Apart from what others commented on these being two entirely different species, there might be other factors at play as well.
Lianas and vines are pretty common and very diverse, especially in tropical forests. They are usually found as part of the upper canopy and if there is a tree fall, they manage to fill this gap pretty quickly. The trees grow more slowly, but will manage to establish themselves eventually, filling up that gap. But if you cut down an entire forest, trees have a much harder time to establish themselves because the whole ground is just covered in these fast growing lianas or vines. There are studies that look at exactly that, how lianas inhibit forest regrowth.
So, how overgrown with lianas or vines a certain habitat is, is very much dependent on the disturbance of this habitat.
I’m serious, I really don’t get what this is about. That the research they’ve been doing isn’t fun? But why would this one scientist say this? Doesn’t make much sense and I clearly don’t get the joke. Maybe someone can explain?