5 ms·

Sounds more symbiotic than parasitic.

by buzuli 2y ago

culi 2y ago
This is a big problem in botany. Plants and fungi have a large variety of chemical and biological interactions that is rarely able to be summed up as "parasitic", "mutualistic", "commensal", "symbiotic", or otherwise. Lots of "parasitic plants" have immense benefits to their "hosts". Some examples: - dodder plants can act as above-ground mycorrhizal networks in the sense that they allow plants (even of different species) to alert each other of pests and other dangers - many parasitic plants produce fruit in the offseason of their host that keeps the hosts primary pollinators alive during that season; ultimately benefitting the host by keep its pollinator alive - ghost pipes can produce phytohormones that help its hosts grow faster and improve their immune system But generally in botany, when we label something as "parasitic" we are exclusively looking at its ability to photosynthesize. IMO it's an archaic and very misleading term since so many "parasitic plants" are crucial ecological partners but that's just the working definition
- krageon 2y ago
  So you're saying it can definitely be classified this way, it's just not done properly
  - culi 2y ago
    I don't think you get what I'm saying. This IS the way it's classified. Looking purely at ability to photosynthesize. I'm pointing out that while this might be a simple way to classify, it's pretty pointless for the main thing we're trying to understand: ecological dependencies. Worse than pointless, it's downright misleading and can often lead people astray with assumptions about the benefits/harms coexisting plants can cause each other
pierrec 2y ago
Ah yes, if only that was addressed in the article. I would even make the very first sentence about this...
- Retric 2y ago
  Or they could have read the article and be arguing that a relationship with one side helping the other when necessary doesn’t fit theft. A plant maximizing growth might then be able to supply more energy in the future. Assuming the fungi had an abundance of energy it might also prefer a long term strategy.
01100011 2y ago
Yeah I think something like a snowflower, which I believe has totally lost the ability to photosynthesize, is a better definition of a parasite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcodes?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcodes?wprov=sfla1
tsimionescu 2y ago
The difference should normally be judged based on the shared advantage. If two organisms share nutrients, the question of whether the relationship is symbiotic or parasitic relies on whether both organisms benefit overall, or only one. Even if the orchid provides sugars to the fungus, you still have to compare the fungus to others that live independently of the orchid and check which is better off. The orchid is clearly better off, per the article - orchids which don't live in touch with these wood fungi are smaller and less successful. But are fungi which consume wood separately from the orchids worse off or better off than the ones that exchange nutrients with an orchid? For example, if a tapeworm living in a human also provided some small advantage, say it killed off certain kinds of problematic bacteria, it would still be considered a parasite and not a symbiote: humans without a tapeworm live better than those with a tapeworm, overall, even if the tapeworm has some tiny beneficial effects beyond the nutrients it siphons off.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- themgt 2y ago
  Yeah there was a famous blog of some guy who went to Africa and intentionally gave himself a soil worm to cure IBD. Apparently some evidence for it: Intentionally infecting yourself with parasites may sound like an extreme way to treat intestinal distress, but the idea is not without scientific merit. Epidemiologic studies have shown that people who live in countries where soil-dwelling parasites like whipworm are prevalent tend not to develop inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, an umbrella term for chronic conditions of the digestive tract. Given all that—and the fact that the only other treatment options for this individual were a colectomy or a grueling regimen of immunosuppressive drugs—Dr. Loke says, “Parasitic worms probably didn’t seem so bad.” Intrigued by the patient’s apparent turnaround, Dr. Loke and his colleagues took a closer look at his intestines. Their observations—which were published in 2010, when Dr. Loke had joined the faculty at NYU Langone as associate professor of microbiology—revealed that the worms were boosting intestinal mucus. But why would a flood of mucus quell the symptoms of IBD? Now a follow-up study in mice—recently published in Science—offers a fascinating clue: gut bacteria. https://nyulangone.org/news/parasitic-worms-unsung-heroes-fight-against-inflammatory-bowel-disease https://nyulangone.org/news/parasitic-worms-unsung-heroes-fi...

