Scientists in the journal Nature Ecology & & Evolution challenge 3 frequently held beliefs relating to the capabilities of common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs), which are underground fungis that connect the roots of numerous plants.
University of Alberta expert challenges popular claims about the “wood-wide web.”
The idea that forest trees can “talk” to each other, share resources with their seedlings– and even safeguard them– through a connective underground web of fragile fungal filaments tickles the creativity.
The concept is so appealing, its taken root in popular media– even being raised in the popular Apple TV show Ted Lasso– and been called the “wood-wide web,” however the science behind those ideas is unverified, warns University of Alberta expert Justine Karst.
In a peer-reviewed article released today (February 13) in the journal Nature Ecology & & Evolution that likewise shares their individual viewpoint, Karst and 2 coworkers contest 3 popular claims about the capabilities of underground fungis understood as common mycorrhizal networks, or CMNs, that link roots of several plants underground. Fungi are living organisms such as molds, yeast, and mushrooms.
” Its fantastic that CMN research has sparked interest in forest fungi, but its crucial for the general public to comprehend that numerous popular concepts lead the science,” says Karst, associate teacher in the U of As Faculty of Agricultural, Life & & Environmental Sciences.
Ecologist Justine Karst is a co-author of a brand-new perspective paper objecting to claims that underground fungal networks permit trees to “talk” to each other and share resources with seedlings. Credit: University of Alberta
While CMNs have been scientifically shown to exist, there is no strong evidence that they use benefits to trees and their seedlings, the researchers recommend.
To evaluate the popular claims, Karst and co-authors Melanie Jones of the University of British Columbia Okanagan and Jason Hoeksema of the University of Mississippi reviewed evidence from existing field research studies.
They discovered that one of the claims, that CMNs are widespread in forests, isnt supported by enough clinical evidence. Inadequate is understood about CMN structure and its function in the field, “with too few forests mapped.”
The 2nd claim, that resources such as nutrients are moved by adult trees to seedlings through CMNs and that they improve survival and development, was also discovered to be questionable.
A review of 26 research studies, including one in which Karst is a co-author, established that while resources can be moved underground by trees, CMNs do not necessarily cause that circulation, and seedlings normally dont benefit from CMN access. Overall, their review revealed approximately equal evidence that linking to a CMN would enhance or obstruct seedlings, with neutral results most typically reported.
The third claim, that adult trees preferentially send out resources or “caution signals” of insect damage to young trees through CMNs, is not backed up by a single peer-reviewed, published field study, Karst and her co-authors keep in mind.
The researchers say overblown info can shape and distort the general public narrative about CMNs, which could, in turn, affect how forests are managed.
” Distorting science on CMNs in forests is a problem because sound science is crucial for making decisions on how forests are handled. Its premature to base forest practices and policies on CMNs per se, without more proof. And stopping working to recognize false information can deteriorate public trust in science.”
Reference: “Positive citation bias and overinterpreted results result in misinformation on common mycorrhizal networks in forests” by Justine Karst, Melanie D. Jones and Jason D. Hoeksema, 13 February 2023, Nature Ecology & & Evolution.DOI: 10.1038/ s41559-023-01986-1.
