Pigmy Rush (Juncus pygmaeus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Rush |
| 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: | Juncus pygmaeus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Rich. ex Thuill. |
| 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 GB & England. Confined to the Lizard, where c. 12 localities have supported populations post 1990. Pearman (2017) reports decline of 48% in 8 years to 2016. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Species very conservation dependent, relying on targeted effort to maintain open, seasonally-flooded trackways for survival |
| 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: | Widespread restoration of 'ghost' trackways across Lizard heaths, within wider burnt / grazed / disturbed landscape likely to benefit species |
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: | Annual species germinates on granitic-derived loess soils as water levels drop in winter-flooded trackways. Species appears only to perform in trackways disturbed within last 5-10 years (hence need for continual use of tracks), but does respond very well to management (perhaps 10 populations have reappeared/increased significantly following targeted mechanical -re-excavation of trackways). |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Monitor all populations on a 1-3 year basis, recording numbers of plants & assessing condition of sites /suitability for J. pygmaeus.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: West Lizard SSSI. Goonhill Downs SSSI. East Lizar Heathlands SSSI
Comments: Population numbers fluctuate widely, due to climatic/hydrological conditions and/or condition of location. Close monitoring will ensure that remedial action can be taken if trends indicate a declining population overall.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Restore network of trackways & cob-pits, including lost 'ghost' waterbodies, through mechanical excavation & vehicle usage on a 2-4 year basis.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: West Lizard SSSI. Goonhill Downs SSSI. East Lizar Heathlans SSSI
Comments: Restoration of 'ghost' trackways to open waterbodies has resulted in reappearance of J. pygmaeus after many decades. Restoration should seek to create linked networks of trackway utilisable by vehicles, allowing dispersal of seed & establishment of metapopulations of species.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Maintain & restore moderate to heavy levels of extensive grazing (cattle and/or ponies) across wide heathland landscapes, ideally linking sites & allowing free movement of stock at the landscape scale
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: West Lizard SSSI. Goonhilly Downs SSSI. East Lizard Heathlands SSSI
Comments: Grazing will help to disperse seed of J. pygmaeus, will maintain occasional populations of species in favourable condition (e.g. in pinchpoints) and will slow the natural infilling of tracks with leaf litter (e.g. of Molinia caerulea)
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.