Ophonus parallelus
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: | Ophonus parallelus |
| 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 south-east England where it is extremely local. Recorded from only six hectads in the post-1980 period: three in the 1980s, none in the 1990s and then three different hectads since 2000. This species was formerly much more widespread and it has thus declined substantially in range and the decline is probably continuing into the modern period. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Extremely localised and probably still declining. Vulnerable to climate change effects on the coast. Some targeted management and site protection required as broader management measures alone are perhaps unlikely to be beneficial. |
| 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: | Yes |
| Justification: | Broader habitat measures capable of increasing the availability of suitable open, dry locations on chalk and limestone might benefit this species, especially if located on the south coast. |
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: | On dry, open chalk, limestone and gravelly soils, often semi-shaded; mainly on the coast. |
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, in particular the openness and aspect of suitable sandy or stony substrates in coastal habitats. The reviews should help identify the management requirements of optimal habitats, as well as the pressures which might result in further declines, including loss of open conditions to dense vegetation growth as a result of eutrophication and/or invasive plant species, and habitat loss resulting from coastal erosion.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: The longer established locations are at Dungeness, Folkestone, Beachy Head and Brighton Marina.
Comments: Related to action 2
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Depending on the results of the autecological study and site management reviews restore suitable substrates and conditions of open coastal habitats, including vegetation control. This is likely to require extensive, landscape scale management such as beach recharge and consideration of the needs of threatened invertebrates by coastal authorities when designing and implementing coastal management activities. These measures should increase the extent of beach habitats and restore dynamic coastal process which are necessary to maintain open conditions and suitable substrates.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Dungeness, Folkestone, Beachy Head and Brighton Marina.
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: More recent locations at Dungeness and Folkestone Warren could offer donor populations for reintroduction to more historical locations where the species may have been lost (e.g. Ventor on the Isle of Wight and Sugarloaf Hill, Herefordhshire).
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.