A peer-reviewed open-access journal NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) doi: 10.3897/neobiota.85. 101770 &) NeoBiota https:/ / neobi ota. pen soft. net Advancing research on alien species and biological invasions Negative and positive impacts of alien macrofungi: a global scale database Miguel Monteiro'*?*, César Capinha>®, Maria Teresa Ferreira**®, Martin A. Nufiez”®, Luis Reino!?? | CIBIO, Centro de Investigagéo em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratério Associado, Campus de Vairio, Universidade do Porto, 4485-661 Vairio, Portugal 2 CIBIO, Centro de Investigacdo em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratério Associado, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, 1349-017 Lisbon, Portugal 3 BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Campus de Vainio, 4485-661 Vairao, Portugal 4 Centro de Estudos Florestais, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal 5 Laboratério Associado Terra, Lisboa, Portugal 6 Centro de Estudos Geogrificos, Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Territério da Universidade de Lisboa, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal 1 Grupo de Ecologia de Invasiones, INIBIOMA, CONICET, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina 8 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA Corresponding author: Luis Reino (luis.reino@cibio.up.pt) Academic editor: Franz Ess] | Received 12 February 2023 | Accepted 24 April 2023 | Published 9 June 2023 Citation: Monteiro M, Capinha C, Ferreira MT, Nufiez MA, Reino L (2023) Negative and positive impacts of alien macrofungi: a global scale database. NeoBiota 85: 23-42. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.85.101770 Abstract Advances in ecological research during the last decades have led to an improved understanding of the impacts of alien species. Despite that, the effects of alien macrofungi have often received little attention and are still poorly understood. With the aim of reducing this knowledge gap, we compiled a database of the recorded socio-economic and environmental impacts of alien macrofungi. This database was compiled from all relevant sources we could identify, through an exhaustive literature review, considering the identity of known alien taxa and explicit indications of impacts of any kind. In total, 1440 records of both negative and positive impacts were collected for 374 distinct species in different regions of all continents, except Antarctica. The most frequently recorded impacts are related to the mutualistic interactions that these fungi can form with their host plants. In total 47.8% of all records refer to the indirect negative effect of these interactions, by facilitating the colonization of invasive plants, while 38.5% refer to their positive contribution to the growth of forestry species. Less frequently recorded negative impacts included ectomycorrhizal interactions with native plants, plant pathogenicity and human poisoning after ingestion. Additional positive impacts include the use as a food source by native species and human populations Copyright Miguel Monteiro et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 24 Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) and commercial exploitation. Alien macrofungi are an increasingly prevalent component of human- dominated ecosystems, having a diverse array of negative and positive impacts on native biota and human population. Our database provided a first step towards the quantification and mapping of these impacts. Keywords Biogeography, biological invasions, fungi, impact assessment, non-native species Introduction The introduction and naturalization of alien species are recognized as important threats to native biodiversity (Simberloff et al. 2013; Bellard et al. 2016, 2021) and major causes of impacts on socio-economic activities and human welfare (Diagne et al. 2021). Current understanding of the impacts of alien species is heavily skewed towards a few species (Vila et al. 2009; Marean 2015), taxonomic groups (Evans et al. 2018; Bartz and Kowarik 2019) and geographical regions (Kumschick et al. 2013; Heringer et al. 2021). However, the potential underestimation of impacts by frequently ignored taxa is increasingly recognized (Vila et al. 2010). In recent years, fungi as alien species have received some attention, through a high- er availability of distribution data and information about their impacts in introduced ecosystems (Vellinga et al. 2009; Nufiez and Dickie 2014; Dickie et al. 2016; Monteiro et al. 2020, 2022). However, knowledge on impacts of alien fungi has been mainly re- stricted to a few pathogenic, often microscopic, taxa which have been studied because of their potential to cause severe diseases in native biota (Desprez-Loustau et al. 2007), strong damages to both agricultural and forestry production (Panzavolta et al. 2021) and, in a few cases, human health risks (Page and Westcott 2014; Ye and Liu 2018). On the contrary, macrofungi, comprising ectomycorrhizal and saprotroph fungal taxa exhibiting macroscopic spore bearing structures, are in general still widely missing from cross-taxonomic alien species impact assessments (Evans et al. 2016, 2020; Kum- schick et al. 2017), despite their potential to dramatically change ecosystem functions and cause problems for human health (Dickie et al. 2016). This likely originates from a prevalent view of these taxa as having limited impacts in naturalized ranges because they mostly comprise non-pathogenic species (Vizzini et al. 2009; Desprez-Loustau et al. 2010). Despite being comparatively less represented in invasion studies than other groups, macrofungi comprise a large number of species that have been introduced widely across the globe over recent centuries (Desprez-Loustau et al. 2010; Monteiro et al. 2022), many of which moved inadvertently in the plant trade or in deadwood or soil (Vellinga et al. 2009). The increased occurrence of some macrofungi species as well as of their effects on invaded areas has led to an increased availability of reports on their negative impacts (Desprez-Loustau et al. 2007). These impacts include toxic- ity to humans (French et al. 2011; Santi et al. 2012), competition with native fungi (Murat et al. 2008), facilitating the co-invasion of invasive plants (VIk et al. 2020), and Global impacts of alien macrofungi 25 changes to ecosystem functions (Chapela et al. 2001). Interestingly, macrofungi belong to one of the groups of alien taxa for which positive impacts are commonly reported, namely by improving or enabling forestry plantations (Dickie et al. 2010), constitut- ing a commercially valued product (Buyck 2008) or being a local food source (Dickie et al. 2016). Despite the mounting evidence of impacts, their records remain scattered across scientific and non-scientific literature, impeding an integrated examination of multiple aspects of relevance, such as the taxa involved, the regions most affected, or the type and magnitude of impacts caused. Ultimately, this knowledge is crucial to better inform invasion prevention strategies as well as in the management of existing populations of alien macrofungi. In this context, we compiled a database of the socio-economic and environmen- tal impacts of macrofungi reported in all relevant sources we could identify, namely scientific