Marsh Saxifrage (Saxifraga hirculus)
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: | Saxifraga hirculus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | L. |
| 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: | The status of this plant is rather complex. At the monad level its distribution is probably stable; since 2000 it has not been recorded in 8 monads but has been found new in 12. A detailed survey in 2009 (Roberts, 2010) revealed 450000 ramets within around 40 discrete colonies, but with some localised declines due to the removal of sheep grazing in fenced areas/enclosures and moorland gripping. However, most populations seemed to be flourishing possibly due to relaxation of grazing following the decline in sheep numbers in the North Pennines following Foot-and -Mouth disease in 2001. Prior to that many populations had been over-grazed. As a consequence, Stroh et al. (2014) assessed it as LC for England. However, given the uncertainty over numbers of genets (versus ramets) we have included actions for its recovery here. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This is a highly localised species that is reliant on lightly-grazed upland mires in areas extensively grazed by sheep. Lack of grazing seems to be a key threat to some populations (due to fencing) whereas the former threat from overgrazing seems to have declined due to relaxation of numbers in the North Pennines. |
| 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): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: A repeat survey of all populations following the method used in Roberts (2010) is needed to assess whether current grazing levels are too low/high to sustain populations in the longer term.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: All sites covered by Roberts (2010) plus sites discovered since then.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Removal of exclosures / increasing grazing levels in areas where population declining due to overgrowth of more competitive species.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Knock Ore Gill, Johnny's Flush, Great Shunner Fell
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.