OK, you asked for it ...
"Better" lighting can only be achieved by knowing what one wants to show, what aspect the author thinks is central to the picture. Which is why very often the artist is much more sceptic about his achievements than the viewer. It is also one of the reasons an author should abstain from interpreting his own works.
In another time and another thread Mary showed us a mushroom hat shot from straight above. Somebody [too lazy to look who] suggested to show more of the stalk - which would have been a completely different image. The same holds here. Obviously there's something to the photo enamoring you enough to put it up for public scrutiny. A step that calls out for negative* criticism telling you what to do to get it "better".
Very often my comments on posted photos have been in that vain, analysing the picture and making suggestions on how to fix the mistakes. In a moment of personal enlightenment - something like 'thunderbolt city' - I found your photo very well done when I first saw it. Over the past few days I visited it a few times more and still found that there is nothing to be done to it. Perhaps a bit of sharpening, slight correction of saturation depoending on output but nothing to the image itself.
Lighting is not hierarchical, there is no next level, no step up, no better. Experience tells me that many artists started out with one light source, developed ever more complex lighting situations over their lifetime - and ended up coming back to one simple source. There's technical as well as natural reasons for that; the technical being that it is easier to handle one light than an army of them. We shouldn't forget that we only have one natural light source, we are used to it, we actually evolved with it [= it's what we understand best].
Among the rulings of photography is the 'avoid harsh light'. Why? It's a matter of subject and intent. Look at many Westerns (i.e. John Ford's), which make use exactly of the harsh sunlight during the day. For those not liking Westerns, a whole film genre was built around expressionist use of dark shadows and very bright lights, the film noir. Several times during the audio commentaries for Sam Peckinpah's Westerns the critics involved lament the loss of this kind of lighting Lucien Ballard used very often.
Your photo, now, uses a scattered, soft light witout blown highlights or deep shadows. And it becomes the subject at hand. Why go for a "better" lighting? Which one should it be, deeper shadows below with blinking waterdrops on the hats, or a golden tinged light from the side at a very low angle?
Let's look at it from a commercial perspective. Your photo would make a good - certainly better than most - illustration in a book on fungi. It can also be used in advertising [believe me, more than one and a half decades working in it] or in a magazine especially because the subject's light is at it is**.
Now, what is it you want to present? Find the answer and you know how the light has to be on the fungal fruits. Then you can ask about how to achieve this most efficiently.
*Technically it should read 'positive' but that would bring us into a disccussion on the differences between vernacular use and actual meaning of words.
**Against use in a magazine or advert: no space for text.
) 
