This is helpful, thanks. I think your proposition can serve to bring more clarity to this particular research topic, and prevent its stigmatization. I agree that the study of CMNs as is currently defined is technically intractable. But that should not prevent researchers to delve into it, provided they state loud and clear what they mean. I think this is the point Karst et al. wanted to make. That researchers in this field should disclose what kind of phenomenon they are actually measuring, and refrain from making exaggerated statements that have not been sufficiently confirmed. The problem is that this particular topic is part of popular culture now, and Karst et al. also appear to be taking the mission of demystifying it. I personally see nothing wrong if people want to believe that trees can talk to each other, the same way I see no problem when people entertain themselves watching sci-fi movies or series where traveling at the speed of light is possible. As long as it is clear that we are not quite there yet, then this should not be an issue.
I take your point. I liked Karst et al. I think they make very good points and their contribution is timely. But it also got me thinking that as a result the topic will be looked at with a lot of caution, specially by early career researchers.
Yes, more skepticism please! It's not a bad thing to be a skeptic :)
I agree that even if CMNs weren't involved in resource transfer, mycorrhizal fungi were still the main players. But from a plant nutrient perspective, the amount transferred is quite small and only two studies we came across actually paired tests of CMN-mediated resource transfer with tests on seedling performance (and they didn't show strong evidence that resource transfer was linked to seedling performance). I just wonder if the past focus on CMN mediated resource transfer has distracted us from other more relevant questions about mycorrhizal fungi? After 25 years, we know that very small amounts of resources can be transferred belowground between trees/seedlings. Is this ecologically important/relevant? I'm not sure anymore.
This is helpful, thanks. I think your proposition can serve to bring more clarity to this particular research topic, and prevent its stigmatization. I agree that the study of CMNs as is currently defined is technically intractable. But that should not prevent researchers to delve into it, provided they state loud and clear what they mean. I think this is the point Karst et al. wanted to make. That researchers in this field should disclose what kind of phenomenon they are actually measuring, and refrain from making exaggerated statements that have not been sufficiently confirmed. The problem is that this particular topic is part of popular culture now, and Karst et al. also appear to be taking the mission of demystifying it. I personally see nothing wrong if people want to believe that trees can talk to each other, the same way I see no problem when people entertain themselves watching sci-fi movies or series where traveling at the speed of light is possible. As long as it is clear that we are not quite there yet, then this should not be an issue.
Thanks, Juan. I quite agree with everything you say. This piece is not a criticism of Karst et al. - their paper just triggered my thinking.
I take your point. I liked Karst et al. I think they make very good points and their contribution is timely. But it also got me thinking that as a result the topic will be looked at with a lot of caution, specially by early career researchers.
Yes, more skepticism please! It's not a bad thing to be a skeptic :)
I agree that even if CMNs weren't involved in resource transfer, mycorrhizal fungi were still the main players. But from a plant nutrient perspective, the amount transferred is quite small and only two studies we came across actually paired tests of CMN-mediated resource transfer with tests on seedling performance (and they didn't show strong evidence that resource transfer was linked to seedling performance). I just wonder if the past focus on CMN mediated resource transfer has distracted us from other more relevant questions about mycorrhizal fungi? After 25 years, we know that very small amounts of resources can be transferred belowground between trees/seedlings. Is this ecologically important/relevant? I'm not sure anymore.