Tower Mustard (Turritis glabra)
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: | Turritis glabra |
| 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: | EN in England |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Appropriate management practices need targeting to extant/historic locations. Extant sites are isolated and the species will benefit from translocations. |
| 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 from the periodic creation of bare and disturbed ground as part of a range of habitats on sandy soils. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake research into the autecology of the species and its response to management regimes. This research should be carried out on a series of sites representing the geographic and habitat range of the species. Research should cover the factors controlling/affecting germination, seed longevity and dormancy, seed production and seed dispersal, associated plant communities, effect of soil type, disturbance frequency and should include experimental management aimed at local population increase.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Create disturbance followed by at least two years of stability at extant and historic sites, ideally rotationally across a site, to maintain areas with several different durations since disturbance. Link up disturbed areas within/between sites along tracks and forestry ride networks by widening rides and driving livestock between sites.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: It's seed is thought to be long-lived so once the ground is opened up it may reappear from the soil seed bank at historic sites.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Establish a programme of translocations at suitable sites across its natural range.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Requires sourcing suitable material for translocation, probably necessitating ex-situ propagation to bulk up seed. Ongoing monitoring of translocation sites needed after the duration of the action.
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.