Global database of alien macrofungi

Miguel Monteiro1, Luís Reino2, Anna Schertler3, Franz Essl3, Maria Teresa Ferreira4, Rui Figueira5, César Capinha6

1 CIBIO/INBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos,Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, nº 7, 4485‑661, Porto, Portugal; 2 CIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, nº 7, 4485‑661, Porto, Portugal; 3 Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation Ecology and Landscape Ecology, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030, Vienna, Austria; 4 Centro de Estudos Florestais, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017, Lisboa, Portugal; 5 LEAF-Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017, Lisboa, Portugal; 6 Centro de Estudos Geográficos, Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território - IGOT, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua Branca Edmée Marques, 1600-276, Lisboa, Portugal

Corresponding author(s): Miguel Monteiro (miguelpmonteiro12@gmail.com)Luís ReinoAnna SchertlerFranz EsslMaria Teresa FerreiraRui FigueiraCésar Capinha

Received {date}; Revised {date}; Accepted {date}; Published {date}

Citation: Combination of authors, year of data paper publication (in parentheses), Title, Journal Name, Volume, Issue number (in parentheses), and doi of the data paper.

Resource Citation

Monteiro M, Reino L, Schertler A, Essl F, Ferreira M T, Figueira R, Capinha C (2019): Global database of alien macrofungi. v1.2. CIBIO (Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources) Portugal. Dataset/Checklist. http://ipt.gbif.pt/ipt/resource?r=global_database_alien_macrofungi&amp;v=1.2 10.15468/2qky1q

Abstract

This dataset contains comprehensive information about the global alien spread and distribution of macrofungi species during the last centuries (1753-2018)

Keywords: Introduced species, biological invasions, fungal biogeography, species occurrence data, Checklist, Globalspeciesdataset

Project details

Project title: A database of the global distribution of alien macrofungi 
Personnel: Miguel Monteiro, Luís Reino, Anna Schertler, Franz Essl, Maria Teresa Ferreira, Rui Figueira, César Capinha
Funding: This work was funded by the FEDER Funds through the Operational Competitiveness Factors Program - COMPETE and by National Funds through FCT, I.P. - Foundation for Science and Technology within the scope of the project “PTDC/BIA-EVL/30931/2017-  POCI-01-0145-FEDER-030931” Miguel Monteiro was funded by an PhD fellowship SFRH/BD/119170/2016. César Capinha and Luís Reino were funded by National Funds through FCT, I.P., under the programme of ‘Stimulus of Scientific Employment – Individual Support’ within contracts 'CEECIND/02037/2017' and ‘CEECIND/00445/2017’ respectively. Franz Essl and Anna Schertler received funding by the Austrian Science Foundation FWF (grant 3757-B29).
Study area descriptions/descriptor: Countries and the first-order administrative divisions of the six largest countries   in the world (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Russia and United States).
Design description: 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 asdates 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 first reference in time   reporting the record. 
Data entry management and publication were carried out using the Darwin Core Archive format.

Data published through GBIF: http://ipt.gbif.pt/ipt/resource?r=global_database_of_alien_macrofungi

Taxonomic coverage

General taxonomic coverage description: 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).
Taxonomic ranks
Kingdom: Fungi
Phylum: Ascomycota, Basidomycota
Class: Agarocomycetes, Dacrymycetes, Dothideomycetes, Pezizomycetes, Sordariomycetes, Tremellomycetes
Order: Agaricales, Amylocorticiales, Auriculariales, Boletales, Cantharellales, Dacrymycetales, Diaporthales, Geastrales, Gloeophyllales, Gomphales, Helotiales, Hymenochaetales, Hypocreales, Hysterangiales, Pezizales, Phallales, Pleosporales, Polyporales, Russulales, Thelephorales, Xylariales, Agaricaceae, Albatrellaceae, Amanitaceae, Amylostereaceae, Auriculariaceae, Bankeraceae, Bolbitiaceae, Boletaceae, Bondarzewiaceae, Cantharellaceae, Clavariaceae, Clavulinaceae, Coniophoraceae, Cortinariaceae, Cucurbitariaceae, Cyphellaceae, Dacrymycetaceae, Diaporthaceae, Diplocystidiaceae, Discinaceae, Entolomataceae, Fomitopsidaceae, Ganodermataceae, Gastrosporiaceae, Geastraceae, Gelatinodiscaceae, Gloeophyllaceae, Gomphaceae, Gomphidiaceae, Gyroporaceae, Helotiaceae, Helvellaceae, Hydnaceae, Hydnangiaceae, Hygrophoraceae, Hymenochaetaceae, Hymenogastraceae, Hypoxylaceae, Hysterangiaceae, Inocybaceae, Lachnaceae, Marasmiaceae, Meripilaceae, Meruliaceae, Mesophelliaceae, Morchellaceae, Mycenaceae, Nectriaceae, Omphalotaceae, Paxillaceae, Pezizaceae, Phallaceae, Phallogastraceae, Phelloriniaceae, Physalacriaceae, Pleurotaceae, Pluteaceae, Polyporaceae, Psathyrellaceae, Pyronemataceae, Repetobasidiaceae, Russulaceae, Rutstroemiaceae, Sarcoscyphaceae, Schizophyllaceae, Schizoporaceae, Sclerodermataceae, Sclerotiniaceae, Serpulaceae, Sparassidaceae, Stereaceae, Strophariaceae, Suillaceae, Thelephoraceae, Tremellaceae, Tricholomataceae, Tubariaceae, Tuberaceae, Typhulaceae, Xylariaceae

