Hieracium argutifolium
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: | Hieracium argutifolium |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Pugsley |
| 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: | Review of taxonomy, native status and records required to collect basic data as very poorly known or understood. Not known outside UK so here accepted as native endemic. Currently on Waiting List pending review (Rich 2025 in press). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Without review of taxonomy (and thus records) hard to assess requirements. |
| 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: | Unknown at this stage |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 1. Taxonomy established |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | few specialist hawkweed surveyors |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Priority is clarification of differences from H. sabaudum (it is different but often not clear how, needs cytology/DNA) and consequent review of native status and records. Although recorded scattered through Britain it has the pattern of an introduction, which might be an artefact of recording as it is a poorly known taxon. Review should look at European collections and literature too.
Action targets: 1. Taxonomy established
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Promote awareness of the group amongst landowners, understanding of conservation requirements amongst conservation professionals and identification skills amongst field botanists e.g. via BSBI training resources and workshops
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 100 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: generic action
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.