Translocating Fungi for Woodland Restoration in the UK

Fungal Networks: A Hidden Key to Ecosystem Recovery

Fungi – particularly ectomycorrhizal (symbiotic root fungi) and wood‑decaying saprotrophs – are increasingly recognised as critical to restoring healthy woodlands. These organisms form vast underground networks that help trees obtain nutrients, resist disease, and build soil structure. Controlled trials suggest that planting trees into soil with a rich native fungal community can dramatically boost plant growth – in some cases by around 60% compared with uninoculated controls.[1]

However, many newly planted or historically managed woodlands lack this “wood wide web” of fungi. Forestry England’s DNA surveys indicate that mycorrhizal fungi are often missing or lacking in woodlands created in recent decades, especially on ex‑agricultural land.[2] This deficit reflects past intensive land use and the slow natural spread of many woodland fungi. As a result, soils in new woodlands may remain biologically impoverished for decades even after trees are planted.

This gap in fungal diversity and soil function has prompted interest in “fungal translocation” – the deliberate movement or introduction of fungi, or fungal‑rich substrates, as a tool in conservation and ecological restoration.

Why Translocate Fungi?

In undisturbed ancient woods, soils accumulate hundreds of fungal species that underpin nutrient cycling, tree health, and ecosystem resilience.[3] On former agricultural or degraded sites, these assemblages may be absent or severely reduced. Young woodlands established on such soils often show slow growth, poor survival, and vulnerability to drought and disease.

UK researchers have highlighted major knowledge gaps in how woodland soil fungi recover on ex‑farmland and how quickly natural colonisation proceeds.[4] If we can safely reintroduce appropriate fungi, we may be able to “re‑seed” below‑ground biodiversity, accelerating habitat development and improving tree performance.[5]

This is one of the ideas behind the Refungium project at Coed Talylan in Carmarthenshire, which aims to create a living fungal reserve within a recovering woodland landscape.[6] The project explicitly places fungi at the centre of restoration efforts while recognising that translocation remains experimental and must be approached cautiously.

Ectomycorrhizal Fungi: Rewilding Tree–Soil Symbioses

Most temperate woodland trees rely on ectomycorrhizal fungi (EMF) that envelop their fine roots and extend into the surrounding soil. These symbionts increase access to water and nutrients, enhance tolerance to stresses, and can improve disease resistance.[7] In return, the tree supplies the fungi with photosynthetically derived carbon.

On sites where trees have been absent for long periods, locally adapted EMF partners may be rare or missing.[8] Standard nursery practices do not guarantee that appropriate fungi accompany seedlings into the field; nursery‑associated fungi often fail to persist after planting.[9] This has led to a wave of UK initiatives exploring whether targeted introduction of EMF can help rebuild functioning mycorrhizal networks.

Soil‑Core Translocation in Yorkshire

In 2024, Forestry England began a high‑profile pilot in Yorkshire, moving intact cores of fungus‑rich soil from the ancient Hagg Wood to the nearby York Community Woodland.[10] Each core is an undisturbed plug of soil, roots, and associated organisms, thought to contain hundreds of fungal species. These cores are being inserted into carefully selected microsites within the new woodland.

The rationale is to “seed” the new site with a diverse assemblage of mycorrhizal fungi that would otherwise take many decades to arrive and establish.[11] To reduce biosecurity risks, the transfer distance is short, donor sites are screened for pests and diseases, and movements are tightly controlled.[12] Forestry England will monitor fungal establishment and spread over at least ten years using environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques.[13] The organisation is explicit that success is not guaranteed, but the potential benefits are considerable: internal assessments suggest that more than half of England’s forest area may lack fully developed mycorrhizal communities.[14]

Experimental Inoculation: The Fungi4Restor Project

Complementary research is being carried out through the Fungi4Restor project led by Forest Research.[15] Rather than moving whole soil cores, this work tests smaller‑scale interventions, including:

• applying small amounts of donor woodland soil around saplings as live EMF inoculum;[16] • planting “nurse” shrubs and pioneer trees that associate with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) alongside EMF trees, to improve soil structure and facilitative interactions;[16] • using spore traps and molecular tools to quantify natural fungal dispersal from woodland edges into surrounding land.[17]

Fungi4Restor brings together Forest Research, the University of Reading, the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and the Woodland Trust, and is funded through the Nature for Climate programme.[18] The aim is to produce evidence‑based guidance on when and how fungal inoculation should be used in woodland creation.

