Bedstraw Broomrape (Orobanche caryophyllacea)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Orobanche caryophyllacea |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Sm. |
| 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: | The English population is relatively small and highly localised, with the largest population vulnerable to both trampling and sea-level rise. Rumsey has suggested it may deserve at least Vulnerable status based on contraction in range and decline in habitat quality and extent. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Conservation/restoration of populations on chalk downs and cliffs will require actions closely focussed on the species. |
| 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): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Vascular Plant Red List for England makes reference to an ongoing intensive study which started in 2013. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake a study of pollination and seed-set, in order to understand the pollinators responsible, variation in pollinator abundance and behaviour and its effect on seed-set in different habitats/sites, and the impact of seed-set upon recruitment.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Number of sites for monitoring is approximate, as it depends on how large areas (e.g. Sandwich Bay) are broken down into individual 'sites'.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Establish experimental management plots close to existing populations on up to three of the inland chalk sites, with the aim of understanding how sward management can be used to encourage the host plants and O. caryophyllacea itself to colonise new areas.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Folkestone Downs; Folkestone Warren; Elms Farm, Hougham.
Comments: A great deal of the historic decline/loss has been on chalk downland sites away from the coast.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Investigate the impact of human disturbance upon recruitment, survival to seed-bearing size and seed-set on the dunes at Sandwich Bay. This should consider factors such as direct damage to plants, impact on sward structure and abundance of host plants, and abundance of pollinating insects.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Sandwich Bay
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.