Bearded False Darkling Beetle (Melandrya barbata)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Darkling beetle or ally |
| 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: | Melandrya barbata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Fabricius, 1787) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Alexander et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Vulnerable based on the very small or restricted population: geographic range restricted in area of occupancy (it is difficult to assess the extent of occupied habitat in the New Forest but certainly less than 20 km2) with severely fragmented populations (known historically from just 3 other localities, none providing records since 1971). Best known from the New Forest, South Hampshire, but also known from: Darenth Wood, West Kent (Victoria County History); Stratfield Turgis, North Hampshire, 1914; and Chiddingfold Forest, 1971. New Forest records date from 1823, and there have been many records up until 1990 and 1992. Reports from Berkshire and Oxfordshire appear to be errors, or at least have not been verified by vouchers. No information is available on current population trends. Veteran tree habitat continues to be very vulnerable to damaging changes in land use at landscape scale. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Minimum intervention management will not provide conditions suitable for the development of successive generations of veteran trees, and well-planned tree planting remains the exception rather than the rule. |
| 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: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | The larvae develop in decaying wood although the type of decay and size of the wood is not recorded; reports mention beech in particular as well as oak, although these relate to adults rather than larval habitat. The New Forest records appear to include both the open wood pastures and inclosures. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Research to characterise the ecology of the beetle, in terms of the species, size, condition, situation and management of host trees. This could be enhanced by eDNA sampling, involving the determination of a UK DNA sequence and primers
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: The New Forest (South Hampshire) and Chiddingfold (Surrey)
Comments: Insufficient data are available to fully characterise the ecology of the beetle, in terms of the size, condition, and situation of suitable dead wood. The larvae have apparently not been found in England.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: At sites where the species occurs document age structure for potential host veteran trees and future veterans, to determine whether there is an adequate rate of replacement. Also assess requirements for management of the veteran tree stock to reduce the risk of wind throw, by undertaking tree surgery to reduce the crown of excessive bough weighting.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: To be determined based on the results of Action 1
Comments: The conservation of saproxylic invertebrates relies on continuity in the availability of dead wood resources, which can take centuries to develop, so there is a need to identify if there is insufficient recruitment of younger trees at sites where the species occurs. In general the loss of veteran trees at protected sites and in the wider landscape exceeds rates of recruitment.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: At sites where the species occurs, plant trees or promote natural regeneration where there has been insufficient recruitment of younger trees.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Prioritisation is subject to assessment of tree age structure on all occupied sites
Comments: Either planting or natural regeneration should not be allowed to create crown competition or cast shade on existing veteran trees. If there is no space within a site to achieve this, then planting on adjacent land may also be a priority.
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.