Amaranthus, M.P. and Perry, D.A. 1989. Interaction effects of vegetation type and Pacific madrone soil inocula on survival, growth, and mycorrhiza formation of Douglas fir. Can. J. For. Res. 19: 550 - 556

The authors attempt to make definitive conclusions based on weak and inconsistent data. Some of their methodology is vague as well.

Bentley, B. 1977. Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 8: 407 - 427

Excellent development and support for the hypothesis on the mutualistic relationship between extrafloral nectaries and ants. Good up-to-date survey of the research testing this hypothesis.

Bertness, M. D. and Callaway, R. 1994. Positive interactions in communities. TREE 9(5): 191-193.

To the point. They address the pitfall of ecologists who have fallen into considering competition as the only viable relationship in communities. They reasonably suggest that positive interactions are more probable than competition in the evolution and structure of communities.

Bronstein, J. 1994. Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. TREE 9(6): 214 - 217.

Great ideas. She re-evaluates the standard grid used to depict interspecific interactions by placing these relationships on a continuum. She bases this continuum on energy output by individuals over a spatial and temporal scale thus re-defining the whole concept of community relationships. Very clever.

Carroll, G. 1988. Fungal endophytes in stems and leaves: From latent pathogen to mutualistic symbiont. Ecology 60(1): 2 - 9.

A clear and comprehensive literature review. Proposed interesting ideas, based on this review, for explaining evolution of endophytic mutualisms.

Clay, K. 1988. Fungal endophytes of grasses: A defensive mutualism between plants and fungi. Ecology 69(1): 10-16.

Dry , but a quick read. A reasonable introduction to the subject of endophytes and their proposed role in community structure.

Dodds, W. 1988. Community structure and selection for positive or negative species interactions. Oikos 53: 387 - 390.

It would help to be mathematically inclined in order to follow the methods. However, the general concept was clear as were the unpresumptuous conclusions.

Francis, R. and Read, D.J. 1995. Mutualism and antagonism in the mychorrhizal symbiosis, with special reference to impacts on plant community structure. Can. J. Bot. 73 (Suppl. 1): S1301 - S1309.

A good paper to counter the on-going concept that mycorrhizae are strictly mutualistic. They challenge the perspective on the role of mycorrhizae in determining community structure.

Hacker, S. D. and Bertness, M. D. 1996. Trophic consequences of a positive plant interaction. Amer. Nat. 148(3): 559 - 575.

The original intent of the study was clear. They address issues and the possible ramifications of positive interactions between 2 species at higher trophic levels in a community. But, they use their results to predict other community patterns which their data is not equipped to do. Other points in the paper were vague as well.

Hay, M. E. 1986. Associational plant defenses and the maintenance of species diversity: Turing competitors into accomplices. Amer. Nat. 128(5): 617 - 641.

Generally an excellent paper and excellent study challenging the misconception that competition and predation are the primary interactions in community organization. He is straight forward in both his purpose as well as his actual research. His methodology is systematic and concise, as he tests for alternative explanations of his results. Basically, he leaves no stone unturned.

Hunter, A.F. and Aarssen, L. W. 1988. Plants helping plants. Bioscience 38(1): 34 - 40.

A good overview and history about mutualism. It is direct, organized, and comprehensive albeit a bit simple.

Peres, C.A. and van Roosmalen, G.M. 1996. Avian dispersal of "mimetic seeds" of Ormosia lignivalvis by terrestrial granivores: deception or mutualism? Oikos 75: 249 - 258.

It is encouraging to read about research that challenges accepted assumptions, in this case that "mimetic seeds" are non-mutualistic with avian granivores. However, some of their data to suggest that these seeds are not mimetic, and that the avian relationship is mutualistic, does not seem strong enough to support their challenge. Perhaps they stretch the definition of mutualism a bit far. Hence, presently I am not convinced that the avian/seed relationship is mutualistic.

Pirozynski, K.A. 1981. Interactions between fungi and plants through the ages. Can. J. Bot. 59: 1824 - 1827.

A quick but interesting survey on the possible obligate relationship between plants and fungi that could have led to the development of terrestrial plants. Although somewhat speculative, it is tantalizing nonetheless.

Pugnaire, F.I. and Haase, P. 1996. Facilitation between higher plant species in a semiarid environment. Ecology 77(5): 1420 - 1426.

A clear documentation of a facultative mutualism. The researchers chose to do their study in a natural environment as opposed to a manipulative experiment, and succeeded in supporting the on-going theory that positive interactions can determine pattern and structure in plant communities.

White, J. F. Jr. 1988. Endophyte-host associations in forage grasses. XI. A proposal concerning origin and evolution. Mycologia 80(4): 442 - 446.

He considers that the coevolution of grasses with endophytes could lead to a mutualistic relationship between them. This article is very speculative and although the author admits this, sometimes his arguments for his predications are more ardent than his data supports.

Wulff, J. L. 1997. Mutualisms among species of coral reef sponges. Ecology 78(1): 146 - 159.

This is a very interesting study. The questions, methods, and results are clear and appropriate. The conclusions truly reflect the data as does her hypothesis on the evolutionary cause for these coral reef associations.