Pasqueflower (Pulsatilla vulgaris)
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: | Pulsatilla vulgaris |
UKSI Recommended Authority: | Mill. |
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: | VU in England; this species has undergone a dramatic historic decline, mainly before 1930 but also since the 1950s and is now survives in less than 20 sites. Recent losses have been caused by the loss or reductions in grazing intensity resulting in the loss of short, open turf it needs for flowering and recruitment. It has been the subject of an active conservation measures at many sites including maintenance, habitat restoration and ex situ cultivation to bolster populations. |
Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
Response: | Yes |
Justification: | This species is restricted to short, species-rich grassland overlying chalk and limestone, maintained by soil infertility, shallow soils, disturbance and grazing. It is long-lived and recruitment is likely to be low requiring bare microsites with low competition within grazed swards. Many populations are now so small and isolated that there is now unlikely to be any geneflow and/or dispersal between suitable sites. |
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): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - sufficient |
Species Comments: | This species is subject to ongoing research into its ecological requirements including work to assess how best to create the open, disturbed microsites needed for recruitment, ex situ cultivation and reintroduction and habitat management/restoration. Populations are well surveyed and monitored although there is no formal programme in place to assess the condition of populations across its entire range. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake replicated experimental studies to assess the best techniques to promote recruitment such as the removal of topsoil, scraping, harrowing, seed sowing combined with grazing /no grazing
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: 4 locations
Comments: Plantlife is currently seeking opportunities to trial these approaches
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Bolster/augment populations at sites where the species occurs in low numbers but where the habitat and management are optimal
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: 4 locations
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Restore suitable habitat conditions where populations are small/declining (or have occurred in the recent past) by removing scrub and reinstating autumn/winter grazing by either sheep or cattle
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: 4 locations
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.