Ptychographa xylographoides
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: | Ptychographa xylographoides |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Nyl. |
| 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: | Only known, currently, from 1 site in England, with a very small population on a small number of trees. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Very small localised population at one site. Whilst habitat management is crucial, monitoring and survey is important, and other targeted interventions may be required e.g. translocation. |
| 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. Needs continuity of niche, habitat and ecological conditions but edge and glades important. Also limited to one small and isolated woodland which will need expansion for long term survival and expansion of the species. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Monitoring/survey has happened since 2015, after baseline in 2003, one round of monitoring as part of monitoring of Bryoria spp and other notable species. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Establish ecological requirements (key niche and habitat characteristics), likely limiting factors and likely remedial actions, including a review of GB records.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Other (specify in comments)
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Wistman's Wood
Comments: Needs review of GB records to establish key niche and habitat characteristics + lit review (although there appears to be very little) - falls between 'scientific research' and 'status review'.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Identify recovery actions/trial management following review.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Wistman's Wood
Comments: It is likely that this action will overlap with those for other species at the same site i.e. likely to be able to have delivery for multiple taxa (implication - value for money for actions at this site).
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Annual monitoring at known site to ensure sufficient grazing pressure and to monitor translocation trials, plus wider survey of potential sites. (See comments for rationale.). Given the extreme vulnerability of this tiny population monitoring is essential to assess response to management and to trigger emergency action if needed.
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.