publications, reports, citizen science websites and databases on alien spe- cies. We reviewed sources in multiple languages and considered not only information on negative impacts but also impacts perceived as positive. We applied the precau- tionary principle and categorized impacts as ‘negative’ if they were known to have detrimental effects on native communities and human populations, or if they had no known beneficial effects (i-e., causing ecological change without any apparent gain to humans or native biota). In contrast, we categorized impacts as ‘positive’ if they were documented to have beneficial effects according to values associated with nature conservation or human interests (Vimercati et al. 2020). In addition, we distinguished between environmental and socio-economic impacts. Environmental impacts are those causing changes to the natural environment, whether positive or negative, resulting from effects on the air, land, water and the biota of the ecosystem. Socio-economic impacts refer to negative or positive effects on property values, ag- ricultural productivity, public utility operations or human well-being (Simberloff et al. 2013). In total, 1440 impact records were collected for 374 different alien macro- fungi species, and comprising all continents except Antarctica. Using these data, we assessed i) the taxonomic diversity of macrofungi for which impacts were recorded and ii) the typology and magnitude of recorded impacts and their geographical dis- tribution worldwide. Methods We used as a starting point the recently published Global Database of Alien Mac- rofungi (Monteiro et al. 2020), which has allowed us to obtain a pre-identification of macrofungi taxa known to be occurring outside of their native ranges. Hence, fo- cusing on each of these taxa, we conducted an extensive search for studies, reports and other sources that addressed impacts of any sort. Sources searched comprised broad databases on introduced taxa such as Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inven- tories for Europe (Hulme et al. 2019), the Global Register of Introduced and Inva- sive Species (Pagad et al. 2019) and the European Alien Species Information Network 26 Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) (Katsanevakis et al. 2019). In addition, we used general-purpose engines (i.e., Google) and scientific search-engines (Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and JSTOR) to identify relevant information from peer-reviewed literature. The reference lists from these arti- cles were also searched to identify further papers or book chapters which may contain useful information. We used specific keywords related to fungal impacts in multiple languages including English, French, Portuguese and Spanish. Terms used in the search were ‘introduced’, ‘invasive’, ‘established’, ‘alien’, ‘non-native and ‘exotic, 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 (Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam., Amanita phalloides Secr., Boletus edu- lis Bull., Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel and Pyrrhoderma noxium (Corner) L.W.Zhou & Y.C.Dai). For each combination, we added “impact” and “effect”. We also performed additional searches using specific terms related to more commonly reported impacts such as “competition”, “toxicity”, “plant diseases” and “ectomycorrizhal interactions”. We performed an individual search for each combination of country and taxa in the Global Database of Alien Macrofungi (Monteiro et al. 2020). Finally, some records were obtained by checking macrofungi observations in citizen science websites like iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org; iNaturalist 2022) and Mushroom Observer (https://mushroomobserver.org; Wilson and Hollinger 2019). Records collected from non-specialized sources were cross-checked against information available in scientific literature (e.g., species alien status) in order to assess their reliability. Only records of impacts in regions where the species are not native were included, i.e. impacts in native regions, were not considered. To classify species impacts, we first divided them into either positive or negative. Negative impacts — referring to detrimental effects on native communities and human populations, or ecological changes without any apparent gain to humans or native communities — were divided into the following subcategories: human health prob- lems, competition with native fungi, ectomycorrhizal interactions with native plants, plant disease agents, ectomycorrhizal interaction with alien invasive species and other ecosystem changes. Positive impacts, referring to recorded beneficial effects on nature conservation or human interests, were categorized into benefits for forestry planta- tions, as food source for local human populations, food source for other species, and commercial use (Table 1). Note that the previous classification is non-mutually exclu- sive, meaning for example that some records were simultaneously assigned to negative ectomycorrhizal interaction with alien invasive species and to positive impacts on for- estry plantations. For each record, the ecofunctional type of the species (ectomycor- rhizal, saprotroph or pathogenic) and a short description of the impact was also added (see online Appendices 1 and 2 regarding both negative and positive impacts of alien macrofungi for the data used in the analyses). The geographical examination of col- lected impacts followed the geographical scheme of GAMD (Monteiro et al. 2020), consisting of countries and the first-order administrative divisions for the six largest countries in the world (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Russia, USA). Global impacts of alien macrofungi 27 Table |. Percentage of each category of impacts on the total of records (n=1440). Environmental impacts are signaled by one asterisk (*) while socio-economic impacts are represented by two (**). Impact categories Description Percentage Negative Impacts Competition with native fungi Competition between alien macrofungi and native macrofungi. 0.1 species (*) Ecosystems (*) Changes to biochemical properties of soil without any apparent 0.1 ecological or human-related benefit. Human health (**) Negative consequences on human health through ingestion. 0.9 Plant disease agents (*) Negative consequences of alien macrofungi as plant disease agents. 3.6 Ectomycorrizhal interactions Ectomycorrhizal interactions with native plants without confirmed 73 with native plant species (*) benefits for these and potentially weakening ectomycorrhizal interactions with native fungi. Ectomycorrizhal interactions Negative ecological impacts owing to promotion of alien 47.8 with alien plant species (*) plant invasions. Positive Impacts Food source for other species (*) Alien macrofungi used as food source for some animal groups, hence 0.1 directly contributing to the sustaining of its population. Human food source (**) Alien macrofungi used as a human food source. 0.2 Commercial purposes (**) Alien macrofungi used as a product in food industries. 