Talk:Mycorrhizal network

Merge

Almost all of the information on this page could be directly transferred to the article mycorrhiza. I don't think the concept of a mycorrhizal network is so unique as to deserve its own page. Comments? Sasata (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. The mycorrhiza isn't very long at the moment and merging the new information here would make it more available to readers. Eventually there might be too much content in mycorrhiza and we could split it back, but that's not going to happen soon. If anyone's feeling bold, then mycorrhizal fungi and soil carbon storage should probably also be merged. SmartSE (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Support merge. It's better to have centralized information than parallel, overlapping articles. I'm not sure yet about Mycorrhizal fungi and soil carbon storage though. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge ☑ Jatlas (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Merge. This article should be a subsection of the mycorrhiza article. Dr. Morbius (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The topic of "mycorrhizal networks" (aka "common mycorrhizal networks" or "shard mycorrhizal networks") is a large enough topic with enough literature to support its own article. Definitely include a summary in the mycorrhiza article, with a "Main Article" link (using Template:Main) to this article. Peter G Werner (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect from or reference to "Wood Wide Web"?

Googling the phrase "wood wide web" returns many articles on mycorrhizal networks. Does anyone think this phrase is widespread or useful enough to justify adding a redirect for it? It could make it easier to find this article after hearing the phrase from another source (like a video). 174.55.184.14 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"Networks"?

I agree with the above comments that there is little in the article in its current form that addresses mycorrhizal networks, as opposed to simply mycorrhizae. It needs a section the clearly makes this distinction, and supports it. Mukogodo (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lack of uniformity in references

Some authors' names are all upper case, some mixed case. 2A00:23C7:5AA1:B901:C559:16E:DDF9:4B21 (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Mycorrhizal network communication into Mycorrhizal network

This short article which is essay-like can just be merged into the parent article, Mycorrhizal network, and would enhance that article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support merge. I was going to suggest the same thing. It also seems like the original editor is done editing the article (hasn't touched it or made any edits, in general, in several months), so I doubt we'll scare away anyone editing for a class. Glad we have the extra content! originalmess^talk 23:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been moved into draftspace at Draft:Mycorrhizal_network_communication. I'm still in favor of merging and am willing to do that work at some point. I assume the step after the info has been merged in is to redirect the draft to here? originalmess^talk 07:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Originalmess: Yes, see WP:MERGETEXT for step by step instructions. I think it's fine to move ahead with this merge. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Questionable

This article posts as if this is scientific consensus. It is not. 2600:1700:1FC0:B550:B077:E1F6:E547:7C65 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-01986-1 and a summary by those authors: https://undark.org/2023/05/25/where-the-wood-wide-web-narrative-went-wrong/. This should definitely be added to the article but it will be tricky to give it the correct weight though. More generally the article should rely less on primary sources and more on reviews per WP:SCIRS. SmartSE (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I've cited both of those in the lead. The Nature article makes the interesting point that there appear to be 3 distinct uses of the term "Mycorrhizal network". Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that - you'll see I've started to trim various poorly sourced bits. The more I look though, the more problems I find - the article has a lot of discussion and sources which discuss mycorrhizae in general as opposed to mycorrhizal networks. SmartSE (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

2024 Papers support the "Questionable" point and could help balance this topic

"THE ‘MOTHER TREE’ IDEA IS EVERYWHERE — HOW MUCH OF IT IS REAL?" This is a feature article (not a paper) written by a U.K. science writer, Aisling Irwin, and published in the journal NATURE 28 March 2024. At minimum I suggest it be used as a 4th reference for the final sentence in the intro which states that there is criticism of the Wood Wide Web popularization. Another place to use it would be the "Adaptive Mechanisms" subsection. Best would be if it were possible to add an actual section titled something like "Controversies." That way the Henricksson et al. 2023 paper, which is already in the references and is a "Viewpoint" paper (not a regular paper and certainly not a Review paper), could be more fully developed. Henrickksson is also one of the 35 coauthors of the 2024 Robinson et al. "Opinion" paper in "Trends in Plant Sciences', which is titled, "Mother trees, altruistic fungi, and the perils of plant personification." This is by far the most solid criticism that I have read to date. And we cannot expect a "Review" paper to be published on this topic in a top-end journal. Thus, the 2024 science writer article in Nature journal must suffice, as a form of reputable, unbiased "review" in a top journal.

It is crucial for this topical page to clearly present the scientific criticism, as when one goes to the Suzanne Simard page, one finds a section titled "Mother Trees" with no mention that this page is controversial, and the only link from that section is to this mycorrhizal network page. (Personally, I am very wary of bio pages, and I recognize that when folks are still alive the pages have to lean completely positive or a ruckus develops.)

