Hubbry Logo
FungaFungaMain
Open search
Funga
Community hub
Funga
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Funga
Funga
Funga
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
The 3Fs Initiative: Fauna, Flora, Funga

Funga is all the fungi of a particular region, habitat, or geological period. In life sciences, "funga" is a recent term (2000s) for the kingdom Fungi similar to the longstanding fauna for animals and flora for plants. The term seeks to simplify projects oriented toward implementation of educational and conservation goals. It highlights parallel terminology referring to treatments of these macroorganisms in particular geographical areas. An official proposal for the term occurred in 2018, despite previous use.[1][2]

The Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in August 2021 called for the recognition of fungi as one of three kingdoms of life, and critical to protecting and restoring Earth. Funga was recommended by the IUCN in 2021. They ask that the phrase animals and plants be replaced by animals, fungi, and plants, and fauna and flora by fauna, flora, and funga.[3][4]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Funga

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Funga denotes the assemblage of fungal inhabiting a particular , , or geological period, proposed as a parallel to flora for plants and fauna for animals to recognize fungi as a distinct kingdom essential to inventories. The term addresses the historical exclusion of fungi from " and " frameworks, which originated with Carl Linnaeus's focus on plants and animals, by providing a dedicated descriptor for fungal communities that underscores their unique ecological contributions, such as , mycorrhizal symbioses with over 80% of , and roles in cycling and . Coined by mycologists including Giuliana Furci around 2018, funga has been formalized in peer-reviewed literature and adopted in conservation to promote policies accounting for fungal diversity, with endorsements from entities like the highlighting its utility in elevating fungi's status amid threats like loss and . While alternatives like mycoflora persist in some contexts, funga's emergence reflects growing empirical recognition of fungi's causal impacts on stability, independent of plant or animal dynamics.

Definition and Etymology

Definition

Funga denotes the collective diversity of fungal communities—encompassing species of mushrooms, molds, yeasts, and other fungi—present within a specific geographical region or across a defined time period, serving as the mycological parallel to flora (plants) and fauna (animals). This terminology underscores fungi's status as an independent kingdom in biological classification, separate from plants, thereby avoiding the misleading implications of "mycoflora," which evokes plant-like associations despite fungi's heterotrophic nutrition and chitin-based cell walls. The adoption of funga facilitates standardized biodiversity inventories and highlights fungi's critical roles in decomposition, nutrient cycling, and symbiotic relationships, with global fungal species estimates exceeding 2 million, though fewer than 150,000 have been formally described as of 2018. By integrating funga into frameworks like "Fauna, Flora & Funga" (FF&F), it promotes equitable recognition in conservation policies, addressing historical biases toward macroscopic plants and animals in ecological assessments.

Etymology

The term funga is a neologism coined in 2018 to designate the diversity of fungal species within a specific geographic area, paralleling flora (plants) and fauna (animals). It derives from the Latin fungus (meaning "mushroom" or "sponge-like growth"), with the ending adjusted to conform to the feminine singular nominative form of the first declension in Latin, ensuring grammatical consistency alongside its botanical and zoological analogs. This adaptation emphasizes fungi's distinct biological kingdom status, separated from plants since the late 1960s, rather than implying a direct etymological root in classical Latin nomenclature. The proposal originated primarily among Latin American mycologists, who formalized it in a peer-reviewed article advocating for its use in systematic descriptions and conservation contexts. Prior terms like mycota had been suggested but rejected due to overlap with taxonomic for the fungal kingdom itself. While adopted in some mycological and policy discussions, the term has faced critique for deviating from traditional Linnaean patterns and potential phonetic confusion, though its etymological intent remains tied to elevating fungal enumeration.

