ReviewNature ecology & evolution2023
Positive citation bias and overinterpreted results lead to misinformation on common mycorrhizal networks in forests.
Review in Nature ecology & evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 43 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plant Behaviour, Adaptive Plasticity and Evolution: Reassessing the Debate on Plant Intelligence.Biology · 2026Review
- Partial mycoheterotrophy: a common strategy in arbuscular mycorrhizal plants?The New phytologist · 2026Review
- Fatty acid signatures distinguish autotrophy, partial mycoheterotrophy, and full mycoheterotrophy in angiosperms.Mycorrhiza · 2026Article
- How webby is the wood-wide web?Nature chemistry · 2026Article
- Evidence for resource transfer via common endophyte networks.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- PhenylalanineThe New phytologist · 2026Article
- Partial mycoheterotrophy in the arbuscular mycorrhizal Gentiana squarrosa (Gentianaceae) demonstrated by coculture assays using CMycorrhiza · 2026Article
- Fungal diversity, ecology and functions in soil ecosystems.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026Review
- Electrical information flows across the sporocarps of two ectomycorrhizal fungi in the field.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Fungi between threat and promise: global perspectives on health and innovation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Transcriptomic evidence of interspecies systemic resistance induction via common mycorrhizal networks.Mycorrhiza · 2025Article
- The influence of mycorrhizal hyphal connections and neighbouring plants on Plantago lanceolata physiology and nutrient uptake.Mycorrhiza · 2025Article
- Mycelial communities associated with Ostrya carpinifolia, Quercus pubescens and Pinus nigra in a patchy Sub-Mediterranean Karst woodland.Mycorrhiza · 2025Article
- Evidence for common fungal networks among plants formed by a Dark Septate Endophyte in Sorghum bicolor.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Convergence of root ectomycorrhizal fungal communities across Pinaceae developmental stages in temperate forests in northeastern China.iScience · 2025Article
- Concurrent common fungal networks formed by different guilds of fungi.The New phytologist · 2025Article
- Conceptual and ethical considerations in invasion science.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Article
- The evolution of signaling and monitoring in plant-fungal networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Electrical signaling in fungi: past and present challenges.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A common mycorrhizal network (CMN) is formed when mycorrhizal fungal hyphae connect the roots of multiple plants of the same or different species belowground. Recently, CMNs have captured the interest of broad audiences, especially with respect to forest function and management. We are concerned, however, that recent claims in the popular media about CMNs in forests are disconnected from evidence, and that bias towards citing positive effects of CMNs has developed in the scientific literature. We first evaluated the evidence supporting three common claims. The claims that CMNs are widespread in forests and that resources are transferred through CMNs to increase seedling performance are insufficiently supported because results from field studies vary too widely, have alternative explanations or are too limited to support generalizations. The claim that mature trees preferentially send resources and defence signals to offspring through CMNs has no peer-reviewed, published evidence. We next examined how the results from CMN research are cited and found that unsupported claims have doubled in the past 25 years; a bias towards citing positive effects may obscure our understanding of the structure and function of CMNs in forests. We conclude that knowledge on CMNs is presently too sparse and unsettled to inform forest management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36782032What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.