Yarrow Broomrape (Orobanche purpurea)
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: | Phelipanche purpurea |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Phelipanche purpurea |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Jacq.) Soják |
| 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: | Orobanche (Phelipanche) purpurea was assessed as VU in England due to a population <1000 (Stroh et al., 2014). Plant Atlas 2020 shows that it has suffered an overall decline but this has been balanced by he discovery of new sites, especially in the Isle of Wight. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | It is often associated with disturbed conditions, especially crumbling clifftops, and so many losses relate to successional changes. Conservation should therefore focus on restoring these conditions although this may be challenging. |
| 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): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Trial the creation of early successional habitats at coastal sites where vegetation is becoming rank and the species is declining as a way of increasing populations sizes.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Beeston Bump, Isle of Wight
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Provide advice to churches and local councils with populations on their land to ensure that mowing only takes place after seeds have been set.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Lakenheath Cemetery (Suffolk), Chawton (North Hampshire), Brady Churchyard (Isle of Wight)
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: National status review needed to assess the number of sites, populations sizes, habitats, threats and management needed. This could include some fieldwork for sites where details are lacking.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
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.