0.8 Forestry (**) Establishment of ectomycorrhizal interactions with important 38.5 forestry trees. Finally, in order to evaluate if the number of negative and positive impacts was directly related to the wealth of each included region, we performed for both impact categories (negative vs positive impacts) a Spearman’s rank correlation (7) between the number of impacts per region and their respective per capita GDP (gross domestic prod- uct). The GDP variable represents the mean income (in US$) in 2019 (or closest year available) and can be considered a proxy of wealth of the different introduced locations. Our hypothesis is that wealthier regions will have a higher number of recorded impacts (both negative and positive) owing to more introduction opportunities (Monteiro et al. 2022). To conform with the availability of data for the per capita GDP variable, the analysis was performed at the country scale. For that reason, the numbers of alien species impacts represented at the subnational scale in the database had to be upscaled accord- ingly. We collected the mean income in US$ data of the year 2019 (or closest year avail- able) from the Worldbank website (https://data.worldbank.org/; Worldbank 2019). Results We collected a total of 1440 records of impacts from 246 data sources. Of these, 869 were identified in the sources as negative impacts and 571 as positive. Regarding nega- tive impacts, most were related to mutualistic interactions that alien fungi form with al- ien plants (47.8% of the records; Table 1), followed by negative interactions with native 28 Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) plants (7.7% of the records), causing plant disease (3.6% of the records), human poison- ing after ingestion (1.0% of the records), competition with other fungi species (0.1% of the records) and changes in soil biochemistry and biodiversity (0.1% of the record). On the contrary, positive impacts recorded in the descending order of frequency were: beneficial interactions with non-native plants of importance for forestry (38.5% of the records; Table 1), direct commercial exploitation by the canning and other food indus- try (0.8% of the records) and use as direct food source for human populations (0.2% of the records). Only 0.1% of the records reported consumption by native species. In terms of the taxonomy, a total of 374 species belonging to 2 phyla, 5 classes, 15 orders, 50 families and 85 genera respectively were reported as having impacts. The families with the highest proportion of negative impacts were Suillaceae (110 records), Amanitaceae (96 records) and Russulaceae (65 records) (Fig. 1a) meanwhile the fami- lies with most positive impacts were Sclerodermataceae (91 records), Suillaceae (80 records) and Amanitaceae (56 records) (Fig. 1b). At the species level, the ones having most records of negative impacts were Pyrrhoderma noxium (Corner) L.W.Zhou & Y.C.Dai (43 records), Amanita phalloides (Vaill. ex Fr.) Link (28 records) and Descolea alba (Klotzsch) Kuhar, Nouhra & M.E.Sm. (25 records) whilst Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam. (28 records), Suillus granulatus (L.) Roussel (24 records) and Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel (24 records) were the species most frequently recorded as having positive im- pacts. Furthermore, some of the species with the greatest diversity of impact types from both negative and positive categories were Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel (6 impact types), Amanita pantherina (DC.) Krombh. (4 impact types), Amanita phalloides (Vaill. ex Fr.) Link (4 impact types), Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam. (4 impact types) and Boletus edulis Bull. (4 impact types) (Table 2). The global distribution of recorded impacts is uneven between regions (Fig. 2a, b), with the majority of negative ones being found in South America (225 records), Europe (190 records) and Africa (175 records) (Fig. 3a). For positive impacts, the majority of records take place in South America (191 records), Africa (154 records) and Oceania (85 records) (Fig. 3b). Regions where the impacts of alien macrofungi were least recorded are North America and Asia. Negative impacts corresponded to 75 records and 45 records in North America and Asia, respectively, and 39 records and 28 records of positive impacts for each. Additionally, the results of the Spearman’s rank correlation between the number of impacts per country and the per capita GDP were 7. = 0.14 for the negative impacts and r = 0.04 for the positive impacts. Discussion This study allowed identifying a high number and diversity of impacts of alien macro- fungi in many regions of the world, including negative and positive effects on humans, native and alien plant taxa, other fungi and animal species and soil biochemistry. Global impacts of alien macrofungi 29 120 100 90 100 80 80 70 60 60 50 40 40 30 20 20 ¥ Pil es % 8 8 © ® 8 8 © 8 8 2 8 & 8 ¢e@ee?eseeeeegeeege eg 2 ao 2 2 oe ee oe 8 ee ee ae iG o 09 v9 9 O09 9 @9 09 @ 9 wD D9 vw wD ieee Pee cae pee ope: ge ee A Oe ae ee eee Be o 9 o 0 o oO o oO [s) =) o 9 o s) oO Sew we fof By Ps fF 8. Oe Poe o oO oO oO o o oa i] o oO a a fc o © S225 PF wo wee ee Go s = ££ ww’ 3S 5 £€ 6 $F FoF wD eB =F DB “a 2 4 be 2s o EeERBSBEBE E35) 46 & & & £2 £€ &# © &o § E€ #£ § Ete Be oS oO Bt cor Se OO ES ce 5 e € 3 9 0 &2 » @Q m £ 6 €& &@ < ° S&S £ 5 2 25> @ as} Oe Oe eae Se £ 63 9 @& Pe 2 ts Sone 2 3 eh ee 2 £ 3 ro ee ae thi Be l= oO = F ¢€ a co SS => Ge at ia > a fa = - ran 8 = A B @ Agaricales @ Boletales Russulales | Hymenochaetales @ Pezizales ®@ Thelephorales @ Xylariales @ Hysterangiales Figure |. Number of the records per taxonomic family for negative (A) and positive impacts (B). Only the 15 families with most records are represented. Taxonomic orders are represented by distinct colors. Notwithstanding this variety, interactions of EM macrofungi with alien plants were the most common impacts recorded. EM species are important mutualists for plants, by providing nutrients from the soil in return for photosynthetically derived carbon (Begum et al. 2019). Therefore, they can have strong indirect ef- fects by facilitating plant invasions, including pines (Dickie et al. 2010) eucalyptus (Santolamazza-Carbone et al. 2019), Douglas fir trees (Pseudotsuga; Moeller et al. 2015), willows (Salix; McInerney and Rees et al. 2017) and alders (Alnus; Bogar et al. 2015). Examples of EM fungus species with a high number of plant interac- tions are Suillus granulatus (L.) Roussel and Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel as well as Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam., Descolea alba (Klotzsch) Kuhar, Nouhra & M.E.Sm. and Rhizopogon roseolus (Corda) Th.Fr. Despite these impacts, some of these spe- cies can also provide great benefits for economically important trees, by facilitating their establishment in novel environments (e.g. species from the Suilloid genus are always associated with invasive pines, particularly at early invasion, when invasive trees are most vulnerable; Policelli et al. 2019)). For those reasons, introduction of EM fungi does not only contribute to the thriving of their plant hosts, an impact viewed as positive for agroforestry activities, but to their spread beyond plantation areas, i.e., facilitating biological invasions. As a result, co-invasion with plants is the most geographically widespread impact of introduced EM fungi. In fact, the preva- lence of this kind of impact may be related to the fact that it is easier to assume that ectomycorrhizal fungus found only on non-native trees are likely to be invasive as well in the same areas, while determining the origin of many alien pathogens or saprotrophs is harder and usually requires extensive efforts (Rizzo 2005; Tedersoo et al. 2014). Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) AAA AA MA MH ay ~ KKK Mm mK MK ~ ~ KKK KM mK MK ~ Say ~ ~ SHO SHH em ~ x KK mK KM XM xx K KM MX 4 Xx xX 9 xX x xX Xx sotoods soteods aaneu-uou sjoedut sosodind JOYIO JOF a01n0s YIM suOTIOvIOIUT JusIayIp yo —- Fe|JowUIOD) = 90Nos poo.y Ansoi0J pooyueump, = ezryssooAwopy Joquinu [e}0], sjoeduit saIsog a mK KKK MM MS va xx mK mK xX Xx sotseds aaneu WIA SUOTIOVIOIUT [ezryss09AuI019q spoedurt saneSayy sulajshsooq =ueUIny;y ‘wWUNny (Iq) Wnaavuodps puojoy 14] ezluny (sng Wy 2Q “yslog) zansvads snyin¢y azquny (392g) sadzaasg snpjing *SI9g (1y"@q) ULNSOINAAIA VULAIPOLIIS “YIOAT Q SUA Unplavyl VULLAPOLIIS ‘IJ VIUOPADS VINSSNY Io[Baq (90eG) vULaqVLf VIAVIDT ABMpOy wnqpyfur ULNIDUDAIISALT TPE Wnausvs wniduvuplyy “WIS AW 29 eIYNON ‘TeyNy] (YOSZ1OPS]) Vq]V vazorsaq 7 Ord (‘][Ng) sasmsadid snsodiyvg) ‘Teg (Iq) ywuueas puppy Jessnoy (CT) SnIDINUBLS snqqIng Jessnoy ("T) szuzaog snying ‘T[Ng synpa sniajog “WRT (J) ievIsniu VIlUDULy UT] (J Xo ‘TIIeA) sapioyvgd vyluvUupy "yquiory (Od) vursaqgiund vyuvup Jassnoy ("J) szain] snpjing sarsadg ‘SUOTSAI UdTTe UT asNed 0} papsIOdar sem sardads ay IVY} syoeduat jo adAq ay squasaidar 3x, a]qeI ay} UT ‘sotToSayed aarusod pur saaneSou yloq wosy sodAi ioedur Jo Arsaarp isoyeoI3 ay) YA saidods iunjosoepy *7 VIqeL Global impacts of alien macrofungi 31 G5 25 - 48 B Figure 2. Global distribution of negative (A) and positive (B) impacts of alien macrofungi. The colors gradient represents the total number of number of species with recorded impacts. The direct impacts of fungal introductions on native plant communities are also important to consider. Several studies have shown that alien EM fungi are highly per- sistent in their novel environments and can form novel associations with native host plants (Orlovich and Cairney 2004). For example, Laccaria bicolor (Maire) P.D.Orton isolates from North America were detected in Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) plan- tations in Europe ten years after inoculation of out-planted seedlings, and were also found to colonize nearby uninoculated trees (Selosse and Le Tacon 1998). Similarly, 32 Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) isolates of Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam. have survived for > 36 years in Pinus radia- ta plantations in Australia (Sawyer et al. 2001). Besides, it is now associated with Nothofagus forests in Tasmania and New Zealand, presumably as a consequence of its introduction with pines (Fuhrer and Robinson 1992). Therefore, these alien EM fungi may establish on native hosts where they could start to alter ecosystem functions by being pathogenic to the native plants (Johnson et al 1997) or by changing ecosystem properties (e.g. changing a systems dominated by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to one dominated by EM fungi (Bai and Cotrufo 2022)). Also, these fungi can change the abundance and distribution of native EM fungi throughout time (Loo 2008). Some species of macrofungi could also cause negative effects on native plants by causing diseases. The main pathogens in our database were root rotting fungi such as Pyrrhoderma noxium (Corner) L.W.Zhou & Y.C.Dai and Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref. The former species (P noxium) is responsible for causing the brown root rot disease on more than 200 plant species (Sahashi et al. 2014) and is frequently cited for its damage to forest and hardwood plantations, as well as fruit orchards (Sahashi et al. 2012). Currently, it has a widespread non-native range among countries in Southeast Asia, Africa, Oceania, South America, Europe and the Caribbean (Ann et al. 2002). Mahogany, rubber, hoop pine, and cocoa plantings have been seriously affected by this species (Akiba et al. 2015). The second species Heterobasidion annosum (Ft.) Bref is re- sponsible for causing butt and rot root in conifer trees and it is reported to be invasive in Asia and Oceania (Asiegbu et al. 2005). In native regions, such as North America, this species is a well-known problem being responsible for the loss of an estimated cost of $US 1 billion dollars annually (Smith 1990). In terms of human health, most reported impacts were related to the consumption of some species. Ihe most reported of these impacts is the poisoning caused by the ingestion, by mistake, of the dead cap (Amanita phalloides (Vaill. ex Fr.) Link) (French et al. 2011). This fungus contains the deadliest toxin of all poisonous mushrooms, with a reported mortality rate from 25% to 50% (Jander et al. 2000). It is one of the few alien macro- organisms that regularly causes human deaths and its high frequency in urban parks and similar settings increases the risk of accidental poisonings (Page and Westcott 2014). Most of the reported cases were from the United States, likely reflecting the widespread distribu- tion of the species in some states (Wolfe et al. 2010), but also a popular interest in gath- ering and eating wild mushrooms and the existence of a network of support services for this kind of poisoning situations (McPartland et al. 1997; Brandenburg and Ward 2018). A good example of these services is the American Association of Poison Control Centers composed of 55 poison centers, who provide expert treatment advice and referral in case of exposure to poisonous or toxic substances (American Association of Poison Control Centers 2022). There were also reports of human poisoning from Africa, South America and Oceania. Besides, other introduced species like Psilocybe mexicana R.Heim and Corti- narius orellanus Fr. had a lower number of cases reported in Europe, probably because they are not as widespread as Amanita phalloides in its alien range. Finally, other species of mac- rofungi such as Psilocybe mexicana R.Heim (Johnston and Buchanan 1995) or Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam (Shepard 2005) were used as recreational drugs in New Zealand. Global impacts of alien macrofungi 33 240 210 180 150 150 120 120 90 90 60 60 30 30 0 0 South Europe Africa Oceania North Asia South Africa Oceania Europe North Asia America America America America A B Figure 3. Total number of negative (A) and positive impact (B) records per continent. Other less known negative impacts, with just a few records, refer to the introduction of alien radiata pines (Pinus radiata) and accompanying EM fungi Amanita phalloides, leading to observed changes in soil, including the release of recalcitrant nutrients, a loss of up to 30% of soil carbon and increased bacterial dominance (Chapela et al. 2001). Another example of impacts with low frequency includes competition, for example between the introduced Chinese truffles Tuber indicum Cooke and Massee and Tuber brumale Vitt. and the native and less aggressive Perigord truffle (Tuber melanosporum Vittad.) in plantations in Italy (Murat et al. 2008). On the contrary, some positive impacts that only had a few records include the case in New Zealand where mycopha- gous native insects like Mycetophila fagi, Mycetophila filicornis, Zedura curtisi use fungal tissues of Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam. to feed their larvae (Osawa