Marsh Pea (Lathyrus palustris)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Lathyrus palustris |
| 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 NT in England due to a small number of locations and decline throughout the 20th century. Declines have continued , with apparent losses from east Anglia and Anglesey since 2000. Historically, decline could be attributed to the loss/destruction of fens. However, in recent years, it is more difficult to establish the reasons for decline, but it might be linked with undergrazing/lack of management, or alternatively overgrazing and excessive poaching by cattle, and also changes to the historical hydrological regime. It is present in at least one location (Woodwalton Fen, Huntingdonshire) where it is thought to have been (unofficially) reintroduced, or perhaps introduced, in the past, although this is based on anecdotal evidence. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | There is a need to better understand its ecology, and the reasons for its loss at sites where it was extant within the last few decades, but has now gone. Introductions at historical (intact) locations have the potential to be successful, if we accept that it was introduced in the past at Woodwalton Fen. |
| 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: | A poor disperser, and a nationally scarce species, it is unlikely that this species would establish at locations without targeted intervention. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake a review of sites where the species has been lost in the past two decades, focusing on autecology (especially seed viability), management, hydrology, the differences between extant and lost locations.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Locations in East Anglia, including Lakenheath Fen SSSI
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Trial best practice management at sites where the species was extant in the recent past
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Locations in East Anglia, including Lakenheath Fen SSSI
Comments: The results of best-practice management should be shared with partner organisations
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Trial introductions at key locations, following the results of Action 1 if actions to restore the species from the seed bank are not successful.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
High priority sites: Lakenheath Fen SSSI
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.