Dwarf Milkwort (Polygala amarella)
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: | Polygala amarella |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Crantz |
| 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: | EN in England, restricted to round 25 sites in two areas. In Kent it is virtually extinct with only three small populations remaining (out of an original 23). In northern England around 22 survive (of an original 30) although a number of new populations have been discovered in recent years as a result of more intensive surveys of likely areas. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A specialist restricted to dry chalk grassland in the south and limestone grassland and calcareous flushes and mires in the north. Most losses in Kent have occurred due to habitat destruction or the loss of grazing leading to the development of scrub, woodland or rank swards. It is very sensitive to too much or too little grazing and so care is needed. |
| 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: | Combination - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Targeted surveys have been undertaken in both Kent and northern England in recent years leading to the discovery of historic and new populations. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Ensure that the appropriate level and timing of grazing is maintained on sites in Kent and northern England where declines have been reported due to lack of grazing (e.g. Dib Scar, Widdybank Fell)
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Dib Scar, Widdybank Fell, Purple Hill, Godmersham Down, Magpie Bottom
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: In the light of discovery of unknown populations in recent years, targeted survey to improve understanding of current distribution
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Malham-Arncliffe SSSI
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Trial restoration, augmentation or translocation techniques in the south of its range in Kent
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Historic sites in Kent
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.