Lilljeborg's Whorl Snail (Vertigo lilljeborgi)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > mollusc > Mollusc (non-marine) |
| 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: | Vertigo (Vertigo) lilljeborgi |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Westerlund, 1871) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Seddon et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Found throughout GB, the English population is confined to the Lake District and one fen site in Shropshire. It is over 10 years since any surveys carried out but it is thought to be stable. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The current status of this species is currently poorly known. |
| 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: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
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: | Species is dependent upon regular flooding of its lake shore marginal habitat. Most populations are probably affected by large scale habitat issues such as maintenance of flood zones around lakes and other water bodies. Water quality may possibly also be a factor. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Carry out targeted surveys to establish current status and feed into a Red List update.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Lake district (well known sites include margins of Derwent Water, Rydal Water and selected others)
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Based on known autecology, actions to promote natural processes in swamps at lake margins would benefit this species - pending results of Action 1 of status assessment.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Based on known autecology, pending results of Action 1 and 2, Action 3 could consider translocation to restored habitats.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 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.