Positive citation bias and overinterpreted results lead to misinformation on common mycorrhizal networks in forests.

A common mycorrhizal network (CMN) is formed when mycorrhizal fungal hyphae connect the roots of multiple plants of the same or different species belowground. Recently, CMNs have captured the interest of broad audiences, especially with respect to forest function and management. We are concerned, however, that recent claims in the popular media about CMNs in forests are disconnected from evidence, and that bias towards citing positive effects of CMNs has developed in the scientific literature. We first evaluated the evidence supporting three common claims. The claims that CMNs are widespread in forests and that resources are transferred through CMNs to increase seedling performance are insufficiently supported because results from field studies vary too widely, have alternative explanations or are too limited to support generalizations. The claim that mature trees preferentially send resources and defence signals to offspring through CMNs has no peer-reviewed, published evidence. We next examined how the results from CMN research are cited and found that unsupported claims have doubled in the past 25 years; a bias towards citing positive effects may obscure our understanding of the structure and function of CMNs in forests. We conclude that knowledge on CMNs is presently too sparse and unsettled to inform forest management.