Sandy Stiltball (Battarrea phalloides)
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: | Battarrea phalloides |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Dicks.) 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 as Near Threatened (2006) and assessed as Vulnerable (2015) - Across suitable sites in South and Midlands, with a core population in East Anglia |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The habitat requirements of this species are generally unprotected and prone to removal or mismanagement |
| 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: | Yes |
| Justification: | A greater diversity of management types used on sandy roadside banks is likely to 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: | Improved/beneficial management of habitat, particularly of dry, sandy roadsides and hedgebanks is needed. |
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: Research should be undertaken to ascertain the best management of hedgebanks and roadside habitats to inform best practice habitat improvement and translocation preparation.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: Trials of habitat management that creates microhabitats with little or no ground vegetation, often combined with light to moderate soil disturbance. Also translocation methods could be trialled at suitable habitats.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Following trials of roadside habitat improvement, provenly successful management methods should be promoted and encouraged in relevant areas.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
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.