Fly Orchid (Ophrys insectifera)
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: | Ophrys insectifera |
| 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: | A species showing continued decline. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | While it may be favoured by certain generic actions (e.g. to reduce predation of flowers by herbivores), as a species mainly associated with partial shade, it is likely to require targeted action. |
| 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: | The species has some (though limited) ability to colonise and then expand in new sites, e.g. it has been found in chalk quarries. Scrub development on chalk may also provide habitat. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Populations can increase relatively rapidly under suitable conditions, but decline may be equally rapid. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Establish a programme of research to better establish the ecological niche(s) which the species occupies. This should take in the range of habitats occupied in England, including grassland, scrub, coppice and other woodland, and disturbed sites such as quarries.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Length of study reflects the need to understand population dynamics and demographics.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Through technical support and bespoke advice, ensure the species is taken into account in sympathetic management of agricultural and forestry land, with management recommendations based on best current available knowledge.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Action needs to be maintained over time.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Carry out periodic monitoring of a sample of sites, based (for example) on the BSBI's Threatened Plants Project in order to gauge local population change and threats and to provide an assessment of the success of actions 1 and 2.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 100 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: To be repeated every 5 years.
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.