Table 5 A quality assessment scheme (quality criteria) proposed for regional checklists of macrofungi, exemplified by the current study
From: Polypore fungi as a flagship group to indicate changes in biodiversity – a test case from Estonia
| Quality criterion | Assessment for the current checklist | Limitations derived |
|---|---|---|
| Completeness | < 10% unrecorded valid species (estimated from Chao index based on singleton/doubleton ratio [1]; also by analyzing species recorded in neighbouring countries) | Total no. of recorded species poorly comparable |
| Taxonomic stability | Ca. 5% recorded species taxonomically unresolved; up to 10% further additions as currently undescribed lineages | Previous checklists cannot be used for direct comparisons |
| Documentation quality of source data | All collections in public fungaria; 3% with publicly accessible DNA bar-codes (incl. vouchers of most taxa). > 95% observations geo-tagged and in public databases; however, samples from ecological studies largely identified based on observations. | All species can be re-assessed from original material, but not all individuals (especially of common taxa). |
| Presentation quality | References to remarkable specimens and datasets presented. Difficult specimens analyzed for phylogenetic relationships. Taxonomic and ecological data linked. | Undescribed species can be followed in the material. |
| Differences between subsequent checklists | Within 15 yrs., 15% increase in the no. of valid species, mostly due to adding ecological sampling designs. | Different bias in historical [2] and current data (numbers of records cannot be simply corrected for sampling intensity) |
| Geographic coverage | Western part of the country poorly studied using ecological sampling designs. | Frequencies underestimated: taxa with western distributions. |
| Ecological representativeness | Important understudied habitats: naturally disturbed areas, riverine woodlands, oak stands, and wooded grasslands with ancient trees [3–4], also gardens and buildings | Frequencies underestimated: taxa inhabiting semi-open natural or cultural landscapes. |
| Species detectability bias | Apparent in casual collections [5]; reduced in the main ecological sampling scheme used [6]. | Difficult-to-detect species poorly represented in ecosystems with casual collection data only. |
| e-DNA data | Not included. Extensive sequencing of soil fungi and some studies of wood samples have not revealed new species, but would probably reveal wider ecological niches of many taxa [3, 7]. | Frequencies and ecological niches underestimated, specifically in mycorrhizal species. |