Philorhizus vectensis
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Ground beetle |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Philorhizus vectensis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Rye, 1873) |
| 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: | Mainly recorded in southern England with a few records in south Wales. The species is rare and local along the south coast from Cornwall to Kent where it is declining. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A very localised species in apparent decline and vulnerable to climate-driven changes on the coast. Given dependence on cliff-face habitats it seems unlikely that more broader habitat management measures will benefit this species. Targeted management and site protection are thus 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): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Climate change |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | In partly vegetated dry sand or shingle and grass tussocks on cliff faces near the coast where it is threatened by increased erosion resulting from increased storm frequency. |
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 sand or shingle 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: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: The most important and well established location is Dungeness in Kent, with other more recently occupied locations at Hurlstone Point and Porthleven in Cornwall.
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 might require extensive, landscape scale management, including the beneficial use of dredgings for beach recharge to increase the extent of beach habitats and help restore dynamic coastal processes and thus maximise availability of sparsely vegetated ground.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Dungeness in Kent, with other more recently occupied locations at Hurlstone Point and Porthleven in Cornwall.
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, Hurlstone Point and Porthleven could offer donor populations for reintroduction to more historical locations in North Cornwall and on the Hoo Peninsula where the species may have been lost.
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.