Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to ‘Misconceptions on the application of biological market theory to the mycorrhizal symbiosis’

Nature Plants volume 2, Article number: 16062 (2016) Cite this article

Subjects

Walder and van der Heijden reply — The exchange of carbon for soil nutrients is thought to be the cornerstone of the arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbiosis1,2. In our recent Review, we proposed that environmental conditions, functional diversity, competition for surplus resources, reciprocity and sink strength3 explain the outcome of resource exchange in the AM symbiosis. We also questioned the use of biological market theory as a universal framework to explain resource exchange in the AM symbiosis. In biological markets, interactions are viewed from an economic perspective, and the most beneficial partners are favoured in direct relation to the amount of resources received4–7.

Now, Kiers et al.8 claim that we have misunderstood biological market theory and evolutionary theory more generally, and provide six arguments challenging our view (see Supplementary Information for our point-by-point response to each argument). We do not disagree that reciprocally rewarded resource exchange exists under some conditions and with some symbiotic partners. However, as a universal model for resource exchange, this theory is too simplistic; numerous studies have shown that resources can be delivered to symbiotic partners without reciprocal rewards9–13 and even in the absence of any experienced benefit14,15. It seems that the proportionality of resource exchange is highly dependent on environmental conditions and the identity of the interacting symbionts11,16–18. Factors such as functional diversity and sink strength have a big impact on resource exchange (and its direction), and this is largely ignored in market-type exchange models.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Smith, S. E. & Read, D. J. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis (Academic, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  2. van der Heijden, M. G. A., Martin, F. M., Selosse, M.-A. & Sanders, I. R. New Phytol. 205, 1406–1423 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Walder, F. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. Nature Plants 1, 15159 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Noë, R. & Hammerstein, P. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35, 1–11 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kiers, E. T. et al. Science 333, 880–882 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wyatt, G. A. K., Kiers, E. T., Gardner, A. & West, S. A. Evolution 68, 2603–2618 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Werner, G. D. A. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 1237–1244 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kiers, E. T. et al. Nature Plants 2, 16063 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Olsson, P. A., Rahm, J. & Aliasgharzad, N. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 72, 123–131 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Field, K. J. et al. Nature Commun. 3, 835 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Walder, F. et al. Plant Physiol. 159, 789–797 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Field, K. J. et al. ISME J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.204 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang, H., Ziegler, W., Han, X., Trumbore, S. & Hartmann, H. Plant Soil 396, 369–380 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cameron, D. D., Johnson, I., Read, D. J. & Leake, J. R. New Phytol. 180, 176–184 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Veiga, R. S. L., Jansa, J., Frossard, E. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. PLoS ONE 6, 1–10 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, N. C. New Phytol. 185, 631–647 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ravnskov, S. & Jakobsen, I. New Phytol. 129, 611–618 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith, S. E., Smith, F. A. & Jakobsen, I. New Phytol. 162, 511–524 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zheng, C., Ji, B., Zhang, J., Zhang, F. S. & Bever, J. D. New Phytol. 205, 361–368 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bever, J. D. New Phytol. 205, 1503–1514 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lendenmann, M. et al. Mycorrhiza 21, 689–702 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Field, K. J. et al. New Phytol. 205, 1492–1502 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Katie Field (Univ. Leeds, UK) for helpful discussion. This work was supported by Agroscope, the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. 143097) and the EU project OSCAR.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plant–Soil Interactions, Institute for Sustainability Sciences, Agroscope, Zürich, 8046, Switzerland

    Marcel G. A. van der Heijden & Florian Walder

  2. Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zürich, Zürich, 8057, Switzerland

    Marcel G. A. van der Heijden

  3. Plant–Microbe Interactions, Institute of Environmental Biology, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 3584 CH, the Netherlands

    Marcel G. A. van der Heijden

Authors
  1. Marcel G. A. van der Heijden
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Walder
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Marcel G. A. van der Heijden or Florian Walder.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Heijden, M., Walder, F. Reply to ‘Misconceptions on the application of biological market theory to the mycorrhizal symbiosis’. Nature Plants 2, 16062 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.62

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.62

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing