Ghost Orchid (Epipogium aphyllum)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Critically Endangered (Not Relevant) [CR(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Epipogium aphyllum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Sw. |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | in Stroh et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Ghost Orchid remains the Holy Grail for many British botanists, having been declared extinct on a number of occasions. In the Chilterns it was recorded annually between 1953-1987 and again in 2024 whereas in Herefordshire it was recorded in 1982, 1991 and 2009. This paucity of sightings makes it hard to assess trends but given its extreme rarity means it warrants conservation action at known sites. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Whilst it is difficult to know how to conserve this cryptic species there are certainly a number of species-specific actions that would benefit it . This includes gaining a better understanding of why it is so rare in Britian (factors controlling flowering, survival, fungal relations, predation, etc.) as well as how to maximise management of known woodlands. |
| 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: | This species has a highly restricted distribution and is unlikely to colonise new sites. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | It is debatable whether traditional monitoring and surveillance for this species could ever be adequate given its life history and so eDNA approaches may be a more reliable way to establish its long term persistence on sites in the absence of flowering stems. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: eDNA survey of soil at historic sites to confirm continued presence so that its conservation can be assessed; also potentially screen for fungi known to be associated with Epipogium (e.g. Inocybe).
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Former and more recent sites
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Research into environmental conditions at known sites, including eDNA analyses of soil fungi present.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Former and more recent sites
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Review of methods for ex situ propagation.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Not applicable
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.