et al. 2011). Besides, other less represented impacts include the use of the introduced Suillus luteus (L.) Rous- sel in Patagonian (Argentina) cuisine (Dickie et al 2016), the use of Suillus granulatus (L.) Roussel and Suillus bovinus (L.) Roussel in the canning industry in Madagascar (Buyck 2008) and the cultivation of Pleurotus citrinopileatus in some USA states as a commercial food product (Bruce 2018). Although the scope of this paper was global, some regions are clearly underrepresented, despite our efforts to search for literature in a variety of languages other than English (Nufez and Amano 2021). This could be due to real absence of impacts by macrofungi on those areas, or more likely due to lack of research or studies accessible to our search engines (Nufez et al. 2022). In fact, when compared with other taxa such as birds (Martin-Albarracin et al. 2015; Evans et al. 2016), mammals (Volery et al. 2021; Allmert et al. 2022) or amphians (Kumschick et al. 2017) this taxonomic group has been far less studied as a result of being complex organisms compounded by our lack of knowledge regarding their ecology, biology or even taxonomy. However, unlike in some previous studies (Martin-Albarracin et al. 2015; Allmert et al. 2022) we cannot clearly state that the number of impacts increased in wealthier regions because there was no relationship between that impact number and per capita GDP. For both negative and positive impacts, the Spearman correlation (r,) was close to zero and for that reason any correlations were found. That is probably relat- ed to the massive plantation of exotic pines species in the Southern Hemisphere during 34 Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) recent centuries and consequently the introduction of associated alien macrofungi spe- cies. Therefore, despite some European countries figuring, New Zealand and Australia are in general better represented in terms of the total number of impact records in our database. In addition, some countries of South America and Africa have also very high record numbers (e.g. Brazil, Argentina, Chile and South Africa). Despite the overall availability of impact records and some recent advances regard- ing the identification of alien fungi (Desprez-Loustau et al. 2007, 2010; Vellinga et al. 2009; Monteiro et al. 2020, 2022), we believe our work touches only the surface of the impacts being caused by alien macrofungi worldwide. While the impacts of fungi that form symbiotic associations with alien trees have received a relevant amount of atten- tion, either because they facilitate the establishment of invasive species or of species of economic interest (Dickie et al. 2016), many other effects of these interactions with native taxa are likely underreported (Hui et al. 2020). For example, the EM fungus Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam. has been established on native Nothofagus forests in New Zealand and Australia but the consequences on plant hosts remain unknown (Osawa et al. 2011; Dunk et al. 2012). Besides, very little knowledge also appears to exist regarding other types of ecological change, including impacts on taxonomic diversity. Concerning this latter aspect, aboveground effects of plant invasions frequently include a substan- tial decline in local-scale diversity of plant communities (Wardle and Peltzer 2017). By analogy, we should expect that introduced macrofungi could cause a similar loss of belowground diversity of native fungi. However, evidence is currently mixed regarding how this loss actually occurs (Dickie et al. 2017). Additionally, introduced fungi can also become a food source for native animals, including a large number of insects, but there is not much evidence of how invasive fungi influence wildlife (Nufiez and Dickie 2014). Therefore, there is still a huge lack of information on this field and more survey efforts are needed to fill the presumably wide knowledge gaps about these impacts. Finally, there are now well-defined frameworks for classifying and ranking the impacts of non-native species. For example, IUCN EICAT (IUCN 2020; Volery et al. 2020) allows assessing negative environmental impacts of alien species, SEICAT (Bacher et al. 2018) negative socioeconomic impacts, EICAT+ (Vimercati et al. 2022) positive environmental impacts, and the GISS (Nentwig et al. 2010) negative environ- mental and socio-economic impacts simultaneously. Certainly, the capacity to apply this sort of framework for classifying and ranking the impacts of alien macrofungi would ease the comparison of impacts with other taxonomic groups. However, to our knowledge there is no framework that considers positive socioeconomic impacts, which comprise a very substantial portion of the records of impacts in our data (39.7%). For this reason, we have developed and applied a framework appropriate to the specificities of our data, which allowed us to specify through which mechanism the impacts took place. However, this framework could not measure impact magnitude or confidence. Nevertheless, we provide the data set of impact records we have compiled together with this work, and if a more general framework becomes available in the near future, its application to this taxonomic group will become facilitated. We also expect that our findings will incentivize the construction of a comprehensive framework that encom- passes more of the negative and positive impacts of biological invasions. Global impacts of alien macrofungi 35 Conclusions By compiling and analyzing recorded impacts of alien macrofungi, we demonstrated the highly frequent and diverse types of effects that these taxa have on recipient eco- systems, economic activities and human well-being. Besides identifying mutualistic interactions with plant species as the most frequent (either negative or positive) impact recorded, we also showed that these and other impacts have a wide taxonomic and geo- graphical distribution, underscoring the need for transnational cooperation strategies in managing the spread of alien species beyond single-species prevention efforts (Capinha et al. 2023). Moreover, many types of impacts are likely strongly under-recorded (e.g., changes caused to local biodiversity and trophic chains) and more research is necessary to uncover their true magnitude. Related to this, although there is no relation between the existing data on impacts and their higher frequency in wealthier regions, efforts to expand the geographical scope of these assessments are still required, especially in not so well studied countries. Despite the limitation of available data, our work provides a first step towards the integrated analysis of the impacts of alien macrofungi. Our hope is that a greater focus on macrofungi in alien and invasion-related assessment will progressively help to understand the full depth of impacts caused by these taxa in non-native regions. Acknowledgements This work was funded by the FEDER Funds through the Operational Competi- tiveness Factors Programme — COMPETE and by National Funds through FCT, I.P. — Foundation for Science and Technology in the scope of the project PTDC/ BIA-ECO/0207/2020. Miguel Monteiro was funded by a PhD fellowship SFRH/ BD/119170/2016. César Capinha was supported by Portuguese national funds to the CEG/IGOT Research Unit (UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020), through