Diachromus germanus
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: | Diachromus germanus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| 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: | No |
| Justification: | Established in Britain for much of the 19th century, but not recorded after 1904 until its rediscovery in Kent in 2002. It has since been found in more than 10 localities, all in southern England and mostly in Sussex. It seems likely to have become re-established in Britain following natural immigration and is probably a species benefitting from climate change. It is a seed feeder like its close relatives (Harpalus and Ophonus), occurring in open habitats with an element of bare ground favouring the growth of a range of ruderal plants, such as arable margins and disturbed grasslands. On this basis of its recent positive population trend and unspecialised ecology it is probably not a suitable candidate for recovery actions. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Established in Britain for much of the 19th century, but not recorded after 1904 until its rediscovery in Kent in 2002. It has since been found in more than 10 localities, all in southern England and mostly in Sussex. It seems likely to have become re-established in Britain following natural immigration and is probably a species benefitting from climate change. It is a seed feeder like its close relatives (Harpalus and Ophonus), occurring in open habitats with an element of bare ground favouring the growth of a range of ruderal plants, such as arable margins and disturbed grasslands. On this basis of its recent positive population trend and unspecialised ecology it is probably not a suitable candidate for recovery actions. |
| 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
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.