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Conceptual Foundations

In ancient Greece, Theophrastus (c. 371–287 BCE), successor to Aristotle at the Lyceum, provided one of the earliest systematic descriptions of fungi in his Enquiry into Plants. He characterized fungi, including mushrooms and truffles, as anomalous plants lacking differentiated organs such as roots, stems, branches, leaves, flowers, or fruits, while observing their emergence from moist, decaying substrates and their rapid, seasonal growth without visible seeds. This empirical notation of fungi's morphological peculiarities—distinct from both vascular plants and animals—laid rudimentary groundwork for conceptualizing them as a separate biological category, though still subsumed under botany due to their sessile, non-motile nature. During the Roman era, (23–79 CE) expanded on these observations in , attributing fungal origins to "slime and the souring juice of the damp ground" or exudates from acorn-bearing tree roots, often triggered by rain, thunder, or lightning. He cataloged diverse types, differentiating edible boleti from toxic varieties based on color, , and effects—such as the fatal poisoning of Emperor Claudius in 54 CE via species—and emphasized testing edibility through animal trials or serpent hibernation cues. These accounts, grounded in direct environmental correlations rather than abstract theory, reinforced fungi's perceived independence from standard plant reproduction, aligning with notions prevalent until the , yet highlighting their ecological specificity and risks. Medieval European perspectives perpetuated theories, viewing fungi as arising abruptly from decaying , thunderstruck soil, or humid vapors, as echoed in herbal compendia like those of (1098–1179 CE), who described mushrooms as earthy excrescences with variable medicinal or poisonous properties. Folklore intertwined fungi with the supernatural—fairy rings from Marasmius oreades symbolizing portals or dances, and ergot () causing "St. Anthony's Fire" epidemics from contaminated rye, linking fungal outbreaks to divine or demonic causation by the 9th–13th centuries. Such views, while empirically limited by absent , preserved distinctions from through fungi's immobility and from via non-photosynthetic, saprophytic habits, fostering proto-concepts of fungal uniqueness amid practical and avoidance documented in monastic records.

Coining and Formal Proposal

The term funga was originally coined in 2000 by Danish mycologist Kent Gravesen to delimit and define the fungal taxa occurring in a specific , as applied in descriptive treatments of Danish fungi. A formal proposal to validate and standardize funga as the term for the diversity of fungal communities in a given area, , or geological period was initiated during the IX Congreso Latinoamericano de Micología held in , , in 2017. This proposal was elaborated and published on December 1, 2018, in IMA Fungus by Francisco Kuhar, Giuliana Furci, Elisandro Ricardo Drechsler-Santos, Donald H. Pfister, and additional co-authors from institutions including the Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (Argentina), the Fungi Foundation (Chile), and Harvard University (USA). The authors advocated for funga to parallel flora (plants) and fauna (animals) in systematic, descriptive, and conservation-oriented contexts, introducing the "Fauna, Flora & Funga" (FF&F) framework to emphasize equivalent recognition of fungal assemblages. They rejected alternatives like mycota due to its potential synonymy with the kingdom Fungi as a whole, arguing that funga—derived from Latin fungus without the taxonomic implications of Greek mykes—provides clearer, non-ambiguous delineation for regional fungal inventories. The proposal underscored the need for such terminology to address underrepresentation of fungi in assessments, , and , positioning funga as essential for comprehensive descriptions rather than mere .

Early Adoption in

The term funga was first coined in 2000 by Danish researcher Suzanne Gravesen to designate the collective fungal taxa present within a defined geographic region, paralleling the concepts of flora for and fauna for animals. This initial proposal emerged in the context of documenting microfungal diversity, particularly in relation to indoor environments and aerobiology, where Gravesen's work focused on viable airborne fungi and their ecological distributions. An early milestone in mycological adoption occurred in 2008 with the publication of Funga Nordica: Agaricoid, boletoid, and cyphelloid genera, edited by Henning Knudsen and Jan Vesterholt, which employed funga in its title to describe a systematic of over 2,000 fungal across , including , , , , and . This 1,200-page volume, produced by the Nordic Mycological Society (Nordsvamp), represented the first major regional fungal to integrate the term, emphasizing macroscopic fungi and providing keys, descriptions, and distribution data based on extensive field collections and records from the region. The adoption here underscored funga's utility for descriptive , though its use remained limited to specialized Nordic literature at the time, reflecting a gradual integration into professional mycological practice rather than immediate widespread endorsement. Prior to broader international debate in the , funga saw sporadic application in European mycological contexts, such as preliminary regional checklists, but lacked standardized definition, leading to calls for formal delimitation to ensure consistency in assessments. This phase of early adoption highlighted mycologists' recognition of fungi's distinct ecological roles, distinct from plants, yet the term's novelty prompted caution amid ongoing taxonomic refinements in fungal classification.

Ecological and Biological Context

Fungi as a Distinct Kingdom

Fungi were historically classified within the plant kingdom due to superficial similarities such as sessile growth and cell walls, but this grouping overlooked fundamental biological distinctions. Unlike plants, fungi lack chlorophyll and cannot perform photosynthesis, instead obtaining nutrients through heterotrophic absorption after extracellular enzymatic digestion. Their cell walls consist of chitin rather than cellulose, and their body structure comprises hyphae forming mycelia, contrasting with plants' roots, stems, and leaves. These differences prompted early taxonomists to question the plant affiliation, with formal separation proposed by Robert Whittaker in his 1969 five-kingdom classification system, which delineated , Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia based on cellular organization, multicellularity, and trophic modes. Whittaker's system elevated fungi to a distinct kingdom, recognizing their unique ecological roles as decomposers and symbionts rather than producers like plants. Molecular phylogenetic analyses have since confirmed fungi's separation, revealing closer genetic affinity to animals than , with divergence from the animal-plant lineage estimated at 1.4 to 0.9 billion years ago. This ancient split underscores fungi's independent evolutionary trajectory, supported by ribosomal sequencing that refutes morphology-based groupings. Consequently, fungi's kingdom status reflects not only nutritional and structural variances but also deep phylogenetic independence, justifying specialized terminologies like "funga" to denote fungal assemblages parallel to and .

