Bristol Whitebeam (Sorbus bristoliensis)
Key Details
Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Tree |
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: | Sorbus bristoliensis |
UKSI Recommended Authority: | Wilmott |
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: | No |
Justification: | Sole population on both sides of the Avon Gorge has c. 300+ trees and was increasing at c. 10% per decade (Houston et al. 2009; Rich et al. 2022), with all population in protected site (Avon Gorge SSSI, SAC) and no obvious threats. Current Threat status Endangered (Rivers et al. 2019; Stroh et al. 2025). |
Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
Response: | No |
Justification: | Current management in Avon Gorge largely suitable and acceptable. Species well understood and with detailed data, under not threat, low priority for action. Species relatively easy to identify/survey |
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: | Endemic to Avon Gorge, but has potential to spread (bird-dispersed) to new woodland/scrub sites in Avonmouth area by itself. Whole SSSI would benefit from control of invasive species such as Holm oak |
Species Assessment
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.