Ribblehead Hawkweed (Hieracium caesitium)
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: | Ribbleshead Hawkweed |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Hieracium caesitium |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Norrl. |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | in Stroh et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Correct common name is 'Ribblehead Hawkweed' (UKSI update needed) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Locally frequent in at least 5 subpopulations in Ribblehead-Southerscales area including the Ingleborough NNR, and recently at three other sites but not three historic sites (Jones 2014). Probably not under imminent threat and looked after within the NNR so low priority. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | No clear evidence that it is currently threatened as looked after within the NNR, and other sites are on cliffs where impractical to do anything. Seed held in Millennium Seed Bank. |
| 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: | main requirement is reduction in grazing at landscape scale in Yorkshire Dales |
Species Assessment
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.