Interrupted Brome (Bromus interruptus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Grass |
| Red List Status: | Extinct in the Wild (globally) (Not Relevant) [EW(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: | Bromus interruptus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Hack.) Druce |
| 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: | Was extinct in the wild, and recovery work to date has consisted only of trial reintroductions. However, this has been successful, particularly at Ranscombe Farm Reserve, where population increase has been achieved under standard arable margin management. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Restoration in the wild remains at an early stage, and the long-term success of current reintroductions remains unclear. |
| 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
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Assess the success or otherwise of all previous reintroduction attempts, and compile a suitable database for the information gathered.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Review should note year and scale of reintroduction, whether there has been any reinforcement sowing, population counts/estimates since first establishment, and, if population still persists, latest population size and area of occupation.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Establish a programme of reintroductions onto suitable sites across the species' former range (and outside the former range where suitable conditions occur) where long-term monitoring can be maintained.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Refer to Back from the Brink Ecology & Conservation Portfolio for the species.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Maintain ex situ material (seed-bank and in cultivation), as basis for further introductions.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Will involve liaison with Millennium Seed Bank. Seed also stores successfully in 'mini seed-banks' in domestic fridge, so would be useful to have known network of people known to maintain a seed supply.
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.