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.
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).
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?
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.
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).
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?
Thanks for this, Gabe.
Timely, for me, anyway--I'm just finalizing my latest Substack where I mention Simard's work! Thank you for this.