Marsh Mallow Moth (Hydraecia osseola)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - moth > Moth |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | Hydraecia osseola subsp. hucherardi |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Hydraecia osseola |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Staudinger, 1882) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | in s41 as Hydraecia osseola subsp. hucherardi which is the sole subspecies in UK |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | GB Red List (Fox et al. 2019): EN; no long term abundance or distribution data. Bespoke monitoring in the two landscapes in which it occurs indicate that populations are generally low and threatened by grazing, scrub encroachment and summer droughts. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species requires extensive beds of the Marsh Mallow plant in order to maintain viable colonies. Experience over the last 20 years shows that this can only be achieved by bespoke management targeting specific threats at each site. |
| 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: | See Q2 |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake management appropriate to each site to enable extensive beds of Marsh Mallow to thrive. Actions include fencing to exclude grazing stock, clearance of competing vegetation and re-profiling of ditches to mitigate summer droughts.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Romney Marsh, River Medway
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Propagation and planting of foodplant to allow colonisation of new sites with supportive management.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Romney Marsh
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Investigate population levels at the longest surviving colonies to determine why these colonies have persisted long-term. Undertake research to relate management practices and timings to foodplant resource to understand how various management factors impact colony size. Account must also be taken of the effects of increasing droughts and how they can be mitigated against.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Romney Marsh
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.