Bradycellus distinctus
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: | Bradycellus distinctus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Dejean, 1829) |
| 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: | Restricted to England. Extremely localised with only five verified hectads post-1980. It has undergone a decline in range over preceding decades and there is no reason to think that that decline is not continuing to the present day, with probably only one locality remaining which is likely support the species. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Extremely localised and probably still declining to the extent that it might now occupy only one location. Vulnerable to coastal habitat loss due to climate change and with poorly understood habitat requirements this species urgently requires 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 - Extinction debt |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | This is a coastal species dependent on litter on sandy or stony soils. |
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, particularly the nature of suitable substrates and the availability of vegetation litter. The reviews should help identify the nature and quality of suitable coastal habitats and their management requirements, as well as the pressures from climate change which might result in further declines such as sea-level rise.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Dungeness
Comments: Actions 1 and 2 are related.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Depending on the results of the autecological study and site management reviews restore suitable substrates and conditions for promoting the deposition of vegetation litter. This might require invasive techniques such as ground scarification and/or mechanical excavation and the deposition of new substrates.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Dungeness
Comments: Successful management should be followed by action 3.
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: Dungeness and historical locations.
Comments: 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.