Oblong Woodsia (Woodsia ilvensis)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > fern > Fern |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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: | Woodsia ilvensis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (L.) R.Br. |
| 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: | Yes |
| Justification: | There are just three known sites for this species in England. The native Wasdale Screes (Cumberland) site has 80% of the GB population and is apparently increasing with around 68 plants in 2012 (although this might be down to better recording). Plants have also been reintroduced to two sites in the Lake District. In Upper Teesdale, plants have been reintroduced to two other former sites - Falcon Clints (County Durham) and Cronkley Scar (North-west Yorkshire). Although numbers of reintroduced plants have stabilised at these latter sites after initial losses (exceeding 50%, but both sites now with around 23 plants in 2019), no recruitment has been observed so they are not regarded as self sustaining. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Although numbers are increasing at the Wasdale Scree site (for unknown reasons), reintroduction is currently the only method we have to increase numbers of plants. |
| 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: | The species is too restricted to benefit from wider landscape actions. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Extinction debt |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Continue and support research into reasons behind lack of recruitment (led by RBGE), particularly that might be caused through inbreeding, planting micro-sites and techniques, and wider climate impacts (moisture/rainfall).
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Plant more genetically diverse stock (produced in cultivation by RBGE) at suitable sites to therefore increase the potential for outbreeding, in line with ongoing programme of reintroductions.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Falcon Clints & Cronkley Scar (Teesdale), High Street & Helvelyn (Lake District)
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Continue programme of monitoring to assess status and condition of native plants and whether recruitment is taking place, and of reintroductions to monitor success rates and - crucially - reasons for plant losses.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
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.