Amara nitida
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Ground beetle |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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: | Amara nitida |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Sturm, 1825 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Telfer, 2016 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Apparently always rare in England. There are few verified recent records and no particular geographic focus. Previous records are from a variety of mostly cool, shady habitats but there are some exceptions and without more information about the habitat affiliation of A. nitida in England it is not possible to propose any actions or assess their likely success. A frequently misidentified species so records for A. nitida should be treated with caution in the absence of a specimen and expert verification. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | We know very little about this species but a revised assessment and studies on autecology could be useful |
| 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: | N/A |
| Justification: |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Unknown |
| Species Comments: | Telfer (2016) assessed this species as Endangered, using a precautionary rather than evidentiary approach: half of the unverified records were included, while acknowledging the species is very difficult to separate from congeners and many records are erroneous. For the two periods over which decline was assessed, there were just 6 verified records for 1889-1979 (90 years) and 4 for 1980-2016 (36 years), equating to 0.67 records and 1.11 records per decade, respectively. It could be argued verified records have increased over time. Also, Telfer treated the number of hectads with records as ‘locations’, however within the IUCN definition a location is a geographically or ecologically distinct area, where a threat could rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon. Telfer does not identify any threats, thus the species does not have restricted locations and meet Endangered under criterion B. Thus, this species should be Data Deficient. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Revise and update the current IUCN Red List assessment for this species
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Training to maintain capability for identifying the species, and surveillance through the Ground Beetle Recording Scheme.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: A study on the autecology of this species would be beneficial to inform future conservation action
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
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.