Downy Woundwort (Stachys germanica)
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: | Stachys germanica |
| 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: | Confined to five sites post-2000, with national population size fluctuating between 14 - 470 plants in decade since. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Species numbers fluctuate wildly depending on level of disturbed / bare open ground for this biennial species. Species responds well to management, recovering from dormant seed in soil seed bank |
| 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: | Possibly. Some old sites (e.g. Forest of Wychwood) could benefit from landscape scale management to increase areas of open grassland & rotationally-managed scrub. Additionally, development of network of fallow margins in area of historic distribution could result in resurgence of former populations. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Species well monitored in 1990s but perhaps less systematically monitored at present time. Many populations confined to drove roads & largely absent from wider countryside, so heavily dependent on conservation management for survival. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake survey of all post 1950 sites (c. 10) to assess current state/conditions of sites & to assess possibilities for management (e.g. scrub clearance or field margin options)
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Oxfordshire Cotswolds
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Draft & implement management plans at key sites, including scrub clearance & liaison with landowners to secure appropriate measures on adjacent land
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Oxfordshire Cotswolds, widely scattered
Comments: There is an urgent need to get species out of its current 'ghettoes' into wider landscape (e.g. along conservation margins in arable fields)
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure material from all extant colonies is maintained as seed in the Millenium Seed Bank to ensure back up stock, for possible future reintroductions.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
High priority sites: Oxfordshire Cotswolds
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.