Wintergreen Rust (Chrysomyxa pyrolata)
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: | Chrysomyxa pyrolata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Körn.) G. Winter |
| 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: | It's recovery is dependent on the success of a plant species that is in national decline (Pyrola spp.) - Currently restricted to just a couple of sites in Lancashire and Cumbria within the range of the host plant. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | It is reliant on the success/distribution of specific plant species. (Pyrola spp. especially Pyrola rotundifolia ssp. Maritima & P. minor) Only Pyrola media is dealt with as part of the TSRA project. |
| 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: | An increase in the number of host plants (more than one type) will be beneficial to this species…. If the host plant would not benefit from an increase in the structural diversity of the habitat, then this should be a 'No' answer to Q.3. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | A rust fungus on Pyrola spp. especially Pyrola rotundifolia ssp. maritima & P. minor, but also Pyrola rotundifolia ssp. Rotundifolia |
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: If Action 1 confirms that this species is need of species specific conservation action then: A pilot study to translocate the host plants to new sites should be trialled. The percentage of the translocated plants should be hosts to the rust fungus and with them. If other programs of translocation for the host plant are in operation assessments should be made to introduce the rust once the new population is established.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: Host plant species need to undergo some combination of protection/redlisting/translocation to improve host plant availability
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.