Oolite Downy-back (Ophonus stictus)
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: | Ophonus stictus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Stephens, 1828 |
| 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 and eastern England apart from an unconfirmed 2014 record in south Wales and a 1853 record near Glasgow. In England this species is only known from two localities in the post-1980 period. It has experienced a substantial historical decline and this appears to have continued into the modern period, in which there have been no records since 1995 despite targeted searching at several of its known localities. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Extremely localised and declining and thus vulnerable to extinction, if not already extinct. Urgent targeted management and site protection required. |
| 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): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Extinction debt |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | In open situations in quarries and on moderately dry limestone or chalk soils. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake a targeted survey of historical locations to provide an updated status review.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Geeston Quarry, Ketton in Rutland and Old Sulehay Forest, Yarwell near Peterborough.
Comments: If remaining populations exist then undertake actions 2 and 3.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Carry out autecological research to help identify the nature and quality of suitable habitats, particularly the nature and openness of suitable substrates and their management requirements, as well as the pressures which might result in further declines including eutrophication resulting in dense vegetation growth.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Geeston Quarry, Ketton in Rutland and Old Sulehay Forest, Yarwell near Peterborough.
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Depending on the results of the autecological study and site management reviews restore suitable substrates and vegetation structure. This might require changes to or the introduction of livestock grazing and/or mechanical scarification to restore bare substrates and open conditions.
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: Geeston Quarry, Ketton in Rutland and Old Sulehay Forest, Yarwell near Peterborough.
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.