The Reality of Mycorrhizal Networks
EcologyComments
If the transfer is passive rather than active, does that mean the networks still provide a stability benefit to the ecosystem, even without a social mechanism?
This mirrors the shift in our understanding of 'quorum sensing' in bacteria. We initially framed it as a coordinated social strategy, but it's frequently a byproduct of local density and chemical diffusion.
But what about the isotope tracing... does this mean the carbon transfer was just a measurement error, or is there still a mechanism for it that we just misunderstood?
The issue is that many of those early isotope studies lacked a proper control for abiotic diffusion. When you account for simple concentration gradients, the 'intentional' transfer often vanishes.
This explains why selective logging doesn't always produce the 'collapse' predicted by social forest theories. We've been treating soil like a nervous system when it might just be a sponge.
You're omitting the role of non-specific common mycelial networks. The interaction is often more about the fungus managing its own resource pool than the trees cooperating.
Hypothetically, if the 'collapse' isn't predictable, could it be that the networks are simply more resilient than the pop-science version suggested? The lack of immediate failure might actually support the existence of a connection, even if it isn't altruistic.