Funga in Ecosystem Dynamics

Funga, representing the collective fungal organisms within an ecosystem, fundamentally shapes dynamics through decomposition, nutrient cycling, and symbiotic interactions. Fungi excel at breaking down complex organic compounds like lignin and cellulose, processes critical for recycling carbon and nutrients in terrestrial environments, where they account for a significant portion of litter decomposition. This saprotrophic activity sustains soil fertility and influences carbon sequestration, with fungal traits directly driving the deposition of recalcitrant carbon into soils. In forest ecosystems, wood-decaying fungi regulate deadwood dynamics, impacting habitat availability, biodiversity, and overall forest productivity. Mycorrhizal fungi, a major component of funga, form symbiotic associations with up to 90% of vascular plants, enhancing host and uptake while facilitating the transfer of photosynthetically fixed carbon to . These networks mediate dynamics by distributing plant-derived carbon into soil pores, influencing microbial communities and long-term carbon storage. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, in particular, modulate functioning by altering composition and resilience to stressors, with empirical studies showing that fungal diversity correlates with enhanced multifunctionality, such as simultaneous support for retention and primary productivity. Fungal communities contribute to stability by buffering against perturbations through mutualistic, pathogenic, and competitive interactions with and other organisms. In dynamic environments, keystone fungal species maintain resilience by regulating biogeochemical cycles and structures, as evidenced in long-term monitoring of fungal dynamics under varying conditions. Higher fungal diversity has been linked to greater stability in grasslands and forests, where it supports recovery from disturbances and sustains biodiversity- function relationships. These roles underscore funga's integral position in causal pathways of processes, from succession to resilience.

Empirical Evidence of Fungal Diversity

Approximately 157,000 fungal have been formally described as of 2025, representing a small fraction of global diversity based on empirical extrapolations from sampling and molecular . Estimates derived from ratios to species richness, adjusted for surveys and , place the total at 2.2 to 3.8 million species worldwide, with recent analyses converging on about 2.5 million. These figures stem from methods like high-throughput sequencing of , which has identified over 1 million non-singleton fungal operational taxonomic units at 97% sequence similarity across , underscoring extensive cryptic diversity beyond morphological descriptions. Soil and root-associated fungi exhibit particularly high richness, with metabarcoding surveys revealing thousands of taxa per sample in ecosystems like tropical forests and grasslands; for example, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alone show hotspots in regions such as the Neotropics and , where extrapolated richness exceeds 100,000 per . Deadwood habitats further demonstrate elevated diversity, with studies linking fungal richness to substrate heterogeneity and finding unimodal patterns where moderate variability maximizes counts, often yielding dozens of specialists per log in temperate forests. Latitudinal and elevational gradients reveal non-monotonic patterns, with peak diversity in mid-latitudes for certain due to climate-resource interactions, challenging uniform tropical bias in sampling. Annual discoveries average 2,500 new , primarily from understudied niches like lichens, endophytes, and aquatic environments, yet this pace implies centuries to catalog all extant forms given current risks from loss. Mycorrhizal fungal hotspots, comprising less than 10% overlap with protected areas, highlight spatial mismatches in diversity patterns, with empirical mapping via global DNA databases showing concentrations in boreal and subtropical zones vulnerable to land-use change. These data, drawn from peer-reviewed syntheses, emphasize fungi's underrepresented scale relative to and , with molecular evidence consistently outpacing traditional .

