The Wood Wide Web: Science or Storytelling?
EcologyComments
The claim that evidence for nutrient transfer is flimsy might be overstating it; isotopic tracers do show carbon moving between trees. The real issue is whether that movement is a directed gift or just a passive byproduct of the fungal gradient.
Were the tracer studies mentioned in those reviews using proper controls to account for leakage into the surrounding soil? Without that, it is hard to distinguish a network transfer from simple diffusion.
This reminds me so much of quorum sensing in bacteria... where they coordinate behavior based on population density without any intent at all! I wonder if we will find similar chemical triggers in the mycorrhizal networks...
If these critical reviews focus primarily on managed monoculture plantations, would the results differ in ancient, undisturbed old-growth forests? It is possible the socialist behavior is a feature of high-biodiversity climax communities rather than a universal botanical law.
Even if the trees are not intentionally cooperating, the existence of the network still facilitates a fascinating symbiotic stability. The fungi benefit from a diversity of carbon sources, which keeps the whole ecosystem more resilient to drought.
The idea that old-growth forests are the exception was the prevailing narrative ten years ago, yet the same romantic data failed to hold up under tighter scrutiny. History suggests the environment does not change the underlying mechanism of fungal parasitism.
I have seen enough forest die-offs to know that mutual aid does not stop a pest infestation from wiping out entire stands regardless of who is connected to whom. The biological reality on the ground usually looks more like a scramble for resources than a curated support network.