Bryoria smithii
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Fungus or lichen > lichen > Lichen |
| Red List Status: | Critically Endangered (Not Relevant) [CR(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: | Bryoria smithii |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Du Rietz) Brodo & 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: | Critically Endangered. Only known, currently, from 2 sites in England (and GB) with very small populations at each. Whole GB population in England, and would probably fit on two sides of A4 paper |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The population is very small and highly vulnerable to change in habitat conditions. Species monitoring has shown changes are happening relating to increase in ground layer vegetation and herbivore impact assessment has shown low levels of grazing which are probably facilitating this change. Given this trajectory of change the population is highly vulnerable and requires annual monitoring to ensure management can take place if necessary. Translocation trials have taken place at both sites since 2016, this also requires monitoring to assess efficacy. Monitoring also needed to trigger emergency intervention e.g. translocation if 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: | Yes |
| Justification: | In the future may benefit from untargeted landscape scale management, but not in short-medium term. Largely occupying woodland edge or well-lit areas. Needs continuity of habitat and ecological conditions but edge and glades important. Also limited to two small and isolated woodlands which need expansion for long term survival and expansion of the species. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Monitoring/survey has happened since 2015, one round of monitoring at both sites. This is targeted at it and close relatives amongst other notable species. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Encourage and support grazing regimes that allow for/facilitate woodland expansion but equally inhibit the growth of bramble, woodrush etc in the ground/shrub layer at both Wistman's Wood & Black-a-tor Copse. Expansion work includes protecting saplings, growing and planting site-provenance trees.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Black-a-tor Copse, Wistman's Wood
Comments: Getting proper control of the grazing of the sites is fundamentally important - seeking to maintain grazing within sites, but also to facilitate expansion outwith. 'No fence' collars possibly the most practical means of achieving this. Ref monitoring. NE currently investigating this.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Survey and monitoring at known sites (repeat) and wider site survey (searching for new locations).
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Black-a-tor Copse, Wistman's Wood
Comments: The population is very small and highly vulnerable to change in habitat conditions. Species monitoring has shown changes are happening relating to increase in ground layer vegetation and herbivore impact assessment has shown low levels of grazing which are probably facilitating this change. Given this trajectory of change the population is highly vulnerable and requires annual monitoring to ensure management can take place if necessary. Translocation trials have taken place at both sites since 2016, this also requires monitoring to assess efficacy. Monitoring also needed to trigger emergency intervention e.g. translocation if needed.
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.