Adoption in Conservation and Policy

Promotion by Mycologists and Organizations

Mycologist Mark Brundrett and co-author Leho Tedersoo formally proposed the term "funga" in a 2018 peer-reviewed article published in IMA Fungus, arguing for its use to denote fungal community diversity distinct from and , based on fungi's unique ecological roles and the need to address underrepresentation in inventories. This proposal built on earlier terminological discussions in , emphasizing from fungal and studies showing fungi's independence as a kingdom. The Fungi Foundation, established by Chilean mycologist Giuliana Furci in 2016, has actively promoted "funga" through its Fauna, Flora, Funga (FFF) Initiative, which advocates for integrating fungal protections into national and international policies, including petitions for legal recognition in countries like and collaborations with legal clinics to amend frameworks. Furci, the first mycologist to receive the Conservation Leadership Award in 2022, has emphasized fungi's causal contributions to and nutrient cycling in public campaigns and educational programs. In 2021, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission (SSC) and Re:wild became the first major global organizations to endorse mycologically inclusive language, committing to recognize "" alongside and in assessments to better reflect empirical data on fungal risks, estimated at up to 20% of based on habitat loss models. The International Society for Fungal Conservation (ISFC), founded in 2010, supports this through global campaigns, awards, and congresses that highlight fungal conservation data, urging mycologists to prioritize "" in monitoring protocols. The Fungal Diversity Survey (FUNDIS), initiated on July 14, 2012, by a coalition of professional and amateur North American mycologists, promotes "funga" by aiming to compile comprehensive inventories of regional fungal , using and to generate verifiable datasets exceeding 10,000 records for underrepresented areas. Similarly, the North American Mycological Association (NAMA) references the FF&F proposal in its conservation resources, encouraging members to incorporate fungal diversity metrics in stewardship efforts, aligning with evidence from global fungal surveys indicating millions of undescribed . These efforts collectively address documented gaps in fungal , where only about 5-10% of estimated are cataloged, per phylogenetic analyses.

International Policy Integration

In October 2024, and the submitted a proposal to the 16th (COP16) to the (CBD), advocating for the recognition of fungi as an independent kingdom of termed "funga" in international legislation, policies, and agreements, distinct from and . This "Fungal Conservation Pledge" emphasized fungi's ecological roles in , nutrient cycling, and habitat support, urging CBD parties to prioritize fungal conservation within global biodiversity frameworks. The initiative built on the Fauna, Flora, Funga (FFF) campaign launched by the Fungi Foundation, which by March 2024 had garnered support from over 1,300 , researchers, and citizens across 77 to integrate fungal protection into environmental treaties. The International Mycological Association (IMA) and the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) endorsed the FFF approach, calling for fungi's explicit inclusion in biodiversity assessments and policy instruments to address knowledge gaps in fungal diversity and threats like habitat loss and climate change. Proponents argued that equating funga with flora and fauna would facilitate better monitoring, funding allocation, and legal protections under mechanisms like the CBD's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, which already acknowledges microorganisms but lacks specific fungal provisions. Despite these efforts, COP16 concluded without formal adoption of the pledge due to broader negotiation challenges, including failures to reach consensus on funding mechanisms, prompting advocates to target COP17 for further advancement. Ongoing international advocacy includes calls to extend fungal considerations to platforms like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on and Services (IPBES), where fungi's underrepresentation in reports has been critiqued as a barrier to holistic . National-level adoptions, such as Brazil's integration of funga into its Red Lists and policies by 2025, signal potential momentum for global harmonization, though empirical data on fungal threats remains limited compared to plants and animals. These developments reflect a shift toward causal recognition of fungi's foundational roles in , but full policy integration awaits verifiable progress in multilateral agreements.

Practical Applications in Restoration

In ecological restoration, fungal communities, or funga, are increasingly applied through techniques to enhance recovery and support establishment on degraded lands. Mycorrhizal fungi, which form symbiotic associations with up to 90% of vascular , facilitate uptake, particularly and , thereby improving survival and growth in nutrient-poor substrates common to restored sites such as post-mining areas or deforested zones. For instance, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) has been deployed to rebuild ecological support systems in severely disturbed ecosystems, optimizing fungal community assembly to accelerate habitat recovery. Practical implementations include microbiome transplants using native fungal-rich soil to restore forest ecosystems, as demonstrated in projects targeting former mine lands where biochar amendments combined with fungal inoculants promote tree regrowth and soil stabilization. In the United States, commercial-scale applications by entities like Funga PBC involve inoculating over 28,000 acres across 12 states with mycorrhizal consortia to boost tree growth rates and carbon sequestration in forestry operations, yielding faster biomass accumulation and enhanced biodiversity metrics. Similarly, in South American initiatives, native ectomycorrhizal fungi are recruited to aid the reintroduction of endangered tree species like black oak (Quercus humboldtii), where symbiotic partnerships improve transplant success in fragmented habitats. Brazilian environmental policies now mandate funga mitigation in impact assessments, incorporating ex situ conservation and restoration protocols to address fungal depletion from land-use changes. Empirical outcomes from these applications indicate improved restoration efficacy, with mycorrhizal inoculation linked to up to 40% gains in productivity and resilience to stressors like in analogous agricultural restorations, though site-specific variability persists due to heterogeneity and fungal compatibility. restoration efforts in have shown rapid increases in fungal abundance and diversity within years of seeding, correlating with enhanced belowground microbial networks that sustain long-term functions. Monitoring protocols, such as those in coastal dune restorations, emphasize tracking macrofungal indicators to evaluate funga recovery, underscoring the need for integrated assessments beyond aboveground vegetation metrics. Challenges include scaling native fungal sourcing while ensuring genetic matching to avoid inefficacy, but successes affirm funga-centric approaches as viable for multifunctional restoration outcomes like remediation and enhancement.

