Floating Water-plantain (Luronium natans)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Aquatic plant |
| Red List Status: | Least Concern (Not Relevant) [LC(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: | Luronium natans |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (L.) Raf. |
| 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: | Although assessed as NT in England on basis of a 33% reduction in EOO (Stroh et al. 2014), the species is very vulnerable to deteriorating water quality and, being predominantly found in lakes and canals, will be impacted by eutrophication and turbidity. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Species requires delivery of high-quality water management at sites, including minimisation of nutrients and turbidity in rivers, canals and lakes. |
| 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: | Potential to spread to new waterbodies and new areas of current waterbodies, if water quality and habitat conditions can be improved. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Policy conflict (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Recovery largely depends on water quality (eutrophication and turbidity) in the canal network and lakes which have been in decline for decades e.g. sewerage discharge, industrial and agricultural pollution. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Monitor water quality where key populations occur to assess current impact of eutrophication (especially in Lake District) and turbidity (particularly in canals).
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Bassenthwaite and Derwentwater (Lake District), Rochdale Canal, Calder & Hebble Navigation, Cannock Extension Canal, Huddersfield Broad Canal, Wyrley and Essington Canal.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Use results of previous action to prioritise sites where water quality is an issue and ensure water companies (e.g. Lake District) and canal owners (e.g. Rochdale Canal) take remedial action.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Bassenthwaite and Derwentwater (Lake District), Rochdale Canal, Calder & Hebble Navigation, Cannock Extension Canal, Huddersfield Broad Canal, Wyrley and Essington Canal.
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Monitor the network of sites in smaller bodies of water, marshes and drainage ditches to pick up futher potential site losses. Note that the renaturalisation and reconnecting of rivers with floodplains to create dynamic wetlands could create new sites for this species in appropriate parts of native range, and these projects should be monitored for the appearance of this species.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
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.