Autumn Lady's-tresses (Spiranthes spiralis)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Spiranthes spiralis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (L.) Chevall. |
| 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: | NT in England; a localised plant with around 2000 locations (based on the number of 100m grid cell records in the BSBI's database). Plant Atlas 2020 revealed significant long term decline which has slowed over the short-term, possibly reflecting the protection of surviving sites or slight expansions in range due to climate change over the last 20 years. Historic losses, many of which occurred before 1930, occurred as result of habitat loss and agricultural improvement in lowland England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species relies on the maintenance of short turf on infertile calcareous soils, through grazing by rabbits and/or livestock and occasionally by cutting (e.g. mowing of lawns) |
| 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: | This species would benefit alongside other species of low-nutrient, short, open grasslands from management that maintains areas of short swards and decreases atmospheric pollutant deposition. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | This species is possibly well surveyed although there have been no assessment of the entire English resource |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake a review of English sites to identify key sites from a national perspective and where management is needed to restore/recover populations which may be of more regional importance (e.g. edge of range, last site in a vice-county, etc.)
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Based on the findings of Action 1, seek to ensure key sites are protected, managed or restored where appropriate.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Undertake research into the potential impact of climate change on populations, with increased continentality at some sites suggested as being responsible for recent declines in otherwise seemingly suitable habitat
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 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.