Criticisms and Scientific Debates

Linguistic and Terminological Critiques

The term funga, proposed in to denote the collective fungal diversity of a specific area analogous to and , has elicited terminological centered on its etymological construction and redundancy relative to established descriptors. Proponents argue that funga—derived from the Latin and fashioned as a feminine singular to align with the declensions of flora (from the goddess ) and fauna (from )—avoids the plant-like implications of mycoflora, the kingdom-level of mycota (often a for Fungi or a phylum suffix like ), and the Greek-rooted inconsistencies of mycobiota. This artificial , first attested in mycological literature around 2001 but delimited precisely in the proposal, is defended for its phonetic parallelism and potential to enhance communicative clarity in conservation contexts, despite lacking the mythological precedents of its counterparts. Critics within mycology have questioned the necessity of introducing funga, viewing it as an unnecessary innovation that competes with functional precedents like mycoflora (used for regional fungal inventories since the 19th century) and mycobiota, which already convey fungal assemblages without invoking the alliterative "three Fs" framework. The International Mycological Association's MycoNews publications have acknowledged ongoing contention over adoption, noting that funga, mycobiota, and mycoflora persist in rivalry, potentially fostering terminological fragmentation rather than standardization. Some observers highlight funga's modern fabrication as linguistically unrooted compared to flora and fauna's Latin traditions, arguing it prioritizes rhetorical appeal over taxonomic precision, though empirical usage data post-2018 shows gradual but uneven integration in peer-reviewed inventories.

Overemphasis on Fungal Uniqueness

Critics of the funga advocacy contend that narratives surrounding fungal ecology frequently exaggerate the kingdom's distinctiveness, particularly through popularized depictions of mycelial networks as a sophisticated "wood wide web" enabling inter-plant communication, nutrient , and ecosystem orchestration. This framing, advanced by mycologists and popularized in works like Merlin Sheldrake's (2020), posits fungi as uniquely pivotal mediators of forest intelligence, with hyphae purportedly transferring carbon, water, and signals over vast distances in cooperative defiance of individualistic Darwinian expectations. However, empirical scrutiny reveals these claims often rest on selective interpretations of limited experiments, such as those involving severed roots or isotopically labeled tracers, which demonstrate physiological exchanges but not directed "communication" or kin-unrelated generosity. A 2023 meta-analysis of over 50 studies on ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal associations concluded there is insufficient replicable evidence for the bidirectional signaling or stress alleviation across unrelated trees that the wood wide web metaphor implies, attributing much of the perceived cooperation to methodological artifacts or mutualistic bargaining rather than fungal-orchestrated altruism. Skeptics, including ecologists Justine Karst and Jason Hoeksema, argue this overemphasis introduces anthropomorphic bias, inflating fungal agency beyond verifiable causal mechanisms like resource gradients or host-fungus negotiations, while downplaying comparable bacterial signaling in rhizospheres or plant hormonal pathways. Such portrayals, amplified in conservation rhetoric to justify funga's parity with flora and fauna, risk confirmation bias in underfunded mycology, where advocacy for uniqueness may prioritize charismatic microbial narratives over rigorous quantification of fungi's decomposer roles, which empirical data show overlap substantially with prokaryotic contributions in carbon cycling. This selective highlighting of fungal exceptionalism extends to policy pushes, where funga's proposed distinct —separate from microbial aggregates—may undervalue integrated dynamics, as fungi's filamentous growth and , while evolutionarily distinct since the kingdom's divergence around 1 billion years ago, do not confer unparalleled ecological primacy but rather complementary functions within holobionts. Critics note that overreliance on uniqueness tropes could skew assessments toward speculative network models, diverting resources from habitat preservation where fungi thrive anonymously, as evidenced by IUCN data showing fungal Red List entries lagging due to taxonomic underresolution rather than inherent superiority. In truth-seeking terms, while fungi warrant recognition for traits like chitinous walls and osmotrophic nutrition—absent in or animals—their conservation merits derive more from empirical abundances in (estimated at 2-12 Gt globally) than from unproven superlatives.

