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:

Misconceptions on the application of biological market theory to the mycorrhizal symbiosis

Nature Plants volume 2, Article number: 16063 (2016) Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — The symbiosis between plants and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi has been described as a biological market based on evidence that plants supply more carbohydrates to fungal partners that provide more soil nutrients, and vice versa1–4. A recent paper by Walder and van der Heijden challenges this view5. However, their challenge is based on misunderstandings of biological market theory, and evolutionary theory more generally.

First, their claim that biological market theory requires (or assumes) tightly coupled direct resource exchange is incorrect. All that is required is that individuals have a preference, on average, for interacting with more beneficial partners6–9. Biological market theory makes no claim on understanding (proximate) mechanisms of transfer processes. Instead, the aim of biological market theory is to address ultimate questions such as why partnerships remain stable over evolutionary time, even in the presence of less beneficial partners. Its usefulness lies in predicting how these exchanges will be affected by context, such as varying environmental conditions7,8,10–12.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

References

  1. Bever, J. D., Richardson, S. C., Lawrence, B. M., Holmes, J. & Watson, M. Ecol. Lett. 12, 13–21 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fellbaum, C. R. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2666–2671 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fellbaum, C. R. et al. New Phytol. 203, 646–656 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Steidinger, B. S. & Bever, J. D. Am. Nat. 183, 762–70 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Werner, G. D. A. & Kiers, E. T. New Phytol. 205, 1437–1442 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson, N. C. New Phytol. 185, 631–47 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Song, Z. & Feldman, M. W. Theor. Popul. Biol. 88, 20–30 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Foster, K. R. & Kokko, H. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 273, 2233–2239 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoeksema, J. D. et al. Ecol. Lett. 13, 394–407 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Frank, S. A. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 1245–1250 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. West, S. A., Griffin, A. S. & Gardner, A. Curr. Biol. 17, R661–R672 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ghoul, M., Griffin, A. S. & West, S. A. Evolution 68, 318–331 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gutjahr C. & Parniske M. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 29, 593–617 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kummel, M. & Salant, S. W. Ecology 87, 892–902 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Argüello, A. et al. Ecol. Lett. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ele.12601 (2016).

  22. Verbruggen, E. et al. Am. Nat. 179, E133–E146 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Steidinger, B. S. & Bever, J. D. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20152428 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Grman, E. Ecology 93, 711–718 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwartz, M. W. & Hoeksema, J. D. Ecology 79, 1029–1038 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Rillig (Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) for useful discussion. Financial support was provided by European Research Council ERC Grant Agreement 335542 (E.T.K.), NSF-IOS award 10513997 (H.B) and Natural Environment Research Council NE/K009524/1 (A.G.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecological Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1085, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands

    E. Toby Kiers & Gijsbert D. A. Werner

  2. Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK

    Stuart A. West & Gregory A. K. Wyatt

  3. School of Biology, University of St Andrews, Dyers Brae, St Andrews, KY16 9TH, UK

    Andy Gardner

  4. Biology and Microbiology Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, 57007, South Dakota, USA

    Heike Bücking

Authors
  1. E. Toby Kiers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stuart A. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregory A. K. Wyatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andy Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Heike Bücking
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gijsbert D. A. Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Toby Kiers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kiers, E., West, S., Wyatt, G. et al. Misconceptions on the application of biological market theory to the mycorrhizal symbiosis. Nature Plants 2, 16063 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.63

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.63

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