Pale Dog-violet (Viola lactea)
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: | Viola lactea |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Sm. |
| 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: | VU in GB, EN in England. Still flourishing in certain strongholds (the Lizard, New Forest & increasingly Dorset heaths) but continuing to decline across much of range |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | In many areas, generic habitat management (burning / moderate grazing / disturbance maintains populations, but away from strongholds, it may be necessary to undertake targeted management to maintain populations |
| 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: | High levels of extensive stock grazing & associated burning on dry /humid heathland & acid grassland (with associated poaching), will maintain species. Species has long lived seed, germinates freely following disturbance. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Species responds well to suitable management & recolonises 'lost' ground when suitable management reintroduced, largely from buried soil seed bank. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Monitor populations within vulnerable / non-stronghold areas where plant is deemed native, assessing population size, health of populations & need for targeted management action.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake research into the best management techniques for removing undecomposed dry litter & more humus etc. Assess impacts (negative & positive) on other plant & animal taxa).
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Previously, controlled winter heathland burns have been used to manage habitat for this species (e.g. c. 50,000 plants appeared at one Cornish site within 6 months of a winter burn in early 2023). Ideally, through trials we would identify a more natural alternative here.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Implement most effective grazing regimes of heathland and acid commonland to ensure that sites remain well-grazed & lightly disturbed (using outputs from action 2).
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Previously, burning has played a significant role in reducing leaf litter & above ground biomass, providing niches for seedling establishment. Ideally, through trials we would identify a more natural alternative here.
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.