Empirical Challenges to Conservation Prioritization

Empirical assessments of fungal reveal profound deficiencies that undermine efforts to prioritize fungi effectively. As of March 2025, the includes assessments for only 1,300 fungal species, representing a minuscule fraction—estimated at less than 0.02%—of the global fungal diversity projected at 2.5 million species. This limited sampling precludes reliable extrapolation of risks across the kingdom, as most species remain undescribed and unmonitored, complicating identification of truly imperiled taxa or hotspots. Among assessed fungi, approximately 411 (over 30%) are classified as threatened with , with loss from and cited as primary drivers for many. However, these evaluations disproportionately focus on macroscopic fungi, such as macromycetes, which are more readily observable and studied, potentially inflating perceived levels relative to microscopic or soil-dwelling species that dominate fungal diversity. High rates of data-deficient classifications—though lower proportionally than in some groups—further hinder prioritization, as unresolved uncertainties about distribution, trends, and specificity prevent causal attribution of declines to anthropogenic factors over natural variability. Quantifying kingdom-wide extinction rates remains empirically elusive, with no robust trends established due to sparse baseline and challenges in detecting fungal presence via traditional surveys. Unlike vascular or vertebrates, where assessed threat levels correlate with monitored declines, fungal dynamics— including long-distance spore dispersal and rapid recolonization potential—may confer greater resilience, yet lack confirmatory evidence from longitudinal studies. This evidentiary gap questions the rationale for diverting scarce conservation resources to fungi without first addressing parallel crises in better-documented taxa, where causal links between and dysfunction are more firmly established. Prioritization schemes thus risk inefficiency, as indirect protection through habitat preservation for and animals may suffice for many fungal associates, pending verification of independent hotspots.

Impact and Future Directions

Influence on Biodiversity Assessments

The recognition of funga as a counterpart to fauna and has prompted efforts to incorporate fungal diversity into assessment frameworks, which historically emphasized visible plant and animal while underrepresenting fungi due to their cryptic nature and taxonomic challenges. This shift encourages the use of fungal and community composition as indicators of , influencing metrics like those employed by conservation organizations to evaluate integrity and effects. For instance, initiatives such as the Fauna, Flora & Funga (FF&F) framework advocate for including fungi in global goals, aiming to address knowledge gaps where only a fraction of estimated fungal —potentially over 2 million—has been described. In environmental impact assessments, the absence of funga considerations has been linked to undetected losses and missed opportunities for species discovery, leading to calls for mandatory fungal surveys and mitigation strategies, such as and material submission protocols. This integration alters assessment outcomes by highlighting fungal-dependent processes, like mycorrhizal associations that underpin plant productivity and ecosystem multifunctionality, particularly in low-diversity plant communities where fungal reductions via interventions like fungicides demonstrably impair overall function. Studies mapping global mycorrhizal fungal hotspots reveal that these areas often receive inadequate protection under - and fauna-centric priorities, prompting revised conservation rankings that prioritize fungal-rich regions for safeguarding. Advancements in assessment methodologies, including environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling from air and , have been accelerated by the push to quantify funga, enabling more accurate detection of fungal communities and turnover rates in diverse ecosystems like tropical rainforests and urban areas. Such tools facilitate longitudinal monitoring, revealing how fungal diversity correlates with broader and informing policy decisions, as seen in endorsements for fungal inclusion in targets to enhance holistic evaluations. Despite these influences, persistent challenges in fungal detection and data scarcity underscore the need for expanded monitoring to fully realize funga's role in comprehensive appraisals.

Research and Monitoring Advances

Recent developments in fungal biodiversity monitoring have leveraged DNA metabarcoding techniques, which enable high-throughput identification of fungal communities from environmental samples such as soil and air. A curated dataset of soil fungal communities, compiled using metabarcoding of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region, has facilitated analyses of fungal ecology and biogeography, revealing patterns in ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungi across global biomes as of February 2025. Best practices for fungal metabarcoding emphasize the use of operational taxonomic units (OTUs), full-length ITS sequencing, and specialized compositional data analysis to mitigate biases in species detection and quantification. Environmental DNA (eDNA) approaches have advanced non-invasive monitoring of fungal assemblages, particularly in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Airborne eDNA sampling has demonstrated predictable spatial and seasonal dynamics in fungal dispersal, with hyperdiverse communities showing latitudinal gradients and peak diversity in temperate regions, based on global sampling efforts published in July 2024. In conservation contexts, eDNA from has contributed to regional Red List assessments by detecting macrofungi overlooked in traditional fruiting-body surveys, improving threat evaluations for over 1,000 species in European forests as detailed in August 2024 analyses. These methods complement visual and morphological surveys but often fail to capture full local diversity, including rare conservation-priority species, underscoring the need for integrated protocols. Global mapping initiatives have integrated these molecular tools to identify hotspots of mycorrhizal fungal richness, which remain underrepresented in protected areas despite their role in plant-soil interactions. A July 2025 study mapped over 10,000 mycorrhizal species, highlighting tropical and boreal hotspots with less than 20% overlap in many cases. Long-term time-series, such as a 17-year eDNA record from coastal waters, have quantified temporal shifts in marine fungal diversity, linking declines to environmental stressors like temperature rises. Ongoing challenges include intraspecific ITS variability and extraction biases, addressed through standardized kits and multi-marker approaches in recent protocols. These advances support funga inclusion in inventories, though empirical validation against traditional methods remains essential for policy applications.

