One simply can't talk about plants without eventually talking about fungi. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of plant species rely on fungal interactions for survival. This mutualistic relationship is referred to as mycorrhizal. Fungi in the soil colonize the root system of plants and assist in the acquisition of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. In return, most photosynthetic plants pay their mycorrhizal symbionts with carbohydrates.

There are two major categories of mycorrhizal fungi - ectomycorrhizae (EMF) and arbuscular mycorrhizae (AMF). Though there are a variety of different species of fungi that fall into either of these groups, their strategies are pretty much the same. EMF make up roughly 10% of all the known mycorrhizal symbionts. The prefix "ecto" hints at the fact that these fungi form on the outside of root cells. They form a sort of sheath that encases the outside of the root as well as a "hartig net" around the outside of individual cells within the root cortex. AMF, on the other hand, literally penetrate the root cells and form two different kinds of structures once inside. One of these structures looks like the crown of a tree, hence the term "arbuscular." What's more, they are considered the oldest mycorrhizal group to have evolved.

The type of mycorrhizal fungi a plant partners with has greater implications that simple nutrient uptake. Evidence is now showing that the dominant fungi of a region can actually influence the overall health and diversity forest ecosystems. The mechanism behind this has a lot to do with the two different categories discussed above.

Researchers have discovered that trees partnering with AMF experience negative feedbacks in biomass whereas those that partner with EMF experience positive feedbacks in biomass. When grown in soils that previously harbored similar tree species, trees that partnered with AMF grew poorly whereas trees that partnered with EMF grew much better. Additionally, by repeating the experiments with seedlings, researchers found that seedling survival was reduced for AMF trees whereas seedling survival increased in EMF trees.

What is going on here? If mycorrhizae are symbionts, why would there be any detrimental effects? The answer to this may have something to do with soil pathogens. Thinking back to the major differences between EMF and AMF, you will remember that it comes down to the way in which they form their root associations. EMF form a protective sheath around the roots whereas AMF penetrate the cells. As it turns out, this has major implications for pathogen resistance. Because they form a sheath around the entire root, EMF perform much better at keeping pathogens away from sensitive root tissues. The same can't be said for AMF. Researchers found that AMF trees experienced significantly more root damage when grown in soils that previously contained AMF trees.

The differences in the type of feedback experienced by EMF and AMF trees can have serious consequences for tree diversity. Because EMF trees are healthier and experience increased seedling establishment in soils containing other EMF species, it stands to reason that this would lead to a dominance of EMF species, thus reducing the variety of species capable of establishing in that area. Conversely, areas dominated by AMF trees may actually be more diverse due to the reduction in fitness that would arise if AMF trees started to dominate. Though they are detrimental, the negative feedbacks experienced by AMF trees may lead to healthier and more diverse forests in the grand scheme of things.

Infographic by [1]