Sounds more symbiotic than parasitic.

by buzuli 2y ago

Sounds more symbiotic than parasitic.

culi 2y ago

This is a big problem in botany. Plants and fungi have a large variety of chemical and biological interactions that is rarely able to be summed up as "parasitic", "mutualistic", "commensal", "symbiotic", or otherwise. Lots of "parasitic plants" have immense benefits to their "hosts". Some examples: - dodder plants can act as above-ground mycorrhizal networks in the sense that they allow plants (even of different species) to alert each other of pests and other dangers - many parasitic plants produce fruit in the offseason of their host that keeps the hosts primary pollinators alive during that season; ultimately benefitting the host by keep its pollinator alive - ghost pipes can produce phytohormones that help its hosts grow faster and improve their immune system But generally in botany, when we label something as "parasitic" we are exclusively looking at its ability to photosynthesize. IMO it's an archaic and very misleading term since so many "parasitic plants" are crucial ecological partners but that's just the working definition

krageon 2y ago
So you're saying it can definitely be classified this way, it's just not done properly
- culi 2y ago
  I don't think you get what I'm saying. This IS the way it's classified. Looking purely at ability to photosynthesize. I'm pointing out that while this might be a simple way to classify, it's pretty pointless for the main thing we're trying to understand: ecological dependencies. Worse than pointless, it's downright misleading and can often lead people astray with assumptions about the benefits/harms coexisting plants can cause each other

pierrec 2y ago

Ah yes, if only that was addressed in the article. I would even make the very first sentence about this...

Retric 2y ago
Or they could have read the article and be arguing that a relationship with one side helping the other when necessary doesn’t fit theft. A plant maximizing growth might then be able to supply more energy in the future. Assuming the fungi had an abundance of energy it might also prefer a long term strategy.

01100011 2y ago

Yeah I think something like a snowflower, which I believe has totally lost the ability to photosynthesize, is a better definition of a parasite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcodes?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcodes?wprov=sfla1

tsimionescu 2y ago

The difference should normally be judged based on the shared advantage. If two organisms share nutrients, the question of whether the relationship is symbiotic or parasitic relies on whether both organisms benefit overall, or only one. Even if the orchid provides sugars to the fungus, you still have to compare the fungus to others that live independently of the orchid and check which is better off. The orchid is clearly better off, per the article - orchids which don't live in touch with these wood fungi are smaller and less successful. But are fungi which consume wood separately from the orchids worse off or better off than the ones that exchange nutrients with an orchid? For example, if a tapeworm living in a human also provided some small advantage, say it killed off certain kinds of problematic bacteria, it would still be considered a parasite and not a symbiote: humans without a tapeworm live better than those with a tapeworm, overall, even if the tapeworm has some tiny beneficial effects beyond the nutrients it siphons off.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
themgt 2y ago
Yeah there was a famous blog of some guy who went to Africa and intentionally gave himself a soil worm to cure IBD. Apparently some evidence for it: Intentionally infecting yourself with parasites may sound like an extreme way to treat intestinal distress, but the idea is not without scientific merit. Epidemiologic studies have shown that people who live in countries where soil-dwelling parasites like whipworm are prevalent tend not to develop inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, an umbrella term for chronic conditions of the digestive tract. Given all that—and the fact that the only other treatment options for this individual were a colectomy or a grueling regimen of immunosuppressive drugs—Dr. Loke says, “Parasitic worms probably didn’t seem so bad.” Intrigued by the patient’s apparent turnaround, Dr. Loke and his colleagues took a closer look at his intestines. Their observations—which were published in 2010, when Dr. Loke had joined the faculty at NYU Langone as associate professor of microbiology—revealed that the worms were boosting intestinal mucus. But why would a flood of mucus quell the symptoms of IBD? Now a follow-up study in mice—recently published in Science—offers a fascinating clue: gut bacteria. https://nyulangone.org/news/parasitic-worms-unsung-heroes-fight-against-inflammatory-bowel-disease https://nyulangone.org/news/parasitic-worms-unsung-heroes-fi...