Lady Orchid (Orchis purpurea)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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: | Orchis purpurea |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Huds. |
| 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: | Has been substantial reduction in Area of Occupancy and Extent of Occurrence. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | There is a need for focus on predation of flowers and on seed production. |
| 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 is associated with open scrub and woodland open space, suggesting it would benefit from my dynamic woodland habitats in the vicinity of existing populations. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Most losses occurred before 1930, and the species' distribution is now largely stable in Kent. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Establish and maintain a database of all known sites, to include any available data about population size, population history, site ownership, and management.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: There are around 90 known sites in Kent, the county holding the bulk of the UK sites/population.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Identify isolated sites with small and vulnerable populations which might be particularly vulnerable to loss, and target habitat management at these sites in order to reduce the risk of future contractions in local range.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Duration reflects the long period between germination and first flowering. Management is likely to involve coppicing, creation/management of woodland open space, or rotational scrub management. Some method for reducing loss of flowerheads to herbivores may also be necessary (see action 3).
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Carry out a study to understand the impact of herbivory on flowering and recruitment in populations. This should include identifying the vertebrates or invertebrates responsible and the scale of impact, and test possible mechanisms for minimising the impact of herbivores on long-term population growth.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: O. purpurea flowers are clearly palatable to one or more herbivores, sometimes taking flowers from the greater part of a population. The culprit(s) is unclear, and deer, rabbits, pheasants and slugs have all been suggested. It is likely that population growth is limited by seed availability, and that herbivory may therefore be a long-term threat to populations.
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.