Lanceolate Spleenwort (Asplenium obovatum)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > fern > Fern |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Asplenium obovatum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Viv. |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | in Stroh et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Assessed as NT at a GB level in 2005 (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005), and NT in England on the basis of a 29% decline in Area of Occupancy (Stroh et al. 2014). Losses from some areas apparent in Atlas 2020, such as North Devon, are likely to be due to under-recording rather than a genuine decline (Stroh et al. 2023), and the species remains plentiful in south west England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | A large quantity of suitable habitat remains in SW England, including sea cliffs, rock outcrops and lane banks & dry-stone walls. It would be difficult to increase the quantity of such habitat. |
| 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: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
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.