Plants & fungi / Evidence review and debate

Can trees talk through fungi? What mycorrhizal networks show

Peer-reviewed debate and response 2023–2025 · Note reviewed 2026-10-12

A common mycorrhizal network describes fungal hyphae shared by roots of two or more plants; such connections have been documented in particular systems, while their prevalence and functions remain debated. Whether material moves through them, whether that movement changes a receiver, and whether information is communicated are separate questions. Karst, Jones and Hoeksema (2023) warn that popular and scientific claims about widespread forest networks and beneficial “mother tree” transfers can outrun the evidence and report positive citation bias. Henriksson et al. (2023) argue that isotope studies do not yet establish significant net carbon transfer through these networks that benefits recipients, and discuss alternative pathways. Simard, Ryan and Perry (2025) respond that multiple methods support network connections and context-dependent transfer in forests. This published disagreement is a reason to state the evidence level precisely, not to declare either that networks never occur or that trees have a demonstrated shared language.

What we reviewed · Targeted publisher-source review; not a systematic review

Reviewed the Nature publisher record and surfaced article passages plus its author correction; the New Phytologist summary and selected discussion; and the full publisher-hosted Frontiers Opinion, including its article type and author statements. Direct rendering of the Nature article required publisher authentication in this review. The underlying studies, supplementary files and data were not reanalyzed, and no specialist review was obtained.

No independent forest-mycorrhizal specialist has reviewed this Talk2Nature note.

What this does — and doesn’t — establish

This debate is especially about forest ecology and ectomycorrhizal systems; it does not settle every plant–fungus relationship. A fungal connection or isotope transfer is not by itself evidence that one plant sent information another received. The 2025 response is explicitly an Opinion by researchers involved in this field, not an independent replication. One author of the 2023 New Phytologist review disclosed a financial interest in an organic-fertilizer company. The linked primary studies and their methods were not exhaustively reviewed here.

What we can build on

Keep the claims on separate rungs: demonstrate the fungal connection; trace the material and route; measure an independent receiver response; test whether a sender-derived signal explains that response better than soil, water, root, stress or other pathways. Do not call resource movement a conversation without evidence of information transfer and receiver-specific effect.

A practical starting point

Evidence-map only; no article or biological data admitted.

Available starting point: Four attributed publisher records, including the published correction; no papers, figures, supplements, source datasets or code are stored here.

Reuse limits: The linked papers retain their own publisher terms. Talk2Nature reproduces no article text, figures, datasets or supplementary materials; this is an original summary with citations.

Our proposed experiment: No experiment, model or claim about tree-to-tree language is admitted by this note. A future study needs specialist review and controls that identify both the transfer route and an independently measured receiver response.

The next reading task

Ask a forest mycorrhizal ecologist to review this evidence map. Then compare original tracer and network-mapping experiments, focusing on controls that distinguish hyphal connections from soil and root pathways and on independent receiver outcomes. Propose a signaling experiment only if the signal, route and receiver response can each be measured; keep this outside the acoustic AutoResearch benchmark.

Go to the sources

Common mycorrhizal networks: citation bias and evidence limits ↗
Karst, Jones and Hoeksema (2023), Nature Ecology & Evolution. A Perspective examining positive citation bias and overinterpretation in claims about forest common mycorrhizal networks. The publisher later corrected the reference list by removing four extraneous references and renumbering citations.
Re-examining carbon sharing claims in the mother-tree hypothesis ↗
Henriksson et al. (2023), New Phytologist 239:19–28. A review of ectomycorrhizal carbon metabolism, boreal forest regeneration and isotope studies; the authors argue that evidence for significant net carbon transfer through common mycorrhizal networks benefiting recipients remains lacking.
Response to questions about common mycorrhizal networks ↗
Simard, Ryan and Perry (published January 2025), Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. An Opinion responding to critiques of forest common mycorrhizal network research and arguing that multiple methods support context-dependent network connections and resource transfer.
Author correction to the common-mycorrhizal-network perspective ↗
Karst, Jones and Hoeksema (2023), Nature Ecology & Evolution 7:623. The publisher says four extraneous references were removed and references renumbered; the notice does not report a change to the article’s main claims.

Original editorial note by Talk2Nature contributors. AI-assisted, source-grounded synthesis; not a peer review or an independent replication. Linked works retain their own rights.