Slender Cottongrass (Eriophorum gracile)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Sedge |
| 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: | Eriophorum gracile |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | W.D.J.Koch ex Roth |
| 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, but this probably understates its plight |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Declines due mainly to habitat degradation but any restoration thereto would need to be followed up by translocation, as highly unlikely to re-colonise suitable places by itself |
| 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: | No |
| Justification: | Strong association with very high quality fens and bogs with complex chemistry |
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: | Difficult to estimate abundance due to terrain but existing sites well documented |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Carry out ecological investigation into requirements
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Connemara bogs, New Forest, Pirbright
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Investigate potential for restoring former sites in England, based on Action 1
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Substantial effort needed to understand the hydrochemistry of former sites and how to restore them
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Subject to Action 1 and 2 being completed, reintroduce plant, from native stock
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 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.