Childing Pink (Petrorhagia nanteuilii)
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: | Petrorhagia nanteuilii |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Burnat) P.W.Ball & Heywood |
| 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: | This species has declined along the south coast from around 7 areas historically to just two today, at Pagham and Shoreham (both West Sussex). Populations fluctuate from year to year, but generally vary between 100 and 1000 plants. Pagham is a large site with many sub-sites and a large population, while Shoreham is a small and isolated population. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The species requires open sand and shingle habitats and is threatened by scrub encroachment and a lack of periodic disturbance. |
| 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: | The species is now too restricted to benefit from wider landscape actions. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Both remaining sites are well recorded, although the Pagham Harbour site is large and not systematically recorded at regular intervals. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Provide at both sites, but especially the one at Shoreham, sufficient areas of disturbed bare sand and shingle, that are not being encroached by coarse vegetation and scrub.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Pagham and Shoreham (both West Sussex)
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: At former sites, undertake survey, landowner engagement and habitat restoration to encourage recruitment from soil seedbanks. If unsuccessful in restoring the species, undertake reintroduction to former sites if suitable habitat exists, and also introduce to others if suitable sites can be found.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Hayling Island (last recorded 1998)
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Put in place a programme of regular, systematic recording of the large Pagham site to improve monitoring of the species and its response to management and climate change.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
High priority sites: Pagham
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.