Global database of alien macrofungi

Study Extent

We built our database by compiling occurrences of introduced macrofungal species based on intensive searches in published and unpublished sources. Data was extracted from peer-reviewed articles, scientific and technical reports, books and book chapters, alien species databases and online citizen-science repositories. Finally, we also approached selected mycologists via email. These experts were contacted and asked if they were aware of records of alien macrofungi or of data resources other than the ones we identified through online searches.

Sampling

The data collection process consisted of three different procedures, as it is explained below. 1)Identifying and obtaining relevant records from publications During the search process, we initially looked up for records in broader introduced taxa databases such as the ones from Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe (Hulme et al. 2019), Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (Pagadad et al. 2019) and European Alien Species Information Network (European Commission 2019). In a next step we used general-purpose search engines (i.e., Google) and scientific search engines (Google Scholar, Science Direct and jstore.online) to gather more information from relevant literature. We entered key terms related to fungal invasion in different languages including English, German, French, Spanish and Portuguese. The terms used were ‘introduced´, ’invasive’, ‘established’, ‘alien’ and ‘exotic’, which were combined with fungal taxonomic terms ranging from a generic and higher denomination (e.g. ‘fungi’, ‘macromycetes’, ‘basidiomycota’) to a more specific designation such as the scientific name (e.g. Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam., Amanita phalloides Secr.) or a common name (e.g. Fly agaric, Death cap). For each combination, we repeated the searches by adding the name of one continent or country, until all continents and countries were being considered. As examples, final search terms would be like ‘European alien fungi ‘, ‘introduced basidomycota in United States’ or ‘introduced Amanita muscaria + South America’. 2)Cross-checking of alien status For each record we assessed the reliability of the alien status given by the original data sources. Records collected from sources explicitly dealing with alien taxa (e.g., Vellinga et al., 2009), retained the nativity status given by the data. These statuses corresponded either to ‘alien’ or to ‘cryptogenic’ (sensu Essl et al., 2018). Records collected from non-specialized sources (e.g., species checklists not considering nativity, grey literature and citizen-science data) were cross-checked against biogeographical information available in the scientific literature or with mycologists. Cases where the records referred to regions outside known native ranges were coded as ‘alien’. Cases in clear biogeographical conflict with known native ranges were not considered for inclusion in our database. Finally, cases where the native or alien status was not possible to identify unambiguously were also not considered. 3)Occurrence data entry To be included in our database records had to meet specific criteria regarding taxonomy and locality description. First, a record must describe a macrofungal species which, that means it should have sporocarps at least 2 mm in size irrespective of phylogenetic placement (Senn-Irlet 2007). As this was not always clear, we had to double-check our data with relevant fungal literature to be sure that the families or even the orders of the referred species were cited as part of the macroscopic fungi checklists. We also had to be certain that the records were identified at least to the species level, as a way of knowing that all contemplated species were in fact alien organisms in the non-native places. Furthermore, the records had to be accompanied by geospatial coordinates or, at minimum, an unambiguous textual designation of location level reference (e.g., region, country, and locality). Finally, the record had to represent a fungal species introduced by human activity on a non-native region because it is the easiest way to be sure that the species was not native. These tasks were accomplished by the main author Miguel Monteiro during the years 2017-2019 with the supervision of experts in fungal ecology and biogeography. These experts were also consulted and asked if they were aware of records of alien macrofungi or of data resources other than the ones we identified through online searches.

Quality Control

For the development of the dataset the records from the original sources were revised by the first author because, some of the names of the species were not updated or sometimes misspelled. As a result, some changes at any of the taxonomic ranks (e.g. order, family, genus or species) had to be adopted in conformity with the used nomenclature. Even though, in cases of synonyms both names were included. The taxonomic revision of scientific names and data checking were performed by using Index Fungorum (Index Fungorum 2019) and Mycobank (Robert et al. 2019). To publish our dataset in the GBIF network we adjusted our records with the Darwin Core specifications (Wieczorek et al. 2012).

Method steps

1. The creation of the “Global Alien Macrofungi Database” followed a two-step approach. In the first step, we performed an exhaustive search for data sources supplying occurrence records of macrofungi. In the second step, we harmonized the collected data and entered it into a standardized database. Our search and collation of alien macrofungi records was carried out during the years 2017-2019. For the first step, we analysed the database made available by Vellinga et al. (2009), who collected a total of 770 distribution records of ectomycorrhizal fungi from more than 190 publications. However, given the exclusive focus of the database on ectomycorrhizal fungi and consequential absence of data on saprotroph species, it can hardly be assumed that the patterns represented in Vellinga at el. (2009) provide a precise portrayal of the global biogeography of alien macrofungi. Hence, we built up on their database and additionally performed a complementary search for alien saprotroph fungi as well as any new records of alien ectomycorrizhal fungi. For the second step, all collected records were entered into two different data sets. First, we compiled a taxonomic checklist that accounts for all macrofungi taxa we found to be introduced outside their native range. Secondly, we described the according alien occurrences of those taxa including additional important data, such as dates of introduction, host information and occurrence remarks related to the population status in the invaded regions. Here, each entry corresponded to a single record described as alien taxon in a specific location. If a taxon in a given locality was reported multiple times by different sources, we merged the information into a single database entry and cited the earliest reference in time reporting the record. Data entry management and publication were carried out using the Darwin Core Archive format.

