Shore Dock (Rumex rupestris)
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: | Rumex rupestris |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Le Gall |
| 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: | Assessed as VU in England (Stroh et al. 2014). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Whilst significantly influenced by natural processes (e.g. coastal erosion), some sites require management & are vulnerable to recreational or other pressures |
| 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: | Species may benefit from reinstatement of low-level extensive grazing regimes on cliff slope habitats |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Climate change |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Vulnerable due to tight ecological requirements - typically confined to freshwater seeps at base of cliffs & at rear of beaches |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Surveillance programme: monitor all known populations on 5 - 10 year cycle to assess site condition & identify threats (including post 1980 historic records)
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Devon & Cornwall shoreline
Comments: Species fluctuates markedly due to natural processes, but is threatened by human activity, & may be at increasing risk from climate change induced storms.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Carry out appropriate management at sites where threats such as excessive human pressure or incorrect / insufficient management is identified (some sites threatened by growth of scrub / coarse grass) on cliff slope & duneland sites.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Devon & Cornwall shoreline. Hoylake (Wirral)
Comments: Some sites at risk from scrub & coarse grass invasion, loss of open microsites etc
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Through advice and guidance, ensure that sea defence installation does not negatively impact extant populations, through liaison with Environment Agency & local councils (i.e.. data sharing & provision of management recommendations)
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
High priority sites: Devon & Cornwall shoreline
Comments: Some sites lost in past few decades through installation of sea defences
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.