SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:

The abstract clearly defines a national-level citizen science project that utilized fungal recordings to the infer and better understand biodiversity in Denmark. The authors propose to present the topic in light of how citizen science can be beneficial to biodiversity and conservation research, despite some shortcomings regarding collector biases. The writing is clear and the goals well defined.

MERITS:

The abstract should certainly be viewed with many merits critical to acceptance at a conference. The research has clearly been conducted and results carefully analysed, with major-impacting inferences regarding fungal ecology and national-scale conservation priorities for citizen science provided. The merits include but are not limited to: clear communication (grammar, sentance structure, meaning); wide-ranging applicability of the topic (citizen science & biodiversity assessements); well conducted research; broad target audience.

CRITIQUE:

There are really no clear weaknesses; of course further information would be nice, but one can only provide a certain level of detail within a conference abstract. One could ask that the results be better compared to other organism groups within Denmark and that utilize citizen science data (for approximately the same time period) to define species' biodiversity status and or presences. One could also ask after what the authors would project the impact of increasing digitial technology -- and, hence, greater potential citizen science involvement -- may have on the ability to identify species, also if there are any bottlenecks such as taxonomic help for species of greatest interest to identify. These are all topics that could require too much text and one will hope may be addressed in the presentation, or else during questions after.

DISCUSSION:

From the critque section, copied here as they apply equally to this section: One could ask that the results be better compared to other organism groups within Denmark and that utilize citizen science data (for approximately the same time period) to define species' biodiversity status and or presences. One could also ask after what the authors would project the impact of increasing digitial technology -- and, hence, greater potential citizen science involvement -- may have on the ability to identify species, also if there are any bottlenecks such as taxonomic help for species of greatest interest to identify. These are all topics that could require too much text and one will hope may be addressed in the presentation, or else during questions after.

- - -
INTRO:

The study report on a unique Citizen Science project on fungi i Denmark that has greatly extended the knowledge of the Danish fungal flora. It has both increased the knowledge of species occurring in Denmark and found many species previously unknown to science.

MERITS:

The study has provided new knowledge on the southern distribution limits of norther species which are impotant for our understanding of possible future distributional changes in a changing climate. It has further extended the general knowledge on the Danish fungal flora.

CRITIQUE:

I am aware of the use of "turnover" in the species diversity structure literature, i.e differnce in species diversity among sites. However, coming for the field of spatual population dynamics, "turnover" would mean change in diversity in a focal patch through time. The authours may want to be aware of these different definitions, and clarify what they refer to when using "turnover".

DISCUSSION:

The authors identify detectability as the main reason for the findings of new species for Denmark. They could considered also providing estimates of detectability of different species providing the basis to estimate how may additional species may occur.