Ramonia nigra
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: | Karstenia nigra |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Coppins) Coppins, Aptroot & P.F. Cannon |
| 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: | Small population, restricted range (14 England hectads recorded 2000+, BLS 2025), known threats e.g. ash dieback and losses on some sites. Not known from Scotland or Wales. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A specialist of wood inside hollow ash, holly and beech; also occurs on the spongy bark of old oak in old woodland (Smith et al. 2009).Threats likely to require targeted action. |
| 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. Likely to benefit from diverse woodland structure, especially sheltered glades. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: |
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 impacting the species and actions required to address them.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: At sites where ash dieback is a threat work with site managers to devise and implement a mitigation plan to benefit the species.
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:
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.