Great Tassel Stonewort (Tolypella prolifera)
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 prolifera |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Ziz ex A.Braun) 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 VU, Britain VU (Stewart & Lansdown 2021, Stewart 2022). Considerable fluctuation and most 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: | Ditch management to reset succession in ditches that have become neglected and overgrown. Also lowering of nutrient applications to adjacent fields to improve water quality |
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: | Some new sites have been discovered but many sites threatened by nutrient enrichment |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Maintenance of low nutrient ditches within unimproved grazing marsh setting. Ditches need cyclic clearance and the species benefits from desilting together with "pulling" of the ditch sides so that they are moderately to steeply shelving and well scraped. Deweeding is often not sufficient and longer intervals between clearance (5-7 years) probably favours seed/spore species, such as this, over those with vegetative propagules such as Elodea spp.. Application of nutrients to adjacent fields needs to be minimised and any such applications kept well clear of ditches. Livestock grazing of banks is often beneficial in keeping down bank vegetation and encouraging "pulling" of the banks during clearance maintenance.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Lower Arun grazing marshes (Amberley Wild Brooks, North Stoke, South Stoke), Somerset Levels (Butt Moor, Southlake Moor, Aller Moor), Ouse Washes.
Comments: Many of the sites (but not all) are within some form of conservation protection/agreement. The ditches involved tend to be smaller ones that are farmer-managed. So the main input needs to be liaison with farmers /landowners to ensure suitable management of ditches and adjacent fields.
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 throughout the year is important for slowing swamp colonisation. However, cyclic swamp clearance is usually still necessary - see recommendation under Action 1. 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 Sout 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 (Baston Fen, Billingborough Fen, Gosberton High Fen, Haconby Fen, River Glen, Counter Drain), Soke of Peterborough. Nene Washes, Ouse Washes, Farcet Fen
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: South Lincs fens (Baston Fen, Billingborough Fen, Gosberton High Fen, Haconby Fen, River Glen, Counter Drain), Soke of Peterborough, Lower Arun grazing marshes (Amberley Wild Brooks, North Stoke, South Stoke), Somerset Levels (Butt Moor, Southlake Moor, Aller Moor), west London gravel pits
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.