I ask for somebody to step forward and do this. I do not feel comfortable entering into the topical page what I just suggested. The reason is that I personally have been on the opposing side since the get-go. Distinguishing "ultimate" cause from "proximate" or "efficient" cause is crucial. The original Simard paper in Nature did not speculate on ultimate cause or adaptive value. But her speaking and popularizations have. Because two of my personal dead mentors (Lynn Margulis, who helped get my first paper and book published, and Thomas Gold, whom I helped write his last book "Deep Hot Biosphere") incline me toward mechanistically seeing how the fungal network itself may be "gardening the forest" for its own survival and using chemical concentration signals for "determining" which seedlings, saplings, and trees are provided more minerals and carbon compounds, I have a distinct bias toward an ultimate cause (complete fungal agency) beyond what I have generally seen published by the critics. Helpful sentences re adaptive value in the Robinson et al. 2024 include: "Furthermore, from an evolutionary standpoint, the role of fungi as a C pipeline between trees is difficult to reconcile with any adaptive advantages for the fungi." • "Another possibility is that if the same fungus connects with two separate tree individuals via mycorrhizae, the fungus may trade with both these trees for its own benefit." • "They also argued that the mother tree hypothesis treats the mycorrhizal fungi as pipelines between trees, not acknowledging that they are organisms exposed to the same evolutionary pressure as other organisms." Cbarlow (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposing a way to begin balancing the page

The only thing I have done in detail is rewrite the existing TYPES section and now call it "Definitions and Types". I did that in my Sandbox and will paste it in below before I use it to begin editing the actual page. Below that I will enter the only other top-level section head I propose for the page. It will be called "Knowns, Unknowns, and Controversies." Within that top-level will then be just 3 next-level section titles into which I will insert all the existing text — and without any editing. After that, I will need to thin out the overly detailed existing text and always give equal attention to the now-numerous papers that argue against the most extreme statements that have been made. Thus the reputable challenges to the existing text will appear subject-specific in each of the 3 substantive subsections: • Nutrient and photosynthate transfer • Signaling and Communication • Evolutionary and adaptational perspectives.

Definitions and Types

As a scientific term, mycorrhizal network has broad meanings and usage. Scientific understandings and thus publications utilize more specific definitions arising from the term common mycorrhizal network (CMN). The keyword "common" requires that two or more individual plants are connected by the same underground fungal network, through which matter of various types and functions may flow. The plants themselves may be individuals of the same or different species. In turn, the fungal network that is composed of threadlike hyphae may be limited to a single type or entail several. The kinds of evidence deemed necessary for supporting scientific conclusions, along with the tendency for disputes to arise, depend in part on the definitions used.

There are two main types of mycorrhizal networks. These are determined by the two main categories of fungal growth forms. Arbuscular mycorrhizal networks are those in which fungal hyphae not only enter the plant's roots but also penetrate into the cells themselves. Ectomycorrhizal networks send hyphae into the roots where they thread their way between the plant cells but do not penetrate cell walls. The arbuscular type is the most common among land plants and is regarded as the ancestral type. However, tree species comprising the canopy of temperate and especially boreal forests in the Northern Hemisphere tend to associate with ectomycorrhizal fungi.

Plant and fungal partners within a network may enact a variety of symbiotic relationships. Earliest attention was given to mutualistic networks by which the plant and fungal partners both benefit. Commensal and parasitic relationships are also found in mycorrhizal networks. A single partnership may change between any of the three types at different times.

References

Knowns, Unknowns, and Controversies

Nutrient and photosynthate transfer

Signaling and communication

Evolutionary and adaptational perspectives

Cbarlow (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I implemented the reorganization that I proposed above

Today, May 2, I created in my sandbox a complete reorganization of this page. I did it in conjunction with the section titled outline I posted on this Talk page on April 27. I then replaced the entire topic page with this new creation.

IMPORTANT: I did not change or delete even a single word of text while accomplishing this reorganization. The only words changed or deleted are what I did to the original section titles at all levels, even though most section titles are still the same. Again, all I did was reorganize the existing text content (while maintaining in their proper positions all 3 original images). I did that in order to make it easier to (a) understand the existing text and (b) for someone to eventually add paras where appropriate in order to portray where scientific dispute actually exists. My sense is that most of the dispute pertains to the "Signaling and communications" section and with the "Evolutionary and adaptive perspectives" section. In this way, much of the existing text as reorganized will not need to have any balancing statements with published references in order for this page to become balanced and thus ready to have the Warning statement perhaps removed. However, fully achieving balance in accordance with wikipedia standards will likely also entail needing to shorten the existing text and to edit some value-laden wording. In this way, the mostly one-sided views and factual statements currently in this text can be improved to be seen as written in more objective language, in accordance with the actual scientific publications that are in dispute.

I encourage others to begin bringing this topic into balance, with strong references. Below are the actual elements of reorganization that I accomplished today.

(1) I inserted the "Definitions and Types" rewrite that I had proposed I would do on April 27 (above) in this Talk page.

(2) I eliminated the short, last original major section head, "Importance," and instead moved up both original paras into the introduction section of this page.

(3) I moved down into the "Evolutionary and adaptational perspectives" section two paras that had been in the existing introduction section. I had those two paras begin the entire section.

(4) Lastly, I kept distinct but then placed two existing subheads ("Carbon transfer" and "Mechanisms of Transfer") into a single higher-level section using the title "Nutrient and photosynthate transfer". Cbarlow (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)