportunity of establishing how correct the statement is.
[…] so long ago I appraised The Green Planet by Simon Barnes. Although I had positive things to say about that book; I had a major issue with the absence of any […]