Oak Polypore (Piptoporus quercinus)
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: | Buglossoporus quercinus |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Buglossoporus quercinus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Schrad.) Kotl. & Pouzar |
| 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 as Vulnerable (2015). - Restricted by availability of mature/veteran oak, with key populations in the New Forest & Windsor Great Park. |
| 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. It should also be possible to increase the distribution of this species by trialling methods of translocation |
| 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: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | This is a saprophyte of oak heartwood. It is a good candidate for a translocation project, but long-term species recovery will rely on the reversal of habitat fragmentation and recruitment of more veteran oaks. |
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: Following current (2024) trials in Blyth, Wales to translocate this species into Oak heartwood, best practice methods should be utilised to create a program of translocations that create buffer zones around and between existing sites.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: New Forest and Windsor great Park
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Population genetic study to understand population structure and impact of fragmentation.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments:
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.