Crested Cow-wheat (Melampyrum cristatum)
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: | Melampyrum cristatum |
| 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: | EN in England (and GB), with numerous sites lost to a lack of, or inappropriate, management. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Populations on road verges are known to have declined due to either neglect, or verges being cut but with cuttings not removed. Populations in woodlands are thought to have declined due to a lack of coppicing and subsequent shading and a lack of disturbance. |
| 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): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Populations are generally well surveyed by volunteer recorders, and the species was part of the BSBI's Threatened Plants Project, but there is no formal programme in place to assess the condition of populations across its entire range. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Identify key road verge sites and woodland sites and seek to ensure all are protected and most importantly are appropriately managed (referring to recent work on this species).
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Establish long-term monitoring of key sites to investigate the efficacy of management - inclusive of both extant sites and those in remedial action.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: At a selection of sites determined by Action 2, consider sowing seed at null locations, with propagules harvested from extant, local sites.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: refer to published literature for collection and storage of seeds and timing of sowing
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.