Tassel Stonewort (Tolypella intricata)
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: | Tolypella intricata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Trentep. ex Roth) Leonh. |
| 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 NT, Britain NT (Stewart & Lansdown 2021, Stewart 2022). Although some new sites recently many sites are management-dependent. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Many sites are management dependent to maintain open conditions suitable for the species. Spores have long viability so management can be cyclic. |
| 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: | Pond clearance/restoration ("ghost ponds") - has already resulted in its discovery in a couple of previously unknown sites. Also ditch management to reset succession in neglected and overgrown ditches. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Several new sites have been discovered but many sites are threatened by nutrient enrichment and lack of management. In several places there are clusters of locations which appear to act as meta-populations, i.e. allowing some ability to self-maintain by moving between sites as habitat suitability changes at individual locations. Suggested actions are particularly focussed on maintaining and enhancing such clusters of locations and restoring historic known clusters. Nevertheless, some of the isolated locations may be the last survivors of other previous clusters. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Restore/ensure maintenance of grazing and/or other periodic disturbance to maintain open substrates at pond and ditch margins suitable for the species. This includes poaching by heavy livestock, periodic vehicle disturbance such as rutting of trackways or periodic cleaning out of ponds. Poaching disturbance as the ponds are drying out is particularly beneficial with also higher probability of spores being transferred to new locations.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Particularly Otmoor (Oxon), Inglestone Common (Glos), Bramfield & Walpole (Suffolk). Over/Arlingham Peninsula (Glos)
Comments: For example, lack of grazing has resulted in ponds becoming scrubbed over on Inglestone Common and one population at Otmoor is now fenced off from grazing. Some pond restoration is in progress at Bramfield and Walpole but this needs to be further extended.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Maintenance of low nutrient ditches within arable/improved pasture setting in south Lincs/Peterborough area. In these sites good water quality is maintained by spring-feeding and/or pumping up in boreholes from the aquifer. Water levels tend to be managed by sluicing and maintenance of water for at least several months per year is important for slowing swamp colonisation. However, cyclic swamp clearance is usually still necessary. Limitation of nutrient applications to fields adjacent to ditches needs to be encouraged and any applications should leave buffer strips along the ditches. Critical to recognise that part of the reason for the persistence of this species in drain in South Lincolnshire is the annual slubbing out, linked to calcareous sub-surface flow. Any change in the current regime could be severely detrimental to this species.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: South Lincs fens (Bicker Fen, Gosberton High Fen, Haconby Fen, Helpringham Fen, Horbling Fen, Little Hale Fen, River Glen, Counter Drain)
Comments: Many of the ditches involved are probably IDB managed although some may be farmer managed. Main input is likely to be liaison with managing parties to ensure appropriate management for this species within the normal clearance programme.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Resurvey to assess the current status of populations. Most sites have not been visited for over 10 years during which time succession may have affected habitat availability. There is a need to assess which sites need management to reinstate/boost populations. This will be important for guiding advice given in Actions 1 & 2.
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: Particularly Otmoor (Oxon), Ingleston Common/Horton Great Trench (Glos), South Lincs fens
Comments: Also addresses SRC steps 4 & 5. Needs visits over several years to catch locations at suitable management state.
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.