Scraptia fuscula
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: | Scraptia fuscula |
UKSI Recommended Authority: | Müller, P.W.J., 1821 |
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 geographic range restricted in area of occupancy (less than 6 tetrads) with severely fragmented populations (currently known from 6 localities across central southern England) and projected continuing decline in area, extent and quality of habitat. The majority of records are from the wider historic area of Windsor Forest and Great Park, including Silwood Park, and other neighbouring areas, in Buckinghamshire and Surrey, but there is an apparently reliable record also from Brockworth Park in East Gloucestershire. |
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): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
Species Comments: | Larvae develop in relatively soft rotten heartwood of oak |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Create a UK DNA sequence, and primers to allow eDNA sampling.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Windsor Forest
Comments: To allow less invasive detection in saproxylic substrates. This can run in parallel with Action 2.
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: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Windsor Great Park, Silwood Park (Berkshire) and Richmond Park (Surrey). Also in Buckinghamshire though specific locations not mentioned in the red-list.
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: At sites where the species occurs, plant oak trees or promote natural regeneration if there has been insufficient recruitment of younger age classes.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Prioritisation is subject to assessment of tree age structure at all sites where the species occurs
Comments: Either planting or natural regeneration should not be allowed to create crown competition or cast shade on existing veteran trees.
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.