Tall Thrift (Armeria maritima subsp. elongata)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Critically Endangered (Not Relevant) [CR(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Armeria maritima subsp. elongata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Hoffm.) Bonnier |
| 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: | Assessed as CR in England (Stroh et al., 2014) due to a decline in AOO of 83%. In the 1950s this subspecies was known from at least 12 localities, all in Lincolnshire, but by 2000 only two populations remained, both within the same monad/location, and with one population comprising only a handful of plants. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Several attempts at introductions/reinforcement have taken place in recent years, but the results of these are mixed, and a strategy that aims to introduce this species to suitable habitat is required. |
| 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 has a highly restricted distribution and is unlikely to colonise new sites. However, untargeted grassland creation on limestone in Lincs may provide suitable receptor locations. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Present at one locality, Moor Closes SSSI (Lincs) and the adjacent cemetery. The latter area has by far the largest and most stable population, due to the regular cutting management. It appears to have been lost, or has at least much reduced in numbers, from the former in the past 10 years, but has subsequently been sown in this area - although the sowing has not, it seems, been successful. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Identify suitable receptor sites that mimic the specific conditions required by the species, and ensure that such receptor sites have appropriate management in place.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Moor Closes SSSI; appropriate, well-management and maintained road verges in the vicinity
Comments: Reintroduction sites will need to be chosen with care, with knowledge of the underlying soils/geology
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Implement optimal grazing regime at Moor Closes SSSI
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Moor Closes SSSI
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Trial introductions at suitable receptor sites
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Prioritise well-managed/maintained sites with similar soils/geology, and close to the native population
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.