One thing I've noticed that in response to The Last of Us, where fungi are particularly nasty, there have been a number of articles coming out to reassure the public that fungi are beneficial and provide many desirable services. In The Last of Us story, fungi have been portrayed as unkind and there has been a rather quick narrative correction. This response seems to be quite different than when fungi were portrayed as benevolent servants of trees (i.e., the wood-wide web), where I didn't see much questioning of the veracity of the story. Two stories about fungi, one necessitated reassuring the public of the 'goodness' of fungi, the other encouraged public acquiescence to a 'good' story about fungi.
Interesting comment, thank you. I know I should have found a way to incorporate The Last of Us into my post but I have to admit I haven't seen it! (I rarely watch TV.)
Thank you for this post, Gabe. It is good to be grounded in the scientific facts, while being open to the possibility that there are even greater discoveries waiting to be found. I will admit to embracing the broader narratives presented in the “wood-wide web” hypothesis perhaps too quickly and enthusiastically since they nicely support my underlying hope that the entire living planet might be in some sort of cooperative communication. The science will come, it will take time, and it may not be conclusive or fit into any convenient narrative. Meanwhile, let’s try to keep at least some of the forests, grasslands, and intact ecosystems alive and functioning. Helping people to see value in the mostly invisible world below their feet seems like a good place to start. Is that “bending science” for the greater good? Should we wait until the definitive and final analysis is agreed upon to actually save the forests?
Let's also not forget that there are grasslands, home to another mycorrhizal type (the arbuscular mycorrhiza, a different kind of association to the one in a lot of forests, which are often ectomycorrhizal in the temperate zone). While some of the same questions remain, for these fungi, which are obligate biotrophs (that is, they need a living host to complete their life cycle), it just makes sense to connect to as many hosts as possible - their only source of carbon. No doubt do we have a network there. In fact, fungi are inevitably a network, since this is the way they grow. The question of dispute is one about the tightness and directness of the connection among plant hosts (a point that I think is given exaggerated importance).
Who financed this research? Who pays for these scientists projects? This information should be published next to the names of the authors as it is highly suspect. Evidence of plant communication and collaboration is available from sources all over the world, suggesting it relies on a few experiments in Canada is either lazy or a lie.
Richard, you are so far above me in life and understanding (and everything in life for that matter) that I read your many.enjoyable articles with both interest and pleasure. However, I have to admit that while much of it is enlightening, much of it has difficulty in penetrating my only recently nature-activated brain. I have to admit that I have never heard the phrase 'Wood-wide Web' before I read your recent article.
Excellent piece - thanks. As an actual biologist I have beeb frustrated by so many people falling all over this theory. It's good to have some pointed questions asked. I shall be sharing your thoughts with the merchants of woo.
One thing I've noticed that in response to The Last of Us, where fungi are particularly nasty, there have been a number of articles coming out to reassure the public that fungi are beneficial and provide many desirable services. In The Last of Us story, fungi have been portrayed as unkind and there has been a rather quick narrative correction. This response seems to be quite different than when fungi were portrayed as benevolent servants of trees (i.e., the wood-wide web), where I didn't see much questioning of the veracity of the story. Two stories about fungi, one necessitated reassuring the public of the 'goodness' of fungi, the other encouraged public acquiescence to a 'good' story about fungi.
Interesting comment, thank you. I know I should have found a way to incorporate The Last of Us into my post but I have to admit I haven't seen it! (I rarely watch TV.)
Hmm. Almost as if... The fungi were controlling the narrative somehow...
Thank you for this post, Gabe. It is good to be grounded in the scientific facts, while being open to the possibility that there are even greater discoveries waiting to be found. I will admit to embracing the broader narratives presented in the “wood-wide web” hypothesis perhaps too quickly and enthusiastically since they nicely support my underlying hope that the entire living planet might be in some sort of cooperative communication. The science will come, it will take time, and it may not be conclusive or fit into any convenient narrative. Meanwhile, let’s try to keep at least some of the forests, grasslands, and intact ecosystems alive and functioning. Helping people to see value in the mostly invisible world below their feet seems like a good place to start. Is that “bending science” for the greater good? Should we wait until the definitive and final analysis is agreed upon to actually save the forests?
Just speaking for myself, I've never needed to believe in the wood-wide web to feel that trees and forests are important and worth protecting.
Thanks for this excellent post!
Let's also not forget that there are grasslands, home to another mycorrhizal type (the arbuscular mycorrhiza, a different kind of association to the one in a lot of forests, which are often ectomycorrhizal in the temperate zone). While some of the same questions remain, for these fungi, which are obligate biotrophs (that is, they need a living host to complete their life cycle), it just makes sense to connect to as many hosts as possible - their only source of carbon. No doubt do we have a network there. In fact, fungi are inevitably a network, since this is the way they grow. The question of dispute is one about the tightness and directness of the connection among plant hosts (a point that I think is given exaggerated importance).
Thanks Matthias! Excellent points.
Thanks for this, Gabe.
Why not follow the latest results:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4497361/
https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-mycorrhizal-fungi-cooperate.html
and I could fill pages with links...
Who financed this research? Who pays for these scientists projects? This information should be published next to the names of the authors as it is highly suspect. Evidence of plant communication and collaboration is available from sources all over the world, suggesting it relies on a few experiments in Canada is either lazy or a lie.
So who is paying you, Gabe?
Richard, you are so far above me in life and understanding (and everything in life for that matter) that I read your many.enjoyable articles with both interest and pleasure. However, I have to admit that while much of it is enlightening, much of it has difficulty in penetrating my only recently nature-activated brain. I have to admit that I have never heard the phrase 'Wood-wide Web' before I read your recent article.
In 2023? Where do you live? Canada?
Excellent piece - thanks. As an actual biologist I have beeb frustrated by so many people falling all over this theory. It's good to have some pointed questions asked. I shall be sharing your thoughts with the merchants of woo.
How about taking a look at the science involved?
Timely, for me, anyway--I'm just finalizing my latest Substack where I mention Simard's work! Thank you for this.
Glad it was helpful!
Why not follow the latest results:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4497361/
https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-mycorrhizal-fungi-cooperate.html
and I could fill pages with links...