Shrubby Cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Shrub/sub-shrub |
| 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: | Dasiphora fruticosa |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Dasiphora fruticosa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (L.) Rydb. |
| 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: | Although widely planted in amenity schemes and occurring as a garden escape and relic of horticulture, native populations of this shrub have been assessed as NT on the basis of their being less than <25 sites and under 10,000 individuals (Cheffings & Farrell report more than 3,500 individuals). As a native it is restricted to bare gravels and ledges of the River Tees in Upper Teesdale, while Lake District populations are on thinly vegetated, loose montane ledges and screes. There is evidence of ongoing decline in Teesdale due to alterations in river flow and sediment dynamics following construction of the Cow Green Dam in 1970, which has reduced available habitat for colonisation. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Research is needed on impact of the dam on river dynamics and sediment flow, and what management is now needed to increase seedling establishment. In a survey of nine sites by NE in 2009, only two supported seedlings, and this lack of recruitment is likely to have an impact in the future (Hedley 2015). |
| 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: | The species is highly restricted to a very narrow ecological niche, and wider landscape actions will not deliver what the species needs. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | There is need for an up-to-date survey of all native sites in Teesdale to assess size and status of the population. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Research condition of habitat on River Tees, including density of vegetation stands, availability of open sediment and how this relates to current river flow and flooding events as well as grazing management. Use results to identify what the species needs in the future in terms of grazing and potentially mechanical intervention to create open gravels and sediments for seedling recruitment.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Survey all native sites on River Tees and in Lake District to establish current population size and status re threats from encroaching vegetation and lack of open habitat.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Some sites have recent records, but others in Teesdale haven't been visited since around 2013. There are no records for the Lake District sites in the BSBI DDb after 2009. A comprehensive survey of all sites will establish population size and help prioritise sites for urgent management action.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Use results of A1 and A2 to prioritise and implement programme of urgent management work (e.g. mechanical intervention or grazing) to create the open conditions needed for seedling establishment.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
High priority sites: Not yet known
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.