Bearded Tooth (Hericium erinaceus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Fungus or lichen > fungus > Fungus |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Hericium erinaceus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Bull.) Pers. |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Assessed for inclusion to RDL annex only (2006) and as Vulnerable (2015) - A broad, Southern distribution with a core population in the New Forest |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Without evidence of the current national status of this species it will be very difficult to assess if there are any other species-specific actions required for its conservation; or if it is need of conservation at all. |
| Question 3: | At a landscape scale, would the species benefit from untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics, structural diversity, or particular successional stages? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | There is no evidence that an increase in the structural diversity of the habitat will directly benefit this species. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | This species has seen a recent upscaling of 'home-growing kits' being sold commercially. If it can be shown that the source of these kits were either of native provenance, or it is proven that native UK specimens are genetically similar to those from donor populations (Eastern Europe and USA)… then the native population is likely to see a recovery in the wild due to the increase in cultivated specimens. Otherwise, it may be under threat from the same through competition or hybridisation |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: An assessment of the necessary national species records should be made according to IUCN guidelines to provide a recognised redlist status criteria for this species.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: As no IUCN recognised assessment exists for this species, this action should be prioritised.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: DNA sequencing should be carried out on specimens from historic UK sites (Windsor & New Forest) and compared with sequences from a range of commercially available kits. The sequencing method adopted should allow for the genetic diversity of populations to be distinguished. This will make it possible to assess whether commercially available kits are a benefit or a threat to native English populations.
Action targets: 1. Taxonomy established
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: New Forest and Windsor Great Park
Comments: If the English (GB) population is proven to be genetically distinct, follow up work on what that means for the release of a non-native species via commercial kits must be considered. This assessment of population genetic diversity at an international level would obviously be species specific and could not be used to infer the genetic diversity of other commercial species.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: If both Action 1 confirms that this species is need of species specific conservation action and Action 2 suggests that commercial kits are a threat then: This species is grown commercially, so best practice methods of culturing and translocation can be copied from the most successful commercial evidence and used to translocate this species to new host trees. It is important that native specimens are used as source material. The aim should be to expand the distribution of the species within its existing English range.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: Follow up monitoring should be used to monitor the success of translocations. If successful, additional translocations should be implemented
Acknowledgment:
Data used on this website are adapted from Threatened species recovery actions 2025 baseline (JP065): Technical report and spreadsheet user guide (Natural England, 2025). Available here.