Surrey Hawkweed (Hieracium surrejanum)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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 surrejanum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | F.Hanb. |
| 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: | Requires a survey to assess threats and priorities. The current assessment (Stroh et al. 2025) of this central Wealden endemic is IUCN Threat status 'Vulnerable'. Overall there are records from c. 18 locations in the Weald, with only 7 locations recorded since 2000 suggesting c. 61% decline (Rich 2025 in press) but there is little recent population data from all sites so surveys are required to assess whether conservation action is justified. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | species-specific surveys to determine population size and vegetation niche and management (coppicing, verge cutting) |
| 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: | Niche is typically woodland edges, semi-shaded road verges or sandstone rocks, all currently becoming more and more shaded in Weald due to lack of management so more widespread coppicing and management could help, as could appropriate management of road verge vegetation. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | few specialist hawkweed surveyors |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Review and survey of all sites to determine population size and vegetation niche/habitat management required
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Not currently known
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Subject to conclusions from survey of all sites, experimental management of sites to determine response to coppicing and opening up vegetation/roadside mowing regimes over 5 years to allow populations to respond.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Sites to be selected during population survey
Comments:
Key Action 3
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.