Thistle Broomrape (Orobanche reticulata)
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 reticulata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Wallr. |
| 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: | NT in England but a recent assessment suggested possibly better categorised as EN; a very localised species with around 40 historic sites, all in Yorkshire, but recent surveys suggest that only half of these are now extant. A dynamic species and so this may be no surprise as new populations continue to be found and the main site with >1000 plants only had a single plant in the 1990s |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Despite the ubiquity of its host, this species has exacting habitat requirements, only occurring on lime-rich soils in ungrazed tall-herb vegetation |
| 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: | This species has appeared in a number of recently disturbed sites within its core area (e.g. Nosterfield Quarry, Quarry Moor) and so could disperse to news sites where habitat has been created or restored |
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: | Whilst many sites were surveyed in the 1990s, there has been no comprehensive survey in recent times |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Assess the condition and status of sites not visited for many years to gain an insight into how the species is faring
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Floodplain of the River Ure, Wharram Quarry, Hook Moor
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Based on the findings of Action 1 implement appropriate restoration management at key sites where still likely to be present in the seedbank or able to colonise from sites nearby
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Undertake a scientific study to gain an understanding of its niche, germination and habitat requirements
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments: Would suit a PhD study - current work ongoing at Oxford Botanic Garden (Chris Thorogood)
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.