Least Lettuce (Lactuca saligna)
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: | Lactuca saligna |
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: | Historic massive decline resulting in a small number of remaining, vulnerable populations. |
Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
Response: | Yes |
Justification: | A species associated with bare ground in particular, generally south-facing, coastal sites, and with relatively short seed-longevity. Continued maintenance of suitable germination conditions is therefore essential. |
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 - Relict or natural rarity |
National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
Species Comments: | An annual with small, localised populations and poor seed-bank longevity. Increase in size and distribution of populations therefore likely to be slow. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Establish a programme of targeted annual monitoring at all known locations.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Fobbing, Essex; Rye Harbour, East Sussex; Sheppey & Grain/Yantlet, Kent.
Comments: Action to be repeated annually. Annual monitoring should include number of plants and extent of occupied area, description of vegetation structure, record of associated species, notes on management.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Establish programmes of targeted management, based on generating bare ground in late summer and over winter, either through the use of livestock (preferred) or by mechanical means, on and around the areas occupied by existing populations. Include areas subject to this management in future monitoring.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Sheppey and Grain/Yantlet, Kent. Fobbing, Essex.
Comments: All existing sites are SSSIs. Management should initially run for 3-5 years to assess effectiveness. Rye Harbour has been left off the list of high priority sites for this action, as the plant may be doing better here than at other sites.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Plan and deliver a programme of reintroductions at a series of sites, initially within the species historic range on the South Kent/Sussex coast and in the Greater Thames Estuary. Identification of suitable sites should not just take into account the ability to deliver appropriate management in the long term, but also the ability of sites to avoid or resist the likely impact of sea-level rise and increase frequency of storms and coastal flooding.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Action is intend not just to (potentially) reverse past losses, but to provide resilience in the face of likely coastal changes.
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.