Wild Candytuft (Iberis amara)
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: | Iberis amara |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | L. |
| 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: | Assessed as VU in England (Stroh et al. 2014), with the threat status based on a decline in occupancy. As an annual, rarely biennial, herb of bare, open ground on south-facing slopes on chalk, it is usually found in bare places in grassland, particularly rabbit scrapes, but also on the margins of arable fields. It is present in c. 25 locations as a native species, with almost all locations on the chalk belt of southern England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The species appears to have been lost from sites due to a lack of regular disturbance, mirroring the decline in the rabbit population. It also continues to be lost from arable habitat due to either the use of herbicides, and perhaps also the sowing of seed mixes/grass leys on margins that restrict the areas of bare ground required for germination. |
| 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: | This species is thought to have a long-lived seed bank, and so measures that lead to arable margins on the chalk/historical range that are disturbed but left uncropped/unsown may result in the reappearance of this species. It may benefit from general work to address Nitrogen pollution, as would many other small plant species of open niches. |
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: | As an annual species, regular and structured monitoring is required at sites where the species has been seen in the recent past. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Where populations have apparently been lost, but with a record this century, create small areas of disturbance at grassland sites (perhaps next to old rabbit burrows no longer in use); create disturbance on the margins of arable sites with a record this century, ensuring that the margins are ploughed but left unsown/unsprayed. This could include targeting CSA options for cultivated uncropped margins. Monitor the success or otherwise of targeted habitat creation.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Locations in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire with a last record from 1987-99.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Restore appropriate grazing and disturbance levels to former locations by other semi natural means e.g. cattle and boar
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Locations in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire with a last record from 1987-99.
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Trial introductions, using management based on Action 1 (i.e. create small areas of disturbance at grassland sites (perhaps next to old rabbit burrows no longer in use); create disturbance on the margins of arable sites with a record this century) in areas on the chalk where the species has not been seen since the mid-1980s
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
High priority sites: Farmland locations on the chalk belt of southern England
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.