Table 5 A quality assessment scheme (quality criteria) proposed for regional checklists of macrofungi, exemplified by the current study

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.