Plants respond to their environment and to each other through chemical and electrical signalling. That is established science. The popular framing of plants talking or having feelings runs well ahead of it.
What is documented
Volatile chemical release. A plant under attack by insects releases compounds into the air. Nearby plants detect them and increase their own defensive chemistry before being attacked.
Whether this is communication or eavesdropping is a live question – the emitting plant may be signalling its own tissues, with neighbours simply overhearing.
Root exudates. Plants release compounds into soil that affect neighbouring plants, sometimes inhibiting competitors.
Fungal networks. Fungi connect the roots of many plants, and compounds can move through those connections. This is real.
Where the popular version overstates
The idea of forests as cooperative networks sharing resources deliberately has been challenged by researchers who examined the original evidence. Transfer through fungal networks occurs; whether it is meaningful in quantity, and whether it benefits the donor, is contested.
The fungus is not a neutral cable. It has its own interests and takes resources from plants.
What is definitely not established
Any form of intention, awareness or preference. Plants respond to stimuli through chemistry. Describing that as knowing or wanting is metaphor, and the metaphor has been taken literally in a great deal of popular writing.
Why it still matters
Because the chemical signalling is real and has agricultural applications – crops that respond to neighbours’ distress signals, or planting arrangements that exploit these interactions.