Fragile Amanita (Amanita friabilis)
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: | Amanita friabilis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (P. Karst.) Bas |
| 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 (2006) as Endangered, a more recent study (Ainsworth and Luz, 2018) suggests Critically endangered (known from a single English Site) |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The associative and soil type requirements of this species are still not fully understood |
| 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: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | An increase in wet Alder Carr, possibly on limestone/basic woodland habitat will mean that this species is less restricted and victim to habitat fragmentation |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: To inform a national status review, surveys of more suitable habitat sites on a more regular basis should be carried out. Information on soil type and nearby plants should be recorded for each specimen found.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: Gait barrows/Little Hawes Water
Comments: A citizen science model should be followed (as LAFF did), but with targeted surveys of Alnus woodland in each vice county. Project should focus on all alder species
Key Action 2
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 3
Proposed Action: Research into inoculation of saplings with mycorrhiza of this species
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: tree inoculation should be trialled. Successful inoculation would allow for rapid colonisation of new sites
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.