May Lily (Maianthemum bifolium)
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: | Maianthemum bifolium |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (L.) F.W.Schmidt |
| 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 England, and thought to be native in only three locations (Blanchland, Forge Valley, Fulsby Wood) but widely introduced elsewhere. However, there is significant doubt over the native status of this species and there seems to be little difference ecologically between sites where it is considered to be native and where it has been introduced |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The key action for this species is an assessment of whether this species is native or not; this should consider the various hypotheses which include human introduction or alternatively introduction by autumn migrant birds from Scandinavia. |
| 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 could be helped by landscape scale actions such as woodland creation by natural succession (scrub and berries for migrant birds carrying it) |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 1. Taxonomy established |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | The key question is whether this species is native or not. The evidence from an incomplete survey of English populations suggests that the case for native status is weak but further work is required to establish its status (not taxonomy although this is at the same fundamental level for the conservation of the species so was included within this recovery step) |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Use all the available evidence to assess the likelihood that this species is native in Britain
Action targets: 1. Taxonomy established
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments: The GB Red List Group should commission a report on the likely status of this species based on the available evidence from putatively native and introduced populations
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Survey all English populations collating information on habitat, conditions, size and history
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Blanchland, Forge Valley, Fulsby Wood, Allerthorpe Common, Salthouse Heath, Swanton Novers
Comments: A number of these sites have already been surveyed by BSBI
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Encourage the establishment of woodland by natural regeneration, particularly along the east coast of England
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
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.