Stigmidium hageniae
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: | Stigmidium hageniae |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Rehm) Hafellner |
| 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, this appears to be based on the NT status of the host (Anaptychia ciliaris), and mention of 3 UK records since 1960. Although the NBN and BLS do not appear to have any records for this species in England in the last 100 years, the ongoing redlisting exercise suggests that there are recent records of this species on Anaptychia mamillata which was last redlisted as Near Threatened. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | There is no evidence that this species will easily recolonise naturally on its own. |
| 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 - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | There is very little information available about this microfungus which parasitises Anaptychia ciliaris (and more recently A. mamillata), both lichens that have declined in much of their former range). The recovery potential is low as the probable factors for its hosts decline are still present (Dutch Elm Disease, Sulfur Dioxide pollution and particulate chemicals from inorganic fertilisers). |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: A targeted survey of the known English sites should be conducted as well as a broader status review/desk study to identify any other potential populations
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: Known, existing sites (Not currently accessible via BLS or NBN)
Comments: There is some potential that this species is underecorded.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Review habitat management at existing 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: Known, existing sites (Not currently accessible via BLS or NBN)
Comments: Review will need to look at best management for the target species, its host lichen(s), and the trees on which the host lichen grows.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Seek getting protection of host trees, 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: ≤ 5 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.