Three-lobed Crowfoot (Ranunculus tripartitus)
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: | Ranunculus tripartitus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | DC. |
| 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: | Still flourishing in certain strongholds (the Lizard, New Forest) but continuing to decline across much of range |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | In a few areas, generic habitat management (heavy grazing, rutting & poaching) maintains populations, but away from strongholds, it will be necessary to undertake targeted management to maintain populations |
| 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: | High levels of extensive stock grazing on humid/wet acid grasslands (with associated poaching) will maintain species. Additionally, reversion of arable land/improved acid grassland to low input grasslands with high grazing, & creation of shallow, seasonally-flooded waterbodies, is often colonised by R. tripartitus |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Species responds well to suitable management & recolonises 'lost' ground when suitable management reintroduced, assuming source of material close by (or seed in soil seed bank) |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Monitor populations within vulnerable / non-stronghold areas, assessing population size, health of populations & need for targeted management action
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Ensure effective grazing regimes of heathland and acid commonland, to ensure that sites remain well-grazed & poached (undergrazing remains a significant threat). Creation of small seasonally-flooded waterbodies (e.g. hollows & pools, pinchpoints, flooded trackways) should be created to benefit species
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: In some key areas - notably on the Lizard - the species has become locally abundant where old waterbodies have been cleared out, & extensive conservation grazing reinstated
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Identify areas where habitat restoration / creation / expansion can provide suitable habitat for species, linking isolated or scattered populations. Particular focus should target highly vulnerable / 'recently 'lost' populations in south-west & south-east England where species is vulnerable to extinction.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
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.