Wood White (Leptidea sinapis)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - butterfly > Butterfly |
| 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: | Leptidea sinapis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Fox & Dennis, 2021 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | GB Red List (Fox et al. 2022): EN. Statistically significant 82% decline in abundance since 1979 and a 32% short-term (10 year 2010-2019) decline; 77% long-term decline in distribution since 1992 and a 39% short-term decline (Fox et al. 2023) |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Highly localised butterfly occurring in discrete colonies in tall grassland where vetches grow in sheltered situations such as woodland rides and glades. Northern limit of European range and species highly sensitive to inappropriate woodland management |
| 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: | No |
| Justification: | Good practice woodland ride management would need to include a longer rotation of ride management so would need bespoke guidance but box junctions, scallops etc are also valuable. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Most long-term abundance declines took place during 1980s and recent signs are more positive, thanks to intensive conservation efforts in many parts of the Wood White's range. Recent review found that WW occupied 610.2ha across 62 UK sites (almost all in England) in 2015-19 compared to 215.8ha across 36 sites in 2005-09. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Carry out research to understand why the status of the species is different across landscapes by comparing abundance/distribution data with habitat quality, habitat management methods/rotations, ride aspects, shelter, glades etc so that management changes can be better informed and adapted.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Increase advice and support to landowners, advisors, land managers on appropriate management practices and as results of scientific research become available.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Advice and support ensures that appropriate habitat management is applied
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Carry out habitat restoration and creation at potential sites within existing habitat networks and across the wider landscape to increase the habitat area and reduce isolation so populations as secured (such as Chiddingfold, Surrey; Lincolnshire and South Northants)
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 100 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.