Minutophoma chrysophthalmae
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Fungus or lichen > fungus > Lichenicolous fungus |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Minutophoma chrysophthalmae |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | D. Hawksw. |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Woods & Coppins, 2012 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Although redlisted as Near Threatened in 2012 (based on an NT host), that was on a Pinus associating host (Pinus not being considered native to England). However, there are now recent (2019) records of this species on the apothecia of a different host, (Chrysothrix flavovirens) albeit one that rarely ever produces apothecia, the only records of this are from the New Forest and Devon. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The ongoing redlisting exercise mentions that this species is mostly found near to ground level, and so is easily threatened by any increase in shading from vegetation. |
| 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): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | The last JNCC recognised redlist for GB, was based solely on specimens found in ancient pinewoods (not native to England). The new redlist (not published at the time of writing) includes specimens found on Quercus and Taxus. The recovery potential is unknown because it is unclear how widespread this species is on the apothecia of the alternative host Chrysothrix flavovirens, which may only produce apothecia in humid, old growth woodland. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted removal of Ilex in the New Forest where understorey shading threatens the host.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: New Forest & Devon
Comments: Ilex management in the SSSI management plan (New Forest) should include areas where the host occurs.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Review habitat management at extant sites and assess suitability for preventing any decline or extinction of this species.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: New Forest & Devon
Comments: To maintain existing populations, the review will need to look at the best management for the target species, its host lichen, and the trees on which the host lichen grows.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Seek getting protection of host trees (standing, dead Quercus and Taxus), and other beneficial management into Site Management Plan.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: New Forest & Devon
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.