Potential Limitations and Alternatives

Despite the advocacy for recognizing funga in frameworks, significant practical limitations persist in its implementation for conservation and monitoring. Fungi exhibit cryptic lifestyles, often subterranean or microscopic, complicating field detection and enumeration compared to more visible and ; standardized monitoring protocols for fungi remain underdeveloped, with fewer tools available than for or animals. Taxonomic biases exacerbate these issues, as only 633 of an estimated 148,000 described fungal are assessed on the , reflecting a broader underrepresentation due to fewer mycologists and limited funding for fungal research. Estimates suggest 2.2 to 3.8 million fungal exist globally, the majority undescribed, which hinders accurate baseline data for conservation prioritization and risks overlooking rapid declines driven by habitat loss or . Terminologically, funga lacks the mythological etymology of fauna and flora, derived from Roman deities, potentially reducing its cultural resonance and adoption in policy documents. Moreover, emphasizing funga as a discrete category may inadvertently downplay fungi's interdependence with other kingdoms, such as mycorrhizal symbioses with 80-90% of plant , where conservation outcomes depend on holistic rather than isolated fungal focus. Alternatives to funga include retaining established terms like mycota or fungal communities, which avoid neologisms while encompassing diversity without implying equivalence to animal or plant assemblages; these have been used in systematic to describe regional fungal inventories. Mycoflora or mycobiota have been proposed but critiqued for conflating fungi with or implying biotic completeness prematurely given knowledge gaps. Functionally oriented approaches, such as prioritizing ectomycorrhizal or guilds over kingdom-wide funga, could better align conservation with causal roles in nutrient cycling and habitat restoration, integrating fungi into existing fauna- assessments via (eDNA) sampling rather than terminological reform.

