Foxtail Stonewort (Lamprothamnium papulosum)

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: Lamprothamnium papulosum
UKSI Recommended Authority: (Wallr.) J.Groves
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 EN, Britain NT (Stewart & Lansdown 2021, Stewart 2022). Has been lost from several sites and nutrient impacted in the Fleet.
Question 2: Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions?
Response: Yes
Justification: Although major factors are salinity levels and nutrient inputs, most sites are small with controllable hydrology. Sediment removal may also be beneficial in some sites
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: Creation of brackish pool habitats in the right salinity range e.g. through managed coastal retreat, could be colonised by this species and a stable metapopulation develop. For example a new lagoon site in Wales now supports a population of this species

Species Assessment

Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): 5. Remedial action identified
Recovery potential/expectation: Medium-high
National Monitoring Resource: Opportunistic - insufficient
Species Comments: Restricted to a few sites on the coast between Dorset (The Fleet) and West Sussex (Thorney Island) where pressures are high. Several sites have been lost in recent years.

Key Actions

Key Action 1

Proposed Action: Assessment of the status and management needs of populations, building on a partial survey in 2019-2020

Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented

Action type: Status survey/review

Duration: 1 year

Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites

High priority sites: Keyhaven Marshes (Hants), Eight Acre Pond (Hants), Lepe/Stansore Point (Hants), Gilkicker Point (Hants), Cockle Pond (Hants), Thorney Island (W. Sussex), East Cowes (IoW), Bembridge Harbour (IoW),

Comments: Also addresses SRC steps 4 & 5. Survey in 2019/2020 was limited by drought conditions and lack of access to some sites

Key Action 2

Proposed Action: Maintenance of suitable hydrology. Salinity is optimally in the range 8-20 psu and this can be affected by modification both of freshwater inputs and of the connection to the sea. Control of nutrient levels in freshwater inputs is also important.

Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales

Action type: Habitat management

Duration: >10 years

Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites

High priority sites: Keyhaven Marshes (Hants), Eight Acre Pond (Hants), Gilkicker Point (Hants), Cockle Pond (Hants), Thorney Island (W. Sussex), East Cowes (IoW), Bembridge Harbour (IoW),

Comments: Action has started

Key Action 3

Proposed Action: Analysis of water and sediment quality in sites in order to inform action 2 and any needs for removal of nutrient-rich sediment

Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood

Action type: Scientific research

Duration: 1 year

Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites

High priority sites: The Fleet (Dorset), Keyhaven Marshes (Hants), Eight Acre Pond (Hants), Gilkicker Point (Hants), Cockle Pond (Hants), Thorney Island (W. Sussex), East Cowes (IoW), Bembridge Harbour (IoW),

Comments: Need to understand where salinity and/or nutrients are key limitations to inform management priorities.

Return to List

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.