All macromycetes were identified to species level. There are also some inclusions of records reporting varieties, forms or subspecies. All mispellings have been corrected. Nomenclatural updates are maintained based on the indexfungorum database (http://www.indexfungorum.org) and mycobank (http://www.mycobank.org).

1. Fungi
   rank: kingdom
2. Ascomycota
   rank: phylum
3. Basidomycota
   rank: phylum
4. Agarocomycetes
   rank: class
5. Dacrymycetes
   rank: class
6. Dothideomycetes
   rank: class
7. Pezizomycetes
   rank: class
8. Sordariomycetes
   rank: class
9. Tremellomycetes
   rank: class
10. Agaricales
    rank: order
11. Amylocorticiales
    rank: order
12. Auriculariales
    rank: order
13. Boletales
    rank: order
14. Cantharellales
    rank: order
15. Dacrymycetales
    rank: order
16. Diaporthales
    rank: order
17. Geastrales
    rank: order
18. Gloeophyllales
    rank: order
19. Gomphales
    rank: order
20. Helotiales
    rank: order
21. Hymenochaetales
    rank: order
22. Hypocreales
    rank: order
23. Hysterangiales
    rank: order
24. Pezizales
    rank: order
25. Phallales
    rank: order
26. Pleosporales
    rank: order
27. Polyporales
    rank: order
28. Russulales
    rank: order
29. Thelephorales
    rank: order
30. Xylariales
    rank: order
31. Agaricaceae
    rank: order
32. Albatrellaceae
    rank: order
33. Amanitaceae
    rank: order
34. Amylostereaceae
    rank: order
35. Auriculariaceae
    rank: order
36. Bankeraceae
    rank: order
37. Bolbitiaceae
    rank: order
38. Boletaceae
    rank: order
39. Bondarzewiaceae
    rank: order
40. Cantharellaceae
    rank: order
41. Clavariaceae
    rank: order
42. Clavulinaceae
    rank: order
43. Coniophoraceae
    rank: order
44. Cortinariaceae
    rank: order
45. Cucurbitariaceae
    rank: order
46. Cyphellaceae
    rank: order
47. Dacrymycetaceae
    rank: order
48. Diaporthaceae
    rank: order
49. Diplocystidiaceae
    rank: order
50. Discinaceae
    rank: order
51. Entolomataceae
    rank: order
52. Fomitopsidaceae
    rank: order
53. Ganodermataceae
    rank: order
54. Gastrosporiaceae
    rank: order
55. Geastraceae
    rank: order
56. Gelatinodiscaceae
    rank: order
57. Gloeophyllaceae
    rank: order
58. Gomphaceae
    rank: order
59. Gomphidiaceae
    rank: order
60. Gyroporaceae
    rank: order
61. Helotiaceae
    rank: order
62. Helvellaceae
    rank: order
63. Hydnaceae
    rank: order
64. Hydnangiaceae
    rank: order
65. Hygrophoraceae
    rank: order
66. Hymenochaetaceae
    rank: order
67. Hymenogastraceae
    rank: order
68. Hypoxylaceae
    rank: order
69. Hysterangiaceae
    rank: order
70. Inocybaceae
    rank: order
71. Lachnaceae
    rank: order
72. Marasmiaceae
    rank: order
73. Meripilaceae
    rank: order
74. Meruliaceae
    rank: order
75. Mesophelliaceae
    rank: order
76. Morchellaceae
    rank: order
77. Mycenaceae
    rank: order
78. Nectriaceae
    rank: order
79. Omphalotaceae
    rank: order
80. Paxillaceae
    rank: order
81. Pezizaceae
    rank: order
82. Phallaceae
    rank: order
83. Phallogastraceae
    rank: order
84. Phelloriniaceae
    rank: order
85. Physalacriaceae
    rank: order
86. Pleurotaceae
    rank: order
87. Pluteaceae
    rank: order
88. Polyporaceae
    rank: order
89. Psathyrellaceae
    rank: order
90. Pyronemataceae
    rank: order
91. Repetobasidiaceae
    rank: order
92. Russulaceae
    rank: order
93. Rutstroemiaceae
    rank: order
94. Sarcoscyphaceae
    rank: order
95. Schizophyllaceae
    rank: order
96. Schizoporaceae
    rank: order
97. Sclerodermataceae
    rank: order
98. Sclerotiniaceae
    rank: order
99. Serpulaceae
    rank: order
100. Sparassidaceae
     rank: order
101. Stereaceae
     rank: order
102. Strophariaceae
     rank: order
103. Suillaceae
     rank: order
104. Thelephoraceae
     rank: order
105. Tremellaceae
     rank: order
106. Tricholomataceae
     rank: order
107. Tubariaceae
     rank: order
108. Tuberaceae
     rank: order
109. Typhulaceae
     rank: order
110. Xylariaceae
     rank: order

Countries and the first-order administrative divisions of the six largest countries in the world (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Russia and United States). Antarctica is not included