Frog Orchid (Coeloglossum viride)
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: | Dactylorhiza viridis |
| 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: | Assessed as VU in England on the basis of a continuing decline in its hectad distribution (Stroh et al., 2014). This assessment was supported by the significant decline shown in its distribution shown by Plant Atlas 2020 (Stroh et al., 2023). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Whilst untargeted habitat management through land management schemes (e.g. Limestone Country Project) has led to population increases in many areas (e.g. limestone grassland in the Yorkshire Dales), many lowland populations are small and vulnerable to a loss/reduction in grazing and often require reinstatement of targeted grazing on specific 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: | Yes |
| Justification: | Untargeted habitat management through landscape schemes such as the Limestone Country Project in the Yorkshire Dales has led to population increases. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Identify key historic sites where the species is declining due to lack of grazing/scrub encroachment and reinstate grazing to create open grassland habitat.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 100 sites
High priority sites: Durham Limestone, Wiltshire/Dorset Downs, Chilterns, North & South Downs
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: The key to recovery of this species in upland England will be the relaxation of grazing pressure on sites that have been historically over-grazed by sheep, ideally with a move to extensive cattle and low levels of sheep, as has increased population numbers on Ingleborough.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 100 sites
High priority sites: North Pennines, Yorkshire Dales, Derbyshire Dales
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.