Fulgensia fulgens
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Fungus or lichen > lichen > Lichen |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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: | Gyalolechia fulgens |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Sw.) Søchting, Frödén & Arup |
| 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: | Endangered. Most recent condition assessments are unfavourable (2 sites). Lost from Breckland site. Recent surveys of donor sites found populations in Isle of Wight and SW to have declined significantly. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Little information available on current status, distribution, trends, threats etc. Requires specific research to understand these to be able to know what interventions might be needed. Translocation trials need to be followed up. |
| 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: | Likely to benefit from landscape scale efforts around early successional habitat in calcareous dune and coastal limestone habitats. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Only one recent site survey/condition assessment known. Status at other sites not known. Threats etc unknown. |
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: all
Comments: Fundamental first step ahead of monitoring/condition assessments. There is very little information available and seemingly very little known on current status and condition of most sites. References include O L Gilbert 1978, Fletcher et al. 1984 and Edwards 2007.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Monitor all known sites not specifically monitored since 2020 inc. identification of threats and remedial action required.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: all
Comments: Essential to understand current status, threats and actions to address threats. This will form the basis of any national monitoring plan.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Trial introduction to Weeting Heath NWT, including follow-up monitoring.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Weeting Heath
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.