Drypta dentata
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: | Drypta dentata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Rossi, 1790) |
| 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 southern England this species has experienced a large historic decline. Known from only three post-1980 locations on the West Dorset coast, Brownsea Island and Isle of Wight respectively. No records from the Isle of Wight since 1987 which suggests an ongoing decline. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Extremely localised with an apparent ongoing decline and therefore vulnerable to extinction if subject to further habitat loss/degradation. It is necessary assess remaining locations, urgently undertake targeted management and provide site protection. Requires specific coastal habitats and so unlikely to benefit from standard approaches for broader habitat creation. |
| 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 - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Found in seepages on slumping, partly vegetated maritime soft rock cliffs and thus vulnerable to habitat loss resulting from sea level rise and increased storminess. |
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 and extent of seepages and vegetation on soft rock cliffs. The reviews should help identify key locations for the species to help identify sites where soft rock cliffs 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: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Eype and Brownsea Island, Dorset and formerly Whitecliff Bay, Isle of Wight.
Comments: Actions 1 and 2 are related.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Reducing habitat loss resulting from sea level rise and increased storminess 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 to maintain suitable conditions for soft rock cliffs.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Climate change adaptation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Eype and Brownsea Island, Dorset and formerly Whitecliff Bay, Isle of Wight.
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Following successful mitigation and development/retention of suitable habitats, assess potential for successful re-introduction to historical locations on the Isle of Wight, taking beetles from Eype in Dorset. It is important to restore suitable habitat conditions to any re-introduction sites. 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 re-introducing this species nor the techniques necessary for success.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Former locations on the Isle of Wight, e.g. Whitecliff Bay
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.