Stinking Goosefoot (Chenopodium vulvaria)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Chenopodium vulvaria |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | L. |
| 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: | This annual ancient introduction (archaeophyte) was assessed as EN in England due to a 76% decline in Area of Occupancy (Stroh et al., 2014); this marked decline was also reflected in the long- and short-term trends for England in Plant Atlas 2020 (Stroh et al., 2023). The reasons for this decline are poorly known but are thought to be largely due to the mechanisation of agriculture and a decline in the use of horse dung. There are now very few extant sites although many are persistent suggesting that it may have a long-lived seedbank. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species is now very rare due to a gradual loss of historic sites during the 20th C although some extant populations have persisted for many decades. Its conservation will rely on highly targeted disturbance at long persistent sites and potentially reintroduction from seed at 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: | The species is now too rare to benefit from untargeted habitat management. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Extinction debt |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Trial recovery methods to create suitable conditions at extant sites. This should include ways to reduce competition, increase population size and encourage germination from the seedbank (e.g. shallow disturbance, rotavation, topsoil stripping).
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: West Bay, Dorset or Landguard Common, Essex
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake ex situ cultivation to bulk-up seed for reintroduction
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Following the experimental trial, introduce seed to carefully selected sites where suitable management can be undertaken.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 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.