Spatial coverage

General spatial coverage: 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
Coordinates: 90°0'0''S and 90°0'0''N Latitude; 180°0'0''W and 180°0'0''E Longitude 

Temporal coverage: 1753 - 2018

Methods

Method step description: 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.

Study extent description: 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 description: 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 description: 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).

Datasets

Dataset description
Object name: Darwin Core Archive Global database of alien macrofungi
Character encoding: UTF-8
Format name: Darwin Core Archive format
Format version: 1.0
Distribution: http://ipt.gbif.pt/ipt/archive.do?r=global_database_of_alien_macrofungi
Publication date of data: 2020-02-18
Language: English
Licences of use: Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License

Metadata language: English
Date of metadata creation: 2020-01-19
Hierarchy level: Dataset

References
Desprez-Loustau ML (2009) The alien fungi of Europe. In: Hulme, Philip E., (eds.) Handbook of Alien Species in Europe. Springer, Dordrecht, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2007.01619.x
Essl F, Bacher S, Genovesi P, Hulme, PE, Jeschke JM, Katsanevakis S, Kowarik I, Kuhn I, Pysek P, Rabitsch W, Schindler S, van Kleunen M, Vilà M, Wilson JRU  and Richardson DM (2018). Which taxa are alien? Criteria, applications, and uncertainties. BioScience, 68: 496-509. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy057 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy057
European Commission (2019) European Alien Species Information Network- EASIN. https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin [Accessed on: 18/09/2017] https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin
Hulme PE, Nentwig, W, Pyšek, P, and Vilà, M (2019). DAISIE: Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe. http://www.europe-aliens.org/ [Acessed: 20 September 2017] http://www.europe-aliens.org/
Index Fungorum (2019). CABI Database. http://www. indexfungorum. org [Acessed: 20 January 2019]. http://www. indexfungorum. org 
IUCN (2019) Global Invasive Species Database GISD. Invasive Species Specialist Group ISSG. http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/ [Accessed on: 20/09/2017] http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/
Katsanevakis S, Deriu I, D’Amico F, Nunes AL, Sanchez SP, Crocetta F, Arianoutsou M, Bazos I, Christopoulou A, Curto G, Delipetrou P, Kokkoris Y, Panov V, Rabitsch W, Roques A, Scalera R, Shirley SM, Tricarino E, Vannini A, Zenetos A, Zervou S, Zikos A, Cardoso AC (2015) European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN): supporting European policies and scientific research. https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin [Acessed: 18 September 2017] https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin
iNaturalist (2019) iNaturalist research‐grade observations. https://www.inaturalist.org/ [Acessed: 18 January 2018] https://www.inaturalist.org/ 
Troudet J, Grandcolas P, Blin, A, Vignes-Lebbe, R, and Legendre F (2017). Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Scientific Reports, 7: 9132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6
Vellinga EC, Wolfe BE, and Pringle A (2009) Global patterns of ectomycorrhizal introductions. New Phytologist, 181: 960-973. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02728.x https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02728.x
Vizzini A, Zotti M, and Mello A (2009) Alien fungal species distribution: the study case of Favolaschia calocera. Biological invasions, 11: 417-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9259-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9259-5
Wilson N, and Hollinger J (2019) Mushroom observer https://mushroomobserver.org/ [Accessed on: 18 December 2017]
 https://mushroomobserver.org/
CABI (2019) Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. https://www.cabi.org/ [Accessed on: 10 October 2018] https://www.cabi.org/