Pale Pin-palp (Bembidion testaceum)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Ground beetle |
| 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: | Bembidion testaceum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Duftschmid, 1812) |
| 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: | Since 1980 only recorded in south Northumberland, Worcestershire and Carmarthenshire. Very localised and has undergone a significant decline across the UK. There is no evidence that the decline has not continued in England since the last IUCN status review. It occupies 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: | Very localised and probably still declining, occupying small and isolated habitat patches. Vulnerable to climate change effects such as increased river flooding/spates and also water quality. Ongoing decline and a requirement for very specific river sediment conditions indicates the need for urgent targeted management and site protection. |
| 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: | Requires gravelly or sandy river banks on slow-moving rivers, preferring unconsolidated, unvegetated sediments ranging from pebbles to cobbles overlying course sand but avoiding siltation by finer particles. Vulnerable to climate change effects such as increased river flooding/spates and also water quality and perhaps also adversely affected by flood management measures. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Supplement the existing EA review with further autecological study to help characterise the range of micro-habitats within which it is found, particularly location, extent and composition of river bank substrates, presence and effect of livestock and frequency and duration of inundation by flood waters. Identify the management requirements of optimal riverine habitats, as well as the pressures resulting from man-made changes to river hydrological dynamics and colonisation by invasive plants (e.g. Himalayan Balsam) which might result in further declines.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Since the 1980s only recorded on the River Tyne at Hexham and Corbridge, the River Monnow in Herefordshire and the River Teme at Bransford in Worcestershire.
Comments: Actions 1 and 2 are related.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Manage river habitats to create suitable areas of exposed river sediments, ideally through the restoration of natural river hydrology where man-made changes have resulted in increased siltation. Also address heavy poaching by livestock, although vegetation control might be necessary to maintain open conditions. Similar work should be undertaken to increase habitat extent and quality in existing river locations where feasible.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: River Tyne at Hexham and Corbridge, the River Monnow in Herefordshire and the River Teme at Bransford in Worcestershire.
Comments: Successful management should be followed by action 3.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Subject to the findings of the autecological review, re-introduce the species into catchments from which it has been lost (where these are suitable). The Rivers Tyne (Corbridge) and Monnow hold the most recently recorded populations and these should be assessed for their sustainability as donor populations for other locations which held the species in recent times and where suitable sediments are present. 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: River Tyne at Hexham and Corbridge, the River Monnow in Herefordshire and potentially the River Teme at Bransford in Worcestershire.
Comments: Action 3 for translocation may be premature until current status, autecology and reasons for decline are understood.
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.