Back

The evolution of signalling and eavesdropping in plant-fungal networks

Scott, T. W.; Kiers, E. T.; West, S. A.

2024-08-17 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2024.08.15.608109 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Experiments have shown that when one plant is attacked by a pathogen or herbivore, this can lead to other plants connected to the same mycorrhizal network upregulating their defence mechanisms. It has been hypothesised that this represents signalling, with attacked plants producing a signal to warn other plants of impending harm. We examined the evolutionary plausibility of this and other hypotheses theoretically. We found that the evolution of plant signalling about an attack requires restrictive conditions, and so will rarely be evolutionarily stable. The problem is that signalling about an attack provides a benefit to competing neighbours, even if they are kin, and so reduces the relative fitness of signalling plants. Indeed, selection is often more likely to push plant behaviour in the opposite direction - with plants signalling dishonestly about an attack that has not occurred, or by suppressing a cue that they have been attacked. Instead, we show that there are two viable alternatives that could explain the empirical data: (1) the process of being attacked leads to a cue (information about the attack) which is too costly for the attacked plant to fully suppress; (2) mycorrhizal fungi monitor their host plants, detect when they are attacked, and then the fungi signal this information to warn other plants in their network. Our results suggest the empirical work that would be required to distinguish between these possibilities. Significance statementExperiments have shown that when one plant is attacked by a herbivore, this can lead to other plants connected to the same mycorrhizal network upregulating their defence mechanisms. It has been hypothesised that this represents signalling, with attacked plants producing a signal to warn other plants of impending harm. We found theoretically that plant warning signals are rarely evolutionarily stable. Instead, we identify two viable alternatives that could explain the empirical data: (1) being attacked leads to a cue (information about the attack) which is too costly for the attacked plant to suppress; (2) mycorrhizal fungi monitor their host plants, detect when they are attacked, and then the fungi signal this information to warn other plants in their network.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
25.4%
2
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.2%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 10%
6.7%
4
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.3%
5
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 14%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
7
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
8
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.8%
9
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
10
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
11
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.9%
12
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
13
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.7%
16
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
17
Nature Plants
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
18
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.3%
19
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
21
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
PLOS Pathogens
721 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
25
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.7%
26
Evolutionary Ecology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
27
Functional Ecology
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%