The Fungus Verification Consultation Project

The Biological Recording Company collaborated with the British Mycological Society (BMS) to assess how fungal records submitted to The Fungal Records Database of Britain and Ireland (FRDBI) are verified and shared going forward. This article outlines some of the key findings of the Fungus Verification Consultation Project, includiing:

• A summary of the background work conducted by the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.
• Some key results from the online Fungus Recorder Online Survey.
• Core insights from the BMS Consultation Workshop.
• A downloadable copy of the full Fungus Recording and Verification Consultation Report.
• A Draft BMS Verification Protocol (included within the aforementioned report).

A bit of background

In September 2025, the NECR650 Edition 1: Data Flows of UK Fungal Data Records, commissioned by Natural England and produced by the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH), was published. This report examines how fungal records are currently collected, verified, stored, and shared across the UK. The report’s function is to clarify how fungal data flows between recorders, databases, and users to improve access, quality, and conservation outcomes.

Key findings included:

• Complex Data Landscape: Fungal data collection involves two national recording schemes (British Mycological Society – BMS, and Fungus Conservation Trust – FCT), local fungus groups, environmental records centres, and online platforms (e.g. iRecord, iNaturalist, Observation.org). This fragmented landscape causes duplication, inconsistent verification, and restricted sharing.

• Identification of Major Data Sources:
  • BMS – Fungal Records Database of Britain and Ireland (FRDBI): The largest dataset but not fully open access nor verified.
  • FCT – CATE2 Database: Contains substantial data, but recorder and geographic fields are restricted for public or cross-database use.
  • National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas and GBIF: Provide national and international data access but contain limited fungi records due to sharing restrictions.
  • Local and Online Sources: Local fungus groups and online citizen science platforms contribute valuable data but vary in quality and verification standards.
• Verification Challenges: Fungal identification is complex, requiring expert review. Current verification systems vary across databases, leading to uneven data quality and confidence levels.
• Data Sharing Barriers: Closed databases, inconsistent licensing, and differing standards limit access for conservation, Red List assessments, and ecological research.
• Stakeholder Insights: Surveys of recorders and database managers revealed concerns about data fragmentation, complexity of submission processes, and insufficient collaboration between recorders, data managers, and end users.

To improve fungal data management and conservation outcomes, the report recommends:

1. Adopting FAIR Data Principles – ensuring data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.
2. Standardising Verification Protocols – establishing shared quality assurance processes.
3. Enhancing Accessibility – expanding data sharing to national repositories such as NBN Atlas and GBIF.
4. Improving Interoperability – aligning taxonomies and metadata standards across systems.
5. Encouraging Data Use in Conservation and Research – supporting Red List assessments, land management, and ecological monitoring.
6. Supporting Recorders – through training, technical tools, and national coordination.

The full report can be found here: https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6376073955377152

Fungus Recorder Online Survey

The Fungus Recorder Online Survey was completed by a total of 183 respondents between 12^th October 2025 and 29^th January 2026, and was open to recorders nationwide.

This short survey invited participants to share their experiences with fungi recording, from the platforms they use to their thoughts on data quality and verification. We wanted to understand what motivates recorders, the challenges they face, and their views on how verification should work. The results helped us to build a clear picture of current practices across the UK and directly informed the development of the Draft BMS Verification Protocol.

The survey responses reflect a broad cross-section of the recording community and reveal a strong bias toward distinctive macrofungi, suggesting that prioritising these taxa would most effectively reduce verification backlogs (see figure 1 below). Records are submitted via diverse platforms, and there is a clear preference for expert verification over automated or AI-based approaches. While many respondents lack confidence in their expertise, around 60% expressed interest in training, indicating scope to expand verification capacity. There is also strong support for open data sharing, alongside a need for clearer guidance on licensing and data use.

Records are submitted via diverse platforms, and there is a clear preference for expert verification over automated or AI-based approaches (figure 2 below)

While many respondents lack confidence in their expertise, around 60% expressed interest in training, indicating scope to expand verification capacity (see figure 3 below). There is also strong support for open data sharing, alongside a need for clearer guidance on licensing and data use.

🍄 You can check out the full survey results via the report at the bottom of this page.

BMS Consultation Workshop

An in-person consultation workshop was held with BMS members during the BMS Autumn Meeting at Kew Gardens in London on 29^th November 2025. The  workshop was facilitated by Keiron Brown and attended by 17 individuals, including representatives from the BMS, a range of local fungus groups, the Biological Records Centre (part of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology) and Natural England.

The aim of the workshop was to present initial findings from the Fungus Recorder Online Survey and gather the opinions of BMS members and local fungus group representatives on how BMS should proceed with regards to verifying and sharing FRDBI data. In addition to open discussion, attendees were provided with ‘additional notes’ sheets that they could complete and submit at the end of the workshop.

Workshop discussions highlighted differing views among local groups, making consensus on verification challenging. However, there was clear agreement on the need for more consistent FRDBI submission standards and a defined verification protocol. A pragmatic, prioritised approach—focusing on factors such as species distinctiveness and record certainty—could help address the existing backlog. Given limited expert capacity, verification efforts should be targeted, alongside continued data sharing with appropriate safeguards for sensitive species.

🍄 Read more in the full report at the bottom of this page.

Fungus Recording and Verification Consultation Report

The Fungus Recording and Verification Consultation Report summarise the feedback, findings, and recommendations collected throughout the project. It highlights key themes raised by participants and provides a transparent overview of how their input has informed the proposed recommendations for the British Mycological Society to undertake with regards to the verification and sharing of FRDBI records.

The report also contains 7 key recommendations for creating a draft BMS Verification Protocol to deal with records entering the FRDBI:

Recommendation 1: ID Difficulty Codes
All checklisted UK species of fungi should be assigned a species ID difficulty code and these should be submitted to the Biological Records Centre as a Record Cleaner rule set.

Recommendation 2: Bulk Verification of Existing Records
A pragmatic approach should be taken to bulk verify existing FRDBI records, clearing a large proportion of the verification backlog and enabling verifiers to focus on new and contentious records (see figure 4 below).

Recommendation 3: Design a Species-focused Verification Protocol
A clear set of guidelines should be produced to outline how fungus records within the FRDBI should be assessed by human verifiers, based on factors such as species ID difficulty, recorder experience, supporting evidence and known distribution (see figure 5 below).

Recommendation 4: Set Up A Verifier Network
A  network of local and national verifiers should be recruited and trained to assess incoming records and existing FRDBI records via FRDBI Verification Protocol 2.

Recommendation 5: Take A Holistic Approach To Verification
Verifiers should be provided with guidance on how to consider all the data within a record alongside external factors such as the likelihood of the record being correct and the potential impact of the record on our understanding of a species.

Recommendation 6:  Implement An Open Data Policy
BMS should publish an open data policy outlining how fungal records submitted through the FRDBI can be accessed through the NBN Atlas, including guidance for recorders on choosing an appropriate licence for their records and photographs.

Recommendation 7: Looking To The Future
BMS should consider ‘what comes next’ and think about how FRDBI and other fungal datasets could be enhanced and used more widely (see figure 6 below).

Read the full report below.