FCT—Fundagao para a Ciéncia e a Tecnologia, I.P. Luis Reino was funded by Na- tional Funds through FCT, IP, under the programme of ‘Stimulus of Scientific Em- ployment — Individual Support’ within contract “CEECIND/00445/2017’. Martin A. Nufiez was funded through Agencia Nacional de Promécion de la Investigacion, el Desarollo Tecndlogico y la Innovacion within contract PICT SU 2018-329. References Akiba M, Ota Y, Tsai IJ, Hattori T, Sahashi N, Kikuchi T (2015) Genetic differentiation and spatial structure of Phellinus noxius, the causal agent of brown root rot of woody plants in Japan. PLoS ONE 10(10): e0141792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141792 Allmert T, Jeschke JM, Evans T (2022) An assessment of the environmental and socio-econom- ic impacts of alien rabbits and hares. Ambio 51(5): 1314-1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-021-01642-7 36 Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) American Association of Poison Control Centers (2022) National Poison Data System (NPDS) annual report. https://www.aapcc.org/annual-reports [Accessed on: 2022-5-10] Ann PJ, Chang TT, Ko WH (2002) Phellinus noxius brown root rot of fruit and ornamental trees in Taiwan. Plant Disease 86(8): 820-826. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2002.86.8.820 Asiegbu FO, Adomas A, Stenlid JA (2005) Conifer root and butt rot caused by Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref. sl. Molecular Plant Pathology 6(4): 395—409. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1364-3703.2005.00295.x Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Essl F, Genovesi P, Heikkila J, Jeschke JM, Jones G, Keller R, Kenis M, Kueffer C, Martinou AE, Nentwig W, Pergl J, PySek P, Rabitsch W, Richardson DM, Roy HE, Saul W-C, Scalera R, Vila M, Wilson JRU, Kumschick S (2018) Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9(1): 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12844 Bai Y, Cotrufo MF (2022) Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challeng- es, and solutions. Science 377(6606): 603-608. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo2380 Bartz R, Kowarik I (2019) Assessing the environmental impacts of invasive alien plants: A review of assessment approaches. NeoBiota 43: 69-99. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.43.30122 Begum N, Qin C, Ahanger MA, Raza S, Khan MI, Ashraf M, Ahmed N, Zhang L (2019) Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant growth regulation: Implications in abiotic stress tolerance. Frontiers in Plant Science 10: 1068. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01068 Bellard C, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2016) Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol- ogy Letters 12(2): 20150623. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623 Bellard C, Bernery C, Leclerc C (2021) Looming extinctions due to invasive species: Irrevers- ible loss of ecological strategy and evolutionary history. Global Change Biology 27(20): 4967-4979. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15771 Bogar LM, Dickie IA, Kennedy PG (2015) Testing the co-invasion hypothesis: Ectomycorrhi- zal fungal communities on Alnus glutinosa and Salix fragilis in New Zealand. Diversity & Distributions 21(3): 268-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12304 Brandenburg WE, Ward KJ (2018) Mushroom poisoning epidemiology in the United States. Mycologia 110(4): 637-641. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2018.1479561 Bruce AL (2018) Population genomic insights into the establishment of non-native golden oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus citrinopileatus) in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-La Cruz, USA. Buyck B (2008) ‘The edible mushrooms of Madagascar: An evolving enigma. Economic Botany 62(3): 509-520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-008-9029-4 Capinha C, Essl EK Porto M, Seebens H (2023) The worldwide networks of spread of recorded alien species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 120(1): e2201911120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2201911120 Chapela IH, Osher LJ, Horton TR, Henn MR (2001) Ectomycorrhizal fungi introduced with exotic pine plantations induce soil carbon depletion. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 33(12- 13): 1733-1740. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00098-0 Desprez-Loustau ML, Robin C, Buee M, Courtecuisse R, Garbaye J, Suffert F, Sache I, Rizzo DM (2007) The fungal dimension of biological invasions. ‘Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22(9): 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.04.005 Global impacts of alien macrofungi 37 Desprez-Loustau ML, Courtecuisse R, Robin C, Husson C, Moreau PA, Blancard D, Selosse MA, Lung-Escarmant B, Piou D, Sache I (2010) Species diversity and drivers of spread of alien fungi (sensu lato) in Europe with a particular focus on France. Biological Invasions 12(1): 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9439-y Diagne C, Leroy B, Vaissi¢re AC, Gozlan RE, Roiz D, Jari¢ I, Salles JM, Bradshaw CJA, Cour- champ F (2021) High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 592(7855): 571-576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03405-6 Dickie IA, Bolstridge N, Cooper JA, Peltzer DA (2010) Co-invasion by Pinus and its myc- orrhizal fungi. The New Phytologist 187(2): 475-484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469- 8137.2010.03277.x Dickie IA, Nufiez MA, Pringle A, Lebel T, Tourtellot SG, Johnston PR (2016) Towards man- agement of invasive ectomycorrhizal fungi. Biological Invasions 18(12): 3383-3395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1243-x Dickie IA, Cooper JA, Bufford JL, Hulme PE, Bates ST (2017) Loss of functional diversity and network modularity in introduced plant—fungal symbioses. AoB Plants 9(1): plw084. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plw084 Dunk CW, Lebel T, Keane PJ (2012) Characterization of ectomycorrhizal formation by the exotic fungus Amanita muscaria with Nothofagus cunninghamii in Victoria, Australia. Myc- orrhiza 22(2): 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-01 1-0388-9 Evans T, Kumschick S, Blackburn TM (2016) Application of the Environmental Impact Clas- sification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) to a global assessment of alien bird impacts. Diversity & Distributions 22(9): 919-931. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12464 Evans T, Kumschick S, Sekercioglu CH, Blackburn TM (2018) Identifying the factors that determine the severity and type of alien bird impacts. Diversity & Distributions 24(6): 800-810. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12721 Evans T, Blackburn T, Jeschke J, Probert A, Bacher S (2020) Application of the Socio-Eco- nomic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT) to a global assessment of alien bird impacts. NeoBiota 62: 123-142. