Lady's-slipper (Cypripedium calceolus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Critically Endangered (Not Relevant) [CR(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: | Cypripedium calceolus |
| 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: | CR in England, with two wild sites supporting single clones. Since the 1990s, plants have been introduced to c.30 sites within the species historic range and currently 11 of these support plants (in 2023 c.430 shoots with c.170 flowers) but as yet no recruitment has been observed. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species has been the subject of an extensive conservation programme stretching back to the 1970s. This has included ex situ raising of plants from wild clones and reintroduction to suitable sites, with varying levels of success. |
| 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): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Reinstate grazing at the original wild site in order to control scrub and reduce dominance of Sesleria
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Native and reintroduction sites
Comments: Discussions currently underway between Natural England, the tenant and Yorkshire Wildlife Trust about reinstating grazing management
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Assess the condition and effectiveness of reintroduction populations with a view to obtaining a greater understanding of the requirements of this species
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Native and reintroduction sites
Comments: The reintroduction sites are monitored by volunteers but this comparative study would utilise a standard method to measures environmental variables at each site
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Continue to raise ex situ plants and maintain the Growers Network of plants
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Native and reintroduction sites
Comments: The existing ex situ propagation is carried by Kew under the Species Recovery Programme Capital grant project which is led by Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, Plantlife, BSBI, National Trust, to raise plants and distribute them to a Growers Network of volunteers, which once large enough are then available for introduction sites.
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.