Bembidion nigropiceum
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Ground beetle |
| 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: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Bembidion nigropiceum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Marsham, 1802) |
| 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: | Largely confined to southern England with a few records in Pembrokeshire. Very localised and declining in England. This is a habitat-specialist species, occupying relatively small and isolated habitat patches which could expose it to an increased extinction risk. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A very localised and declining species which occupies small and isolated habitat patches vulnerable to climate change effects which could expose it to an increased extinction risk. Ongoing declines and specific habitat requirements indicate that targeted management and site protection are required. |
| 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 - Climate change |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | This species is found under rocks or in crevices on open shingle and other stony coastal habitats inundated by high tides. It is vulnerable to habitat loss caused by increased coastal erosion. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Review historical and current management at existing locations and undertake literature reviews to characterise the range of micro-habitats within which it is found. The reviews should help identify key locations for the species which can be sustainably managed in the face of sea level rise. Information on the nature of coastal processes is available from Shoreline Management Plans.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: More recent records are concentrated in the Medway area (Sheppey, Grain and Allhallows), in the area of Start Point, Devon and at Orfordness in Suffolk.
Comments: Actions 1 and 2 are related.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Reduce habitat loss resulting from sea level rise and increased storminess. This will require landscape scale strategic action such as beach recharge and consideration of the needs of threatened invertebrates by coastal authorities when designing and implementing coastal management activities. Shoreline Management Plans and other reviews will help identify locations where no action is necessary or, alternatively, where management measures are required.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Medway area (Sheppey, Grain and Allhallows), in the area of Start Point, Devon and at Orfordness in Suffolk.
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Subject to the findings of the autecological review assess potential for re-introduction to historical locations using the most robust existing populations as a donor source following the introduction of suitable management. Consider ecological requirements of the species, suitability of site (e.g. subject to ongoing threats and/or climate change effects), timing of release and the need for ongoing habitat management. No information could be found on the feasibility of such re-introductions nor the techniques necessary for success.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Most recently known locations (e.g. Orfordness) might provide donor populations for older locations (e.g. Lulworth, Isle of Grain) where the species is no longer present.
Comments: Translocation is premature until completion of updated status assessment.
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.