Pelletised Inoculum: Rhizocore Technologies

Alongside public‑sector research, UK start‑ups are developing scalable inoculation methods. Rhizocore Technologies is producing pelletised “Rhizopellets” containing native EMF propagules matched to particular tree species.[19] Their approach involves surveying local forests to identify beneficial fungi, culturing them, and incorporating them into dry pellets that can be dropped into planting holes with saplings.[20]

These pellets are designed to keep spores or mycelium viable for extended periods in the soil, giving them time to colonise roots as the tree establishes.[21] Early field trials suggest that locally sourced EMF can improve survival and growth of young trees and may also increase soil carbon sequestration as symbioses develop.[22] The project has received support from the Tree Production Innovation Fund, reflecting growing policy interest in mycorrhiza‑aware tree planting.[23]

Translocating Wood‑Decaying Fungi for Biodiversity

Mycorrhizal fungi are only part of the picture. Wood‑decaying, or saprophytic, fungi drive the decomposition of deadwood, releasing nutrients and creating habitat structures – cavities, softened wood, and specialised microhabitats – used by many invertebrates, vertebrates, and other fungi. It is estimated that around a quarter of forest species depend on deadwood and its associated organisms.[24]

In the UK, historical deadwood removal and intensive timber management have reduced both the quantity and continuity of deadwood in many woodlands. Several formerly widespread polypores and other wood‑decaying fungi are now rare or absent from managed forests.[25] Because many of these species have limited dispersal and specific substrate requirements, simply “leaving more deadwood” may not be enough to restore their populations in the short term.

Recognising the difficulty of moving fungi, Nordén and colleagues published a set of ten principles for conservation translocations of threatened wood‑inhabiting fungi in 2020.[26] These principles recommend:

• restricting translocations to well‑studied, genuinely threatened species for which habitat protection alone is insufficient;[27] • prioritising ecologically pivotal or “keystone” fungi that support other rare organisms or create critical structures;[28] • using multiple local strains to maintain genetic diversity and avoid creating clonal bottlenecks;[29] • moving fungi only within their natural range and into habitats where they would realistically occur;[30] • implementing careful pre‑surveys and long‑term post‑release monitoring.[31]

Nordén et al. emphasise that fungal translocation should complement, not replace, efforts to increase deadwood and protect old‑growth stands.[32]

The Finnish Polypore Trials

One of the most ambitious practical tests of these ideas has taken place in Finland, where researchers at the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) and the University of Helsinki have inoculated hundreds of logs with threatened polypore fungi.[33] Using pure cultures grown from wild specimens, they impregnated wooden dowels (“plug spawn”) and inserted them into drilled holes in freshly felled or naturally fallen logs on a range of sites.

Within two to three years, several target species – including the red‑listed Fomitopsis rosea, Skeletocutis odora, Radulodon erikssonii, and Perenniporia tenuis – had established inside the wood and produced fruiting bodies earlier than expected.[34] DNA sampling of wood around the inoculation points has confirmed spread of the introduced mycelium, and initial results suggest that relatively fresh logs can be suitable for some species.[35]

Although these trials are outside the UK, they provide an important proof of concept that carefully designed reintroductions of saproxylic fungi can succeed and inform emerging UK practice.

Risks, Unknowns, and Precaution

Despite the potential benefits, fungal translocation carries risks and unknowns. Introduced fungi may compete with or displace existing species, particularly in deadwood where multiple fungi vie for the same substrate.[36] To reduce this risk, Nordén et al. recommend inoculating only a small proportion of suitable logs and retaining uninoculated “control” deadwood where natural colonisation can continue.[37]

Biosecurity is another concern. Moving soil or wood risks transporting plant pathogens or non‑native fungi. Short transfer distances, rigorous health checks on donor material, and the use of local strains can reduce, but not eliminate, these risks.[38] Mycoviruses (viruses that infect fungi) are typically host‑specific and often asymptomatic, but in principle could be moved into new communities; current evidence suggests the risk of harmful cross‑infection is low but not negligible.[39]

A further challenge is that a large fraction of soil fungal diversity consists of “dark taxa” known only from DNA sequences, with no cultured representatives or formal names.[40] This makes it difficult to predict ecological interactions or fully track the impacts of translocations. Global mapping initiatives, such as those led by the SPUN Underground Network, are beginning to identify key mycorrhizal assemblages in reference ecosystems and provide baselines for restoration.[41]

Given these uncertainties, most UK initiatives are deliberately modest in scale and strongly research‑oriented. Forestry England’s Yorkshire pilot incorporates multi‑year eDNA monitoring and an explicit commitment to publish results, whether positive or negative.[13] The Refungium project likewise treats any fungal movement as an experiment that must be carefully recorded, evaluated, and adjusted in the light of evidence.[6]

Implications for Practice and Policy

Synthesis studies in restoration ecology indicate that mycorrhizal inoculation can, on average, increase plant biomass and survival on degraded sites, though effect sizes are context‑dependent.[42] If UK field trials continue to show consistent benefits under real‑world conditions, it is likely that guidance for woodland creation and restoration will increasingly incorporate fungal considerations – from protecting existing fungal reservoirs to using locally sourced inoculate where appropriate.