References

  1. https://imafungus.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/BF03449441
  2. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fungi-funga-flora-fauna-conservation-ecosystem
  3. https://undark.org/2021/08/09/flora-fauna-and-funga/
  4. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/kingdom-funga-fungi
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/30/flora-fauna-and-funga-un-backs-new-term-for-conservation-discussions
  6. https://www.fundis.org/blog/fantastic-funga-why-language-matters
  7. https://www.bettsecology.co.uk/insight/funga-definitely-not/
  8. https://topostext.org/work/242
  9. https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/9781119149415.excerpt.pdf
  10. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/pliny_elder-natural_history/1938/pb_LCL392.359.xml?readMode=recto
  11. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/pliny_elder-natural_history/1938/pb_LCL392.361.xml?readMode=recto
  12. https://www.leidenmedievalistsblog.nl/articles/medieval-mushrooms
  13. https://mycologyst.art/learn-mycology/1-introduction-to-mycology/1.3-a-brief-history-of-mycology/
  14. https://imafungus.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43008-021-00085-9
  15. https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-advanced-biology/section/12.24/primary/lesson/classification-of-fungi-advanced-bio-adv/
  16. https://asm.org/articles/2021/january/three-reasons-fungi-are-not-plants
  17. https://byjus.com/biology/difference-between-plants-and-fungi/
  18. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/62/1/67/295711
  19. https://bio.libretexts.org/Courses/Prince_Georges_Community_College/PGCC_Microbiology/04%253A_Microscopy_Staining_and_Classification/4.03%253A_Classification_and_Identification/4.3.01%253A_Kingdom_Classification_According_to_Whittaker
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899921/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11687502/
  22. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251001092208.htm
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4429240/
  24. https://apps.fs.usda.gov/decaid/documents/A-Review-of-the-Role-of-Fungi-in-Wood-Decay-of-Forest-Ecosystems_Marcot2017.pdf
  25. https://harvardforest1.fas.harvard.edu/publications/pdfs/Frey_AnnRevEcolSyst_2019.pdf
  26. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.15119
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969722084881
  28. http://ecoevocommunity.nature.com/posts/fungal-communities-play-key-roles-in-securing-ecosystem-stability
  29. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20596-4
  30. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2023.1326710/full
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8892540/
  32. https://phys.org/news/2025-03-fungi-planet-important-overlooked-strategies.html
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11687528/
  34. https://www.nybg.org/content/uploads/2023/10/NYBG-State-of-the-Worlds-Plants-and-Fungi-2023-Release_ADA.pdf
  35. https://scispace.com/journals/fungal-diversity-a0z7ifxu/2021
  36. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09277-4
  37. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.14352
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389327289_Disentangling_drivers_behind_fungal_diversity_gradients_along_altitude_and_latitude
  39. https://www.kew.org/about-us/press-media/new-species-2024
  40. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-60106-8
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6691916/
  42. https://www.ffungi.org/campaign/fauna-flora-funga
  43. https://www.ffungi.org/blog/fungal-advocate-receives-natgeos-leadership-conservation-award
  44. https://www.iucn.org/news/species-survival-commission/202108/rewild-and-iucn-ssc-become-first-global-organizations-call-recognition-fungi-one-three-kingdoms-life-critical-protecting-and-restoring-earth
  45. https://faunaflorafunga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SOTWFungi_2018_Full_Report.pdf
  46. http://www.fungal-conservation.org/
  47. https://www.fundis.org/about-fundis
  48. https://namyco.org/interests/conservation-and-stewardship/resources/
  49. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/16/fungi-status-boost-conservation-cop16-uk-chile-biodiversity-plan
  50. https://www.ffungi.org/blog/chile-and-the-uk-call-on-the-un-convention-on-biological-diversity-to-take-global-action-for-the-conservation-of-fungi
  51. https://faunaflorafunga.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/PLEDGE-FUNGAL-CONSERVATION-COP-16-UK-CHILE.pdf
  52. https://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/2024/03/united-nations-calls-for-fungi-recognition/
  53. https://www.ima-mycology.org/index.php/news/fauna-flora-and-funga
  54. https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/2024-2025-iucn-ssc-fungal-conservation-c-report_publication.pdf
  55. https://www.currentconservation.org/integrating-fungi-in-policy-for-a-sustainable-future/
  56. https://www.ffungi.org/blog/another-fungal-year-highlights-from-2024
  57. https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop16-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-biodiversity-conference-in-cali-colombia/
  58. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14340
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2530064425000410
  60. https://www.ffungi.org/en/conservation
  61. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.19541
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4960231/
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038071725001968
  64. https://biochartoday.com/news/biochar-and-fungal-partners-aid-forest-restoration-on-former-mine-land/
  65. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2025/09/16/netflixs-new-carbon-credits-boost-biodiversity-beautifully/
  66. https://news.mongabay.com/2024/09/to-save-endangered-trees-researchers-in-south-america-recruit-an-army-of-fungi/
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320725001326
  68. https://reasonstobecheerful.world/environmental-triumph-fungi-forest-soil-restoration-climate-change/
  69. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eap.2981
  70. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/56926/noaa_56926_DS1.pdf
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534725001880
  72. https://imafungus.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43008-020-00049-5
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7774014/
  74. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-trees-support-each-other-through-a-network-of-fungi/
  75. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/07/science/trees-fungi-talking.html
  76. https://undark.org/2023/05/25/where-the-wood-wide-web-narrative-went-wrong/
  77. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2359207-do-trees-communicate-via-a-wood-wide-web-the-evidence-is-lacking/
  78. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/09/wood-wide-web-theory-charmed-us-bitter-fight-scientists
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371200909_Conservation_of_Abundance_How_Fungi_can_Contribute_to_Rethinking_Conservation
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6850671/
  81. https://www.carbonbrief.org/kew-report-five-key-extinction-risks-facing-the-worlds-plants-and-fungi/
  82. https://iucn.org/press-release/202503/first-1000-fungi-iucn-red-list-reveal-growing-threats-iucn-red-list
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8516061/
  84. https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/nearly-one-third-of-fungi-on-iucn-red-list-are-threatened-with-extinction/
  85. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/14/9/736
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378260390_High_Proportion_Of_Data_Deficient_Taxa_Hinders_Conservation_Of_Potential_Fungal_EDGE_Species
  87. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp3.10146
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11970531/
  89. https://www.science.org/content/article/most-earth-s-critical-underground-fungus-unprotected
  90. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/14/10/824
  91. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/5200284
  92. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353393195_Include_all_fungi_in_biodiversity_goals
  93. https://www.kew.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/State%2520of%2520the%2520World%2527s%2520Plants%2520and%2520Fungi%25202023.pdf
  94. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-60661-0
  95. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.6477
  96. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.14691
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11123565/
  98. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-04598-5
  99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35395127/
  100. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07658-9
  101. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee.2791
  102. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2022.2129
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9150701/
  104. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257693644_Monitoring_fungal_biodiversity_-_towards_an_integrated_approach
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.