Tansy Beetle (Chrysolina graminis)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Leaf beetle or ally |
| 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: | Chrysolina graminis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Hubble, 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A very small number of known localities |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | More data needed on how it responds to management and flooding. Mapping of flood occurrence and levels (using LIDAR) relative to patches of Tansy and beetle numbers to better understand impacts and to facilitate effective management of sub populations to reduce vulnerability. More research is also required into Tansy beetle ecology and biology, especially feeding, behaviour, predators/competitors, weather and hydrology, impact of invasive species, vegetation and soil dynamics. Establishment of 'off-line' populations are being considered- i.e. having some populations that are disconnected and thus don't get inundated by Ouse floodwater may represent a relatively secure 'insurance' policy. |
| 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: | Providing suitable conditions for the foodplants along riparian corridors and protecting river banks from overgrazing. Establish in more detail the ecological requirements of the beetles in relation to food availability and environmental attributes of sites both in York and the Fens. River corridor mapping to provide an understanding of landscapes, habitats, beetle numbers/locations and associated threats and integration into wider habitat management plans. Gain an understanding of climatic changes and potential impacts on the beetles. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Has been the subject of over two decades of monitoring and research making it one of the best understood, non-lepidopteran insects in terms of conservation biology. A conspicuous and attractive species, but can be confused with other species in the genus. Continue and improve monitoring of existing populations. More intensive recording to help understand seasonal and annual changes in abundance and distribution would complement the wider monitoring. Gathering more consistent recording information for Woodwalton Fen and Welney Fen would help establish the true distribution of the population and allow calibration of the multiplier to convert beetle counts to a true population size estimate. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Translocations of adult beetles to suitable habitats
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Sites with potentially suitable habitat and the required hostplants
Comments: Would need to be tied in with pre-release surveys to confirm that donor sites do not already host the beetle. Key host-plant requirement differences between the known populations need to be taken into account. Any reintroductions should be done by liaising with, and in agreement with, the Tansy Beetle Action Group (TBAG). Need to consider ways of captive-breeding the Fen population without compromising the existing population. This could then be used to (a) expand the distribution of the beetle in the Fens, reducing its vulnerability, and (b) possibly acting as a more appropriate source of beetles for reintroduction at Wicken Fen.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Population genetics of known populations
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: York Great Ouse and Fens
Comments: How do the known populations differ genetically and what is the genetic variability of the known populations - with comparison to populations on the continent. This would provide insights into host-plant differences, extinction risk and reintroduction strategies.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: How do the Ouse and Fen populations differ in other important aspects of conservation biology, e.g. dispersal ability, flood tolerance, food plants
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Great Ouse and Fens
Comments: Are the host-plant preferences of the Fen populations linked to any other fitness consequences other than fecundity? How do the larvae of the Fen population survive inundation during the winter? Can the population interbreed and produce viable offspring? A better understanding is required of differences in ecological requirements between the York and Fen populations, particularly food plants, egg laying, depth of pupation/overwintering and soil attributes. Where do the Fen beetles overwinter and is their capability to withstand inundation different from populations in York?
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.