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.62.51150 French LK, Hendrickson RG, Horowitz BZ (2011) Amanita phalloides poisoning. Clinical Toxi- cology (Philadelphia, PA) 49(2): 128-129. https://doi-org/10.3109/15563650.2011.557663 Fuhrer B, Robinson R (1992) Rainforest fungi of Tasmania and south-east Australia. CSIRO, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Heringer G, Angulo E, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Capinha C, Courchamp E Diagne C, Duboscq- Carra VG, Nufiez MA, Zenni RD (2021) The economic costs of biological invasions in Central and South America: A first regional assessment. NeoBiota 67: 401—426. https:// doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.59193 Hui C, Landi P, Latombe G (2020) The role of biotic interactions in invasion ecology: theories and hypotheses. CABI Invasives Series. CABI International. https://doi. org/10.1079/9781789242171.0002 Hulme PB, Nentwig W, Pysek P, Vila M (2019) DAISIE: Delivering alien invasive species inven- tories for Europe. http://www.europe-aliens.org [Accessed on: 20-01-2021] iNaturalist (2022) iNaturalist research-grade observations. https://www.inaturalist.org [Accessed on: 2022-4-10] 38 Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) IUCN (2020) IUCN EICAT Categories and Criteria. The Environmental Impact Classifica- tion for Alien Taxa (EICAT). IUCN. Jander S, Bischoff J, Woodcock BG (2000) Plasmapheresis in the treatment of Amanita phal- loides poisoning: II. A review and recommendations. Therapeutic Apheresis 4(4): 308-312. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-0968.2000.004004308.x Johnson NC, Graham JH, Smith FA (1997) Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism—parasitism continuum. The New Phytologist 135(4): 575-585. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.1997.00729.x Johnston P, Buchanan PK (1995) The genus Psilocybe (Agaricales) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany 33(3): 379-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.1995.10412964 Katsanevakis S$, Deriu I, D’Amico F, Nunes A, Sanchez S, Crocetta F, Arianoutsou M, Bazos I, Christopoulou A, Curto G, Delipetrou P, Kokkoris Y, Panov V, Rabitsch W, Roques A, Scalera R, Shirley S, Tricarino E, Vannini A, Zenetos A, Zervou S, Zikos A, Cardoso A (2019) European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN): supporting European policies and scientific research. https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin [Accessed on: 05-02-2021] Kumschick S, Bacher S, Blackburn TM (2013) What determines the impact of alien birds and mammals in Europe? Biological Invasions 15(4): 785-797. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10530-012-0326-6 Kumschick S, Vimercati G, Villiers FA, Mokhatla MM, Davies SJ, Thorp CJ, Rebelo AD, Mea- sey GJ (2017) Impact assessment with different scoring tools: How well do alien amphib- ian assessments match? NeoBiota 33: 53-66. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.33.10376 Loo JA (2008) Ecological impacts of non-indigenous invasive fungi as forest pathogens. Biological Invasions 11(1): 81-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9321-3 Marean CW (2015) The most invasive species of all. Scientific American 313(2): 32-39. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican08 15-32 Martin-Albarracin VL, Amico GC, Simberloff D, Nufiez MA (2015) Impact of non-native birds on native ecosystems: A global analysis. PLoS ONE 10(11): e0143070. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143070 McInerney PJ, Rees GN (2017) Co-invasion hypothesis explains microbial community struc- ture changes in upland streams affected by riparian invader. Freshwater Science 36(2): 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1086/692068 McPartland JM, Vilgalys RJ, Cubeta MA (1997) Mushroom poisoning. American Family Phy- sician 55: 1797-1812. Moeller HV, Dickie IA, Peltzer DA, Fukami T (2015) Mycorrhizal co-invasion and novel interactions depend on neighborhood context. Ecology 96(9): 2336-2347. https://doi. org/10.1890/14-2361.1 Monteiro M, Reino L, Schertler A, Essl FE, Figueira R, Ferreira MT, Capinha C (2020) A data- base of the global distribution of alien macrofungi. Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e51459. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.8.e51459 Monteiro M, Reino L, Ferreira MT, Essl E Schertler A, Capinha C (2022) Patterns and drivers of the global diversity of non-native macrofungi. Diversity & Distributions 00(10): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13607 Global impacts of alien macrofungi 39 Murat C, Zampieri E, Vizzini A, Bonfante P (2008) Is the Perigord black truffle threatened by an invasive species? We dreaded it and it has happened! The New Phytologist 178(4): 699-702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02449.x Nentwig W, Kiihnel E, Bacher S (2010) A generic impact-scoring system applied to alien mam- mals in Europe. Conservation Biology 24(1): 302-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2009.01289.x Nunez MA, Amano T (2021) Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global lit- erature reviews. Nature Ecology & Evolution 5(3): 264. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559- 020-01369-w Nunez MA, Dickie IA (2014) Invasive belowground mutualists of woody plants. Biological Invasions 16(3): 645-661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0612-y Nufiez MA, Chiuffo MC, Seebens H, Kuebbing S$, McCary MA, Lieurance D, Zhang B, Sim- berloff D, Meyerson LA (2022) Two decades of data reveal that Biological Invasions need to increase participation beyond North America, Europe, and Australasia. Biological Inva- sions 24(2): 333-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02666-6 Orlovich DA, Cairney JG (2004) Ectomycorrhizal fungi in New Zealand: Current perspectives and future directions. New Zealand Journal of Botany 42(5): 721-738. https://doi.org/10 .1080/0028825X.2004.9512926 Osawa N, Toft R, Tuno N, Kadowaki K, Fukiharu T,; Buchanan PK, Tanaka C (2011) The community structures of fungivorous insects on Amanita muscaria in New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 34(1): 40-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00779962.2011.9722207 Pagad S, Genovesi P, Carnevali L, Schigel D, McGeoch M (2019) Global Register of Intro- duced and Invasive Species — GRIIS. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.202 Page F, Westcott B (2014) High numbers of death cap mushrooms around Canberra. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/high-numbersofnumbersof-death-cap- mushrooms-around-canberra-20140429-37fiv.html [Accessed on: 19-02-2021] Panzavolta T, Bracalini M, Benigno A, Moricca S (2021) Alien Invasive Pathogens and Pests Harming Trees, Forests, and Plantations: Pathways, Global Consequences and Manage- ment. Forests 12(10): 1364. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12101364 Policelli N, Bruns TD, Vilgalys R, Nufiez MA (2019) Suilloid fungi as global drivers of pine invasions. New Phytologist 222(2): 714-725. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15660 Rizzo DM (2005) Exotic species and fungi: Interactions with fungal, plant, and animal com- munities. In: Dighton J, Oedemas P, White J (Eds) The Fungal Community. CRC Press, New York, 857-877. