There have been several assertions made throughout the years regarding the connection between trees in forests, a theory that has long been a part of popular culture. However, the elusive “wood-wide web” has yet to be demonstrated. The answer to this well-established theory has now been sought after by scientists.
The theory is based on the assumption that trees can share resources with their seedlings, and even protect them, thanks to underground fungi. The science supporting those theories, however, remains unproven. Mold, yeast, and mushrooms are examples of fungi, which are living organisms.
A team of academics, led by Justine Karst of the University of Alberta, has now looked at the concept of shared mycorrhizal networks, which are underground fungus.
Although CMNs have been scientifically established to exist, researchers opined that there is insufficient proof that they benefit trees and their seedlings. It’s excellent that CMN research has generated interest in forest fungi, but Karst cautions that many widely held beliefs are out of step with current scientific knowledge.
To establish the viability of the theory and determine if these networks actually exist or not, researchers from the University of Alberta, Melanie Jones of the University of British Columbia Okanagan, and Jason Hoeksema of the University of Mississippi analysed previous field investigations. the analysed claims made in more than 1,600 publications that have been published.
They discovered that there is a lack of scientific evidence to back up claims that common mycorrhizal networks are common in forests and that little is known about the structure and field use of CMNs. Only two investigations revealed widespread fungal connections between trees.
The authors of the study noted in their report that “recent assertions in the popular media about CMNs in forests are detached from evidence, and that bias towards citing favourable impacts of CMNs has arisen in the scientific literature.” In the meantime, they discovered that there is no peer-reviewed, published evidence to support the notion that mature trees preferentially communicate resources and defence signals to offspring through CMNs.
According to a review of 26 studies, while trees can move resources underground, CMNs don’t always facilitate that movement, and seedlings often don’t benefit from CMN access. An experiment on potted seedlings in a greenhouse was the only published work they could find that investigated tree signalling through CMNs in response to insect assault. The experiment demonstrated that when neighbouring seedlings’ roots could contact, CMNs’ function in signalling was nullified.
The puzzling discovery was the increase of claims involving such a forest-wide network during the past 25 years. Because accurate science is essential for making decisions on the management of forests, it is an issue when the science on CMNs in forests is distorted. Without more proof, it would be premature to base forest practises and policy solely on CMNs. Furthermore, failing to spot misinformation might damage the public’s confidence in science, according to the team’s statement.
