Green-winged Orchid (Anacamptis morio)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| 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: | Anacamptis morio |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (L.) R.M.Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.Chase |
| 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: | NT in England, with a continued loss of sites as highlighted by the recent Plant Atlas, most notably in northern and central England. Present this century in c. 1800 100 m grid cells. Historic declines were attributed to habitat destruction; more recent losses are probably due to neglect/inappropriate management. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Present in grassland and dependent on management by via a cutting/grazing regime which produces a short sward by the end of the growing season. |
| 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: | As a wind-dispersed species which appears to have a fairly catholic association with mycorrhizal taxa, it has the potential to colonise new sites that are appropriately managed and close to extant locations. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | This still relatively widespread species was included in a systematic survey conducted by the BSBI (the Threatened Plants Project), which highlighted the extent of decline in the lowlands and the reasons why (mainly neglect/reductions of grazing pressure) |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: species should be recovered through project based work. It's recovery would fit much better into restoration (and management) of species rich grassland using green hay."
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Site in northern and central England, based on the Plant Atlas, would seem best to concentrate effort.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Identify extant sites with sub-optimal management regimes, and reinstate appropriate management, monitoring outcomes
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Implement appropriate management at a number of sites with potential for recovery.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 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.