plantyhamchuk:

sunshineandhope:

this, to me, is giant “water also wet” mood but as always, these types of studies are important because some people don’t actually know water is wet, wettening agent manufacturers pour staggering amounts of money into promoting their products over water and even suppressing evidence of water’s wetness, and bureaucrats & legislators typically need to be cornered with proof of water’s wetness to see past the wettening agent lobby money

3 things that jumped out at me

• We know that mycorrhizal networks can help plants get phosphorus. The nitrogen mentioned in the story is very interesting though. Nitrogen, after water, is often the limiting factor in growing crops
• Mycorrhizal networks only bring plants so much nutrition.. in certain settings. If you have really nutrient-rich soils, plants are actually LESS likely to form mycorrhizal networks because they don’t need the fungal life to access nutrients, they can just do it with their roots. Mycorrhizal networks do not tend to bring plants as much nutrients as just dumping fertilizers on plants will.
• None of this was actually done outside, in the field, which the authors mention as being the next step. That’s actually much harder to study and measure. Mycorrhizal networks are notoriously difficult to study. Hopefully more good studies and news will develop on this front.