That is what i think @Richard is trying to say the science does not back their position well enough to make some of the claims these articles are making. It is like lying by ommision of complete truth. As i said in most articles, i dont think that is their intention, but @Richard is right if they are selling a product become suspicious. Think everyone agrees for the most part but the articles are mostly vague and misleading. Read a book that is highly controversial once called the secret life of plants which i totally disagreed with mostly. Was fascinated by the material and added it to my collection of books. Did not add it as a resource as much as a reference to the works of others not widely known. In that book are studies of plants reactions to sounds etc… They might someday find certain noise impacts other things Noise Pollution | Environmental Pollution Centers . It is a stretch that the book tried to make about plants. Plants may be susceptible to microwave communication thats true but likely not sounds like the book tried to describe. Microwaves cook food and we use them to communicate. More specific studies are needed.
Absolutely 100% agree with this statement. I just meant that they reviewed a lot of studies and they didn’t conclude the studies were all flawed in their particular findings, only that the results shouldn’t be generalized to the point where forest management decisions are based on those studies. Here’s from the abstract:
The claims that CMNs are widespread in forests and that resources are transferred through CMNs to increase seedling performance are insufficiently supported because results from field studies vary too widely, have alternative explanations or are too limited to support generalizations.
The “field studies vary too widely” problem is something you’d expect when people are trying to research something really complicated and poorly understood, and it means future field studies need to include other data and controls to figure out why results vary so much.
The “alternative explanations” problem is the absolute best problem any scientific study can have, because it should be easy to construct new studies to see which explanation is better supported.
The “too limited to support generalizations” problem is a tacit admission that some of the studies they reviewed seemed to support the hypothesis in at least very limited contexts, but more research should be done to see if those results can be generalized.
One stumbling block I see in many of the comments here is that the anthropomorphic concept of a mindful individual does not map well to trees – or higher order plants in general.
This is really the core issue, yes. I think any discussion of mycorrhizal networks should not fall into the trap of trying to ascribe to plants intention, goals and thoughts. But linguistically, it’s a very easy trap to fall into. See, e.g.:
If you want to learn more about the topic, this article is one example of the series
Mycorrhizal Networks Facilitate Tree Communication, Learning, and Memory
- [Suzanne W. Simar]
These books are also part of a larger series
These are all part of this series
https://www.springer.com/series/8094/books
I’ve found even if i dont agree with everything, i can learn alot by reading more. There is much more Effects of plant neighborhood on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal attributes in afforested zones - ScienceDirect
This is fascinating
" Forest Ecology and Management
Volume 422, 15 August 2018, Pages 253-262
Effects of plant neighborhood on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal attributes in afforested zones
Author links open overlay panelXuedong Chen b 1, Ming Tang a 1, Xinlu Zhang a, Chantal Hamel c, Shuo Liu a, Yandan Huo a, Min Sheng a d e
Show more
Share
Cite
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.04.015Get rights and content
Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi are an important determinant of plant performance, and conversely their community composition greatly depends on host plants and their neighbors. Understanding how the interaction of host plants and their neighbors affects AM fungal communities in afforested zones is of primary interest in forest ecology. We sampled roots and rhizosphere soils in monocultures and mixtures of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and oriental arborvitae (Platycladus orientalis ) to define AM fungal colonization level, spore density and communities using 454 sequencing. Neighboring oriental arborvitae only affected AM fungal community in black locust rhizosphere. For oriental arborvitae, however, growing in a mixture with black locust changed AM fungal colonization, sporulation and communities in the roots and rhizosphere. In particular, neighboring black locust modified the rhizosphere- and root-inhabiting AM fungal pool through improving soil NO3-N and water contents and reducing soil catalase activity, and the modification in the root AM fungal resource, especially the Glomus and Rhizophagus genera, further affected AM fungal colonization and sporulation under oriental arborvitae. All the results presented here suggest that both hosts and neighbors can largely affect AM fungal attributes mainly through changing soil nutrient levels and enzyme activity, whereas the reciprocal effects are not always symmetric."
Procreation by a plant is certainly a purposeful action whereas natural adjacency grafts are coincidental. Further, rhizomal networks involve far more integrated biological function than adjacency grafts.
… is an example of fanciful publications in horticulture. There are plenty of them.
I think neither is purposeful, both of them exist because they provided a benefit to plants, or failed to cause harm, and therefore have been naturally selected as traits those plants exhibit.
As we know black locust is a nitrogen fixer. What i find fascinating is the changes in the soil microbes that always exist when a new tree is introduced.
I knew this article would be controversial, but not in the some of the manners demonstrated so far. I welcome further discussion although personally I’m done with the topic.
I’m merely taking issue with calling any plant trait “purposeful.” That word is anthropomorphizing a process that is by definition not purposeful but random.
Think it was good you brought the topic up. Think, for the most part, everyone largely agrees with your original post. I’m glad you posted it. In college, many years ago, we discussed many of these topics, and if it is any consolation, it always went the same way. We know experts dont agree, and every one of them wants to sell their next book, classes , or products. We are far from completely understanding these processes.
Dr. Paul Staments was one of the 1st. to suggest this. i own all his books. another in depth discussion on soil biology by Dr. Bryant Redhawk over on permies.com. is worthwhile reading. its also got the insight of a native American in it, which also fascinates me. they were the 1st to suggest everything is intertwined in nature. long before science suggested it.
When elms die, it is some of the best morel hunting around sometimes. Morels will be popping soon. Understanding relationships of some trees and fungi is beneficial for more than fruit.
In my area it’s the Pitch Pine, Pinus Rigida, forest referred to as the Pine Barrens.
I’m afraid I may have derailed @Richard 's thread, but maybe it’s relevant in that things that can’t “talk” or run away have had to find other adaptations in order to survive.
One way trees interact is natural root grafts. I don’t know if there is a benefit but it is one way to possibly pass a virus.
I think if it were more harmful than beneficial, more trees would have evolved to not form them as easily. It seems to me that the main benefit of natural root grafts is it prevents roots of related plants from competing for any particular area of shared soil, and instead they can share the nutrients from each other’s roots. Also, a seedling in the shade of its mother tree can siphon sugars the tree produces up in the canopy as it awaits an opening from a tree fall.
But yeah, also can share any sap-borne illnesses. So both a positive and a negative.
Looks like we need more rigorously controlled experiments across different CMN species-to-species specific interactions in many different environments. I think this starts in the lab though with radio labeled nutrients and seeing how these move through a plant/CMN system
The shotty science doesn’t surprise me in fields with fewer experts to lend critique.