Marram Oyster (Hohenbuehelia culmicola)
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: | Hohenbuehelia culmicola |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Bon |
| 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 Vulnerable (2006) But species split into 2 in 2016 (making that assessment on overestimate for both species) |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Due to the recent revision and splitting of this species (now 2 species), the populations of each new species need to be identified, mapped and have their national status assessed separately so that conservation actions can be planned where needed. |
| 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: | Low - Climate change |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | A coastal sand dune species, which is expected to be threatened by coastal squeeze due to climate change . Split in 2016, negating record data used in previous RDL assessments. Protection and improved management of coastal sand dunes will increase populations of the main host plant Ammophila arenaria. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: A national citizen science survey (potentially using the LAFF model) should be organised. This species is suitably distinctive enough (although not recorded in the LAFF project). If organised by vice-county this would be far more efficient than scheduled surveys. However, additional, targeted professional surveys of each known site would provide evidence and voucher material to re-map the populations of the 2 newly split species.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: This Action will determine whether none, 1 or both of these species need further actions implementing.
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.
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.