2023
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-023-01986-1
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Positive citation bias and overinterpreted results lead to misinformation on common mycorrhizal networks in forests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 101 publications
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The possibility of overstory trees facilitating seedling growth via CMNs would have far‐reaching consequences within and beyond the realm of scientific research. The field is attracting a wide and diverse readership and scientific claims are being further disseminated by non‐peer‐reviewed media (Karst et al ., 2023). Based on the methodological caveats of studies on CMN‐mediated resource sharing between trees, we argue that interpretations of the isotopic evidence should be revised.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The possibility of overstory trees facilitating seedling growth via CMNs would have far‐reaching consequences within and beyond the realm of scientific research. The field is attracting a wide and diverse readership and scientific claims are being further disseminated by non‐peer‐reviewed media (Karst et al ., 2023). Based on the methodological caveats of studies on CMN‐mediated resource sharing between trees, we argue that interpretations of the isotopic evidence should be revised.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a recent meta‐analysis (Karst et al ., 2023) showed a growing tendency toward unsupported citations in the scientific literature in favor of a beneficial view of CMNs in forest ecosystems. Claims in favor of the mother tree concept have been controversial in the scientific community (Robinson & Fitter, 1999; Booth & Hoeksema, 2010; Högberg & Högberg, 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whether mycorrhizal colonization intensity per se exerts a control on root exudation and root litter decomposition remains contradictory, though (Meier et al ., 2013; Trap et al ., 2017; Argiroff et al ., 2022). Furthermore, it has been debated whether common mycorrhizal network between roots of multiple plants are used to shuttle C from one plant to another, but the knowledge is presently still too sparse and unsettled to speculate on any control by the network on the root C release (Karst et al ., 2023).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted March 23, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10. 1101/2023.03.19.533308 doi: bioRxiv preprint al., 2017. In addition, they rely on far-reaching rhizomorphs (when associated with ECM basidiomycetes) and many thin fungal hyphae for soil exploration and exploitation of soil micropores.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among proponents of this theory is Suzanne Simard from the University of British Columbia, who is now pursuing these ideas in the Mother Tree Project (https://mothertreeproject.org/), but she did not respond to requests for comment. Among the critics is Dan Bebber, Co-Director of Global Engagement for Biosciences at the University of Exeter, who referred to a recent paper showing that there is no evidence for this idea, only a positive citation bias (Karst et al, 2023). This paper refers to common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs) that connect the roots of multiple plants of the same or different species below ground and expresses concern that bias towards their positive effects in the scientific literature has stoked the popular idea of trees engaging in sophisticated interactions over the plant/fungal networks.…”
Section: Tapping Into the Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%