Round-leaved Feather-moss (Rhynchostegium rotundifolium)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Non-vascular plant (incl. chromists) > moss > Moss |
| 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: | Rhynchostegium rotundifolium |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Scop. ex Brid.) Schimp. |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Callaghan, 2023 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | At risk of extinction in England due to small population size |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Research is need to understand factors that are limiting population size |
| 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: | The species has a restricted distribution and so is unlikely to benefit from untargeted actions |
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: | GB RL criteria: D1. Temperate European species. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Develop and implement national monitoring plan to ensure comprehensive and up-to-date information is available on range size, population size, occupied sites and threatening factors in England
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: A species with low recovery potential where the main aim is to maintain/protect populations. Both populations appear to be in very poor condition, the habitat at Bisley is unstable and the population appears to be declining, surveys of the area around both populations (and the historic site near Wells) have been unsuccessful. There is a need for a consistent monitoring protocol designed to quantify population trends, as well as experimental work to establish populations on stones which can be inserted into the wall at Bisley.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake research to understand factors that are limiting population size
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Factors responsible for its extreme rarity are unknown. Dispersal potential does not seem to be limited, but unoccupied habitat patches that seem suitable are common, including in close proximity to extant populations. Spore viability needs to be tested as part pf this work.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Trial measures to strengthen local populations
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Various measures to strengthen the two surviving populations need to be trialled, such as harvesting of spores and depositing them directly onto suitable substrates in the local vicinity, and ex situ growth of plants for planting out around surviving colonies.
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.