Glaucous Meadow-grass (Poa glauca)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Grass |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Not Relevant) [VU(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: | Poa glauca |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Vahl |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | in Stroh et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | It should be noted that some taxonomists consider Poa glauca to be scarcely distinct from P. nemoralis, and possibly just montane forms growing at high altitude and in exposed locations. In the past P.balfouri was also recognised which is now seen to be synonymous with P. glauca or P. nemoralis in the broadest sense. All this means that P. glauca is a misunderstood species in England and many records may be errors. |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Poa glauca is restricted to wet mountain crags and gullies in the English Lake District where it has been recorded from 6 sites although present numbers are difficult to assess due to the inaccessibility of sites and difficulty in identifying this species, which continues to be confused with montane forms of P. nemoralis. It was assessed as VU (D2) in England due to the low number of sites and threat of regional extinction from rockfalls. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The only practical conservation measures are seed banking, ex situ propagation and reintroduction to suitable sites |
| 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): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | This species is very difficult to monitor due to inaccessibility of sites and difficulty of identification |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Seed banking, ex situ propagation from seed and reintroduction to augment Lake District populations offers the only practical way to protect this species from regional extinction in England.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Piers Gill (Scafell Pike), Brown Cove (Helvellyn), Ruthwaite Cove (Dollywagon Pike), Fairfield, Dove Crag, Conistone Old Man
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.