Montane Eyebright (Euphrasia rostkoviana subsp. montana)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Not Relevant) [VU(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Euphrasia officinalis subsp. monticola |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Silverside |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | in Stroh et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Name change since 2006. Current name is Euphrasia officinalis subsp. monticola (Stace 2019). |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Despite being assessed as DD in England (Stroh et al. 2014), this should not preclude attempts to recover this species, which has clearly suffered a considerable decline, through restoration and creation of hay meadow habitats. The species responds well to green-hay/brush harvest seed techniques. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species will readily become established at suitable receptor grassland sites if introduced as part of a green-hay/brush-harvested seed restoration programme. It therefore depends on careful collection of seed from known donor grassland 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: | Restoration of grassland habitats involving the translocation of green hay and brush-harvested seed from donor to receptor sites have proved to be very effective in establishing new Euphrasia populations. Such techniques could quickly increase the number of sites for this species when implemented through large-scale grassland restoration projects. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Identification of species is difficult and the plant can form introgressed populations with other species. A dynamic approach is needed, where processes of hay meadow management are prioritised and emphasis is placed on vectors to improve movement of species between sites. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Survey all sites with post-2000 records to confirm current population size and assess habitat conditions to inform future management. Use results to inform reassessment of species threat and development of advice on appropriate habitat management.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Monitor performance of populations at receptor sites and provide ongoing sympathetic management to benefit the species.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Training in identification of the species for owners/managers of known sites to improve awareness of the species and its management requirements.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 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.