Heath Lobelia (Lobelia urens)
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: | Lobelia urens |
| 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: | VU in GB & England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Currently known from 6 native sites, all receiving targeted conservation management |
| 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): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | A (short-lived?) perennial of open humid grass heath, that relies on grazing / disturbance to ensure an abundance of mineral soil microsites for germination. Seed long-lived, so species has ability to respond well to conservation management, even in 'lost' sites. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Monitor all populations on a 1-3 year basis, recording numbers of plants & assessing condition of sites /suitability for L. urens.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: All.
Comments: Population numbers fluctuate widely, largely relating to condition of site. Frequent monitoring will ensure that remedial action can be taken if trends indicate a declining population overall.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Maintain & expand (to maximum) suitable open grass-heath habitat at all extant sites, ensuring a appropriate management regime of grazing & mechanical disturbance.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: All.
Comments: Species responds positively to appropriate grazing/disturbance management & probably favours sites with some light poaching of sward & soils. However, in many sites, area suitable for L. urens significantly curtailed due to cover of secondary woodland: wherever appropriate the area available to species should be expanded.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Review status of lost locations for species, assessing options for restoring areas to open grass-heath or gladed woodland, ideally with extensive grazing by cattle/ponies. Undertake restorative management where possible. Consider (re)introductions to sites where appropriate.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Yarner Wood NNR. Kilmington / Shute Hill.
Comments: Species likely to reappear if precise location of old records known.
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.