-180

180

90

-90

Kingdom

Fungi

Phylum

Ascomycota

Phylum

Basidomycota

Class

Agarocomycetes

Class

Dacrymycetes

Class

Dothideomycetes

Class

Pezizomycetes

Class

Sordariomycetes

Class

Tremellomycetes

Order

Agaricales

Order

Amylocorticiales

Order

Auriculariales

Order

Boletales

Order

Cantharellales

Order

Dacrymycetales

Order

Diaporthales

Order

Geastrales

Order

Gloeophyllales

Order

Gomphales

Order

Helotiales

Order

Hymenochaetales

Order

Hypocreales

Order

Hysterangiales

Order

Pezizales

Order

Phallales

Order

Pleosporales

Order

Polyporales

Order

Russulales

Order

Thelephorales

Order

Xylariales

Order

Agaricaceae

Order

Albatrellaceae

Order

Amanitaceae

Order

Amylostereaceae

Order

Auriculariaceae

Order

Bankeraceae

Order

Bolbitiaceae

Order

Boletaceae

Order

Bondarzewiaceae

Order

Cantharellaceae

Order

Clavariaceae

Order

Clavulinaceae

Order

Coniophoraceae

Order

Cortinariaceae

Order

Cucurbitariaceae

Order

Cyphellaceae

Order

Dacrymycetaceae

Order

Diaporthaceae

Order

Diplocystidiaceae

Order

Discinaceae

Order

Entolomataceae

Order

Fomitopsidaceae

Order

Ganodermataceae

Order

Gastrosporiaceae

Order

Geastraceae

Order

Gelatinodiscaceae

Order

Gloeophyllaceae

Order

Gomphaceae

Order

Gomphidiaceae

Order

Gyroporaceae

Order

Helotiaceae

Order

Helvellaceae

Order

Hydnaceae

Order

Hydnangiaceae

Order

Hygrophoraceae

Order

Hymenochaetaceae

Order

Hymenogastraceae

Order

Hypoxylaceae

Order

Hysterangiaceae

Order

Inocybaceae

Order

Lachnaceae

Order

Marasmiaceae

Order

Meripilaceae

Order

Meruliaceae

Order

Mesophelliaceae

Order

Morchellaceae

Order

Mycenaceae

Order

Nectriaceae

Order

Omphalotaceae

Order

Paxillaceae

Order

Pezizaceae

Order

Phallaceae

Order

Phallogastraceae

Order

Phelloriniaceae

Order

Physalacriaceae

Order

Pleurotaceae

Order

Pluteaceae

Order

Polyporaceae

Order

Psathyrellaceae

Order

Pyronemataceae

Order

Repetobasidiaceae

Order

Russulaceae

Order

Rutstroemiaceae

Order

Sarcoscyphaceae

Order

Schizophyllaceae

Order

Schizoporaceae

Order

Sclerodermataceae

Order

Sclerotiniaceae

Order

Serpulaceae

Order

Sparassidaceae

Order

Stereaceae

Order

Strophariaceae

Order

Suillaceae

Order

Thelephoraceae

Order

Tremellaceae

Order

Tricholomataceae

Order

Tubariaceae

Order

Tuberaceae

Order

Typhulaceae

Order

Xylariaceae

0000-0002-2804-4166

AUTHOR

AUTHOR

AUTHOR

AUTHOR

AUTHOR

AUTHOR

AUTHOR

Countries and the first-order administrative divisions of the six largest countries in the world (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Russia and United States).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).