Baltic Stonewort (Chara baltica)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Non-vascular plant (incl. chromists) > stonewort > Stonewort |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Chara baltica |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Bruzelius |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Provisional England CR, Britain EN (Stewart & Lansdown 2021, Stewart 2022). Restricted to one section of the Norfolk Broads where population unstable. Formerly at single sites in Kent and Dorset. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Largely constrained by nutrient enrichment problems. Also affected by boat traffic, cutting, loss of underwater topographic structure (too much soft organic silt) |
| 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: | With managed coastal retreat there is potential for the creation of suitable brackish lagoon habitats. These could be colonised naturally (from the Baltic Sea) but also may lead to consideration of translocations. |
Species Assessment
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.