Yellow Bird's-nest (Hypopitys monotropa)
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: | Monotropa hypopitys |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Hypopitys monotropa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Crantz |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | in Stroh et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Includes subspp. hypophegea and hypopitys (under Monotropa hypopitys); all now in genus Hypopitys. |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Assessed as EN in England due to a dramatic decline in its extent of occurrence since the 1950s (Stroh et al., 2014). The results for Plant Atlas 2020 corroborated this long term trend (decline) but the species was stable over the short-term (since 1987). However, Hypopitys appears to have a dynamic life-history coming and going at many sites and therefore creating a false impression of decline. It is therefore possibly a borderline species for recovery action as there many be very little that can be done in practice. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Hypopitys monotropa is a myco-heterotroph that relies on fungi of the genus Tricholoma for its nutrients. In most of its sites there seems no obvious reason for its decline and this may be in part due to a decline of its fungal partners due to nitrogen deposition. Site-specific actions are therefore unlikely to help recovery at the majority of sites. However, on wetland sites and sand dunes there may be a need to increase grazing and/or remove dense scrub. |
| 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): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Include S41 taxa: Monotropa hypopitys subsp. hypophegea and subsp. hypopitys. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Where populations have disappeared/declined on wetland sites (willow carr, birch scrub, sand dune slacks) undertake scrub removal and/or reinstate grazing to create open conditions needed.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake research study to establish whether the two British subspecies are distinct on morphological, genetic and ecological grounds, in particular in relation to their fungal partners.
Action targets: 1. Taxonomy established
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: As per study
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.