Enterographa sorediata
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Fungus or lichen > lichen > Lichen |
| 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: | Enterographa sorediata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Coppins & P. James |
| 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: | Nationally Scarce. This taxon is now known to be a sorediate morph of Syncesia myrticola NT (Syncesia myrticola m. sorediata) (Ertz et al, 2018) but the two morphs have very different habitats, distributions and threats, so are treated separately here. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A specialist confined to dry bark of veteran trees, overwhelmingly Oak, where it forms large long lasting colonies on well lit but sheltered trees on bark not exposed to much direct summer sunshine. |
| 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: | Part of a large group of species threatened by under grazing of old growth woodlands. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | This taxon is now known to be a sorediate morph of Syncesia myrticola NT (Syncesia myrticola m. sorediata) (Ertz et al, 2018) but the two morphs have very different habitats, distributions and threats. It is confined to dry bark on veteran trees, overwhelmingly Oak, where it forms large long lasting colonies on well lit but sheltered trees on bark not exposed to much direct summer sunshine. Its dispersal is strongly habitat limited. Likely to respond well to general vegetation management at its known locations. Healthy populations require extensively grazed minimum intervention pasture woodland, restoring grazing to woodlands is difficult and sometimes opposed. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Produce a species dossier to collate information on current and historic sites, including results of surveys and assessment of threats and remedial actions.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Survey sites with no recent information (identified through A1) to update status assessments, identify habitat management issues and identify actions required to address them
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Advise and support site owners and managers to implement the site-level actions identifies in A1
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Positive impacts on many threatened lichen species. Potential to bundle this with other grazing dependant woodland species.
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.