However, the emerging consensus is that fungal translocation is not a universal fix. It is best viewed as a specialised tool to be used sparingly and strategically, alongside core measures such as reducing grazing pressure, diversifying tree species, extending rotation lengths, and greatly increasing the quantity and continuity of deadwood.

Conclusion

Fungal translocation is opening a new front in woodland restoration – one that acknowledges fungi as active agents of ecosystem recovery rather than passive background organisms. In the UK, a combination of government‑backed experiments, academic research, and community projects is beginning to test how, when, and whether moving fungi can help heal damaged landscapes.

Projects like the Refungium at Coed Talylan situate this work within a bioregional ethic: interventions are local, transparent, and tightly linked to monitoring and learning. At the same time, international efforts such as the Finnish polypore trials and global fungal mapping provide a wider scientific context.

Over the coming decade, the results of these experiments will clarify the real scope and limits of fungal translocation. If handled with care, humility, and good data, it may become a powerful addition to the restoration toolkit – helping ensure that efforts to plant and protect forests also restore the underground networks and decay processes that make a woodland truly alive.

Endnotes

1. Ponsford, D. (2025). “Magic mushrooms: how scientists discovered fungi are the secret ingredient for restoring the world’s forests.” The Guardian.
2. Forestry England. Experimental fungi translocation news release and associated soil DNA surveys for English woodlands.
3. Forestry England. Evidence summaries on ancient woodland soil biodiversity and mycorrhizal communities.
4. Forest Research. Fungi4Restor project description and background documents on fungal recovery in new woodlands.
5. Forestry England. Rationale for soil core translocation at York Community Woodland.
6. Coed Talylan. Refungium project concept notes and web materials.
7. Forestry Commission (UK). Guidance on mycorrhizal fungi and tree health.
8. UK woodland creation and soil guidance for ex‑agricultural land (Forestry Commission / DEFRA).
9. Technical notes on nursery mycorrhizal inocula and field persistence (Forestry Commission and partners).
10. Forestry England. “Experimental fungi translocation aims to restore nature beneath the soil in Yorkshire woodland.”
11. Forestry England. Internal and public explanations of the anticipated benefits of soil core transfers.
12. Forestry England. Biosecurity protocols for the Yorkshire soil translocation pilot.
13. Forestry England. Monitoring plan for the York Community Woodland fungi translocation trial (eDNA‑based).
14. Forestry England. Estimates of mycorrhizal deficits across the English forest estate.
15. Forest Research. Fungi4Restor project overview.
16. Forest Research. Experimental designs for donor soil and nurse‑plant treatments.
17. Forest Research. Spore trap and dispersal mapping methods in Fungi4Restor.
18. Forest Research / Nature for Climate Fund. Project partner and funding information.
19. Forestry Commission / GOV.UK. Case study on Rhizocore Technologies and pelletised mycorrhizal inoculum.
20. Rhizocore Technologies. Technical descriptions of strain selection and pellet manufacture.
21. Rhizocore field trial summaries on pellet viability and handling.
22. Forestry Commission case study and allied reports on tree performance and soil carbon responses to Rhizocore inoculation.
23. Tree Production Innovation Fund (GOV.UK). Award details for Rhizocore.
24. forest.fi. Articles on deadwood biodiversity and saproxylic dependence.
25. forest.fi and national Red List assessments for threatened wood‑decay fungi.
26. Nordén, J. et al. (2020). “Ten principles for conservation translocations of threatened wood‑inhabiting fungi.” Fungal Ecology 44, 100919.
27. Nordén et al. (2020), principles on species selection and threat status.
28. Nordén et al. (2020), discussion of keystone fungi.
29. Nordén et al. (2020), recommendations on genetic diversity and sourcing.
30. Nordén et al. (2020), guidance on natural ranges and habitat matching.
31. Nordén et al. (2020), monitoring and evaluation principles.
32. Nordén et al. (2020) and forest.fi materials on translocation as a complement to deadwood and old‑growth conservation.
33. forest.fi. Reports on Finnish polypore inoculation experiments.
34. forest.fi. Early fruiting and establishment of red‑listed polypores in inoculated logs.
35. forest.fi. DNA‑based assessments of mycelial spread and substrate suitability.
36. Nordén et al. (2020), competitive interactions and potential displacement.
37. Nordén et al. (2020), recommendations on limiting the proportion of inoculated substrate.
38. Forestry England biosecurity documents and Nordén et al. on pathogen risks.
39. Nordén et al. (2020), discussion of mycoviruses and host specificity.
40. Ponsford (2025) and related sources on “dark taxa” in soil fungal communities.
41. SPUN Underground Network and partners. Global mapping of mycorrhizal fungi and reference site identification.
42. Meta‑analyses of mycorrhizal inoculation effects in restoration ecology (e.g. studies synthesised via ResearchGate and specialist reviews).