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420027891.ch43 Sahashi N, Akiba M, Ishihara M, Ota Y, Kanzaki N (2012) Brown root rot of trees caused by Phellinus noxius in the Ryukyu Islands, subtropical areas of Japan. Forest Pathology 42(5): 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0329.2012.00767.x Sahashi N, Akiba M, Takemoto S, Yokoi T, Ota Y, Kanzaki N (2014) Phellinus noxius causes brown root rot on four important conifer species in Japan. European Journal of Plant Pathology 140(4): 869-873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-014-0503-9 Santi L, Maggioli C, Mastroroberto M, Tufoni M, Napoli L, Caraceni P (2012) Acute liver fail- ure caused by Amanita phalloides poisoning. International Journal of Hepatology 487480: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/487480 40 Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) Santolamazza-Carbone S, Duran-Otero M, Calvifio-Cancela M (2019) Context depend- ency, co-introductions, novel mutualisms, and host shifts shaped the ectomycorrhizal fungal communities of the alien tree Eucalyptus globulus. Scientific Reports 9(1): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42550-x Sawyer NA, Chambers SM, Cairney JW (2001) Distribution and persistence of Amanita mus- caria genotypes in Australian Pinus radiata plantations. Mycological Research 105(8): 966-970. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-7562(08)61953-X Selosse MA, Le Tacon F (1998) The land flora: A phototroph-fungus partnership? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13(1): 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01230-5 Shepard G (2005) Psychoactive botanicals in ritual, religion and shamanism. In: Elisabetsky E, Etkin N (Eds) Ethnopharmacology. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Theme 6.79. UNESCO/Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK. http://www.eolss.net Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J, Courchamp F, Galil B, Garcia-Berthou E, Pascal M, Pysek P, Sousa R, Tabacchi E, Vila M (2013) Impacts of bio- logical invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(1): 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.013 Smith RS (1990) History of Heterobasidion annosum in western United States. In: Otrosina WJ, Scharpf RF (Coords) (1989) Proceedings of the Symposium on Research and Man- agement of Annosus Root Disease (Heterobasidion Annosum) in Western North America, April 18-21, 1989. Monterey, CA. Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Pélme S, Koljalg U, Yorou NS, Wijesundera R, Ruiz LV, Vasco-Palacios AM, Thu PQ, Suija A, Smith ME, Sharp C, Saluveer E, Saitta A, Rosas M, Riit T, Rat- kowsky D, Pritsch K, Poldmaa K, Piepenbring M, Phosri C, Peterson M, Parts K, Partel K, Otsing E, Nouhra E, Njouonkou AL, Nilsson RH, Morgado LN, Mayor J, May TW, Majuakim L, Lodge DJ, Lee SS, Larsson K-H, Kohout P, Hosaka K, Hiiesalu I, Henkel TW, Harend H, Guo L, Greslebin A, Grelet G, Geml J, Gates G, Dunstan W, Dunk C, Drenkhan R, Dearnaley J, De Kesel A, Dang T, Chen X, Buegger F, Brearley FQ, Bonito G, Anslan S, Abell S$, Abarenkov K (2014) Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346(6213): 1256688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1256688 Vellinga EC, Wolfe BE, Pringle A (2009) Global patterns of ectomycorrhizal introductions. New Phytologist 181(4): 960-973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02728.x Vila M, Basnou C, Gollasch S, Josefsson M, Pergl J, Scalera R (2009) One hundred of the most invasive alien species in Europe. Handbook of alien species in Europe. Springer, Dordrecht, 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8280-1_12 Vila M, Basnou C, Pysek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8(3): 135-144. https://doi.org/10.1890/080083 Vimercati G, Kumschick S, Probert AF, Volery L, Bacher S (2020) The importance of assess- ing positive and beneficial impacts of alien species. NeoBiota 62: 525-545. https://doi. org/10.3897/neobiota.62.52793 Vimercati G, Probert AF, Volery L, Barnardo-Madrid R, Bertolino S$, Céspedes V, Essl F, Evans T, Gallardo B, Gallien L, Gonzalez-Moreno P, Grange MC, Hui C, Jeschke JM, Global impacts of alien macrofungi 4] Katsanevakis S, Ktihn I, Kumschick S, Pergl J, Pysek P, Rieseberg L, Robinson TB, Saul WC, Sorte CJB, Vila M, Wilson JRU, Bacher S (2022) The EICAT+ framework enables classification of positive impacts of alien taxa on native biodiversity. PLoS Biology 20(8): e3001729. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pbio.3001729 Vizzini A, Zotti M, Mello A (2009) Alien fungal species distribution: The study case of Favolaschia calocera. Biological Invasions 11(2): 417-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9259-5 VIk L, Tedersoo L, Antl T, Vétrovsky T, Abarenkov K, Pergl J, Albrechtova J, Vosatka M, Baldri- an P, Pysek P, Kohout P (2020) Alien ectomycorrhizal plants differ in their ability to inter- act with co-introduced and native ectomycorrhizal fungi in novel sites. The ISME Journal 14(9): 2336-2346. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-0692-5 Volery L, Blackburn TM, Bertolino S, Evans T, Genovesi P, Kumschick $, Roy HE, Smith KG, Bacher S (2020) Improving the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT): A summary of revisions to the framework and guidelines. NeoBiota 62: 547-567. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.62.52723 Volery L, Jatavallabhula D, Scillitani L, Bertolino S, Bacher S (2021) Ranking alien species based on their risks of causing environmental impacts: A global assessment of alien un- gulates. Global Change Biology 27(5): 1003-1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15467 Wardle DA, Peltzer DA (2017) Impacts of invasive biota in forest ecosystems in an above- ground—belowground context. Biological Invasions 19(11): 3301-3316. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10530-017-1372-x Wilson N, Hollinger J (2019) Mushroom Observer. https://mushroomobserver.org [Accessed on: 2022-3-29] Wolfe BE, Richard F, Cross HB, Pringle A (2010) Distribution and abundance of the intro- duced ectomycorrhizal fungus Amanita phalloides in North America. The New Phytologist 185(3): 803-816. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03097.x Worldbank (2019) Worldbank open data. https://data.worldbank.org/ [Accessed on: 2022-3-20] Ye Y, Liu Z (2018) Management of Amanita phalloides poisoning: A literature review and up- date. Journal of Critical Care 46: 17—22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.03.028 Appendix |. Negative impacts of alien macrofungi File format: Microsoft Comma Separated Values File (.csv). Explanation note: File containing the records of negative impacts of alien macro- fungi worldwide. Appendix 2. Positive impacts of alien macrofungi File format: Microsoft Comma Separated Values File (.csv). Explanation notes: File containing the records of positive impacts of alien mac- rofungi worldwide. 42 Miguel Monteiro et al. / NeoBiota 85: 23-42 (2023) Supplementary material | Negative impacts of alien macrofungi Authors: Miguel Monteiro Data type: Ocurrences Explanation note: File containing the records of negative impacts of alien macrofungi worldwide. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODDbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.85.101770.suppl1 Supplementary material 2 Positive impacts of alien macrofungi Authors: Miguel Monteiro Data type: Ocurrences Explanation note: File containing the records of positive impacts of alien macrofungi worldwide. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODDbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.85.101770.suppl2