White Helleborine (Cephalanthera damasonium)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| 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: | Cephalanthera damasonium |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Mill.) 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: | Although the latest atlas data shows evidence of a recent increase in Area of Occupancy, it is far from recovering from its long-term decline. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The species is able to colonise new habitat fairly readily, but does require the presence of an appropriate mycorrhizal associate. |
| 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: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Previous species actions refer to management trials, monitoring surveys and investigations into causes of decline all being underway. So logical steps are to gather together findings and roll out remedial action. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Carry out a review of existing management trials, investigations into ecological requirements and reasons for decline, and surveillance programmes. Assemble a dossier which synthesises the findings into recommendations for future habitat management.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Maintain/expand/establish a surveillance programme covering a series of sites across the species' geographic range and habitat range, and including a range of population sizes. Establish a programme of monitoring to assess changes in local population sizes and extent, and also to address any knowledge gaps identified under action 1.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Monitoring should be associated with actions, also it is likely for an attractive species such as this, there is already a network of recorders but coordinating this may be necessary.
Comments: The number of plants visible above ground can vary hugely from year to year. Annual monitoring is likely to be necessary to properly understand issues like recruitment and responses to climate change.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Continue to trial implementation of appropriate management regimes across a subset of woodland sites known to support the species.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Generation time may be as much as 8 years, so understanding the impacts of management potentially requires a long-term programme.
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.