Chrysolina marginata
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Leaf beetle or ally |
| 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: | Chrysolina marginata |
| 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: | Appears to have declined significantly |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Lack of evidence |
| 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: | This species would likely benefit from the creation of habitat mosaics. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | A large, fairly conspicuous species that is probably nocturnal and therefore perhaps overlooked. Can be confused with Chrysolina intermedia and Chrysolina sanguinolenta |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of sites with suitable habitat
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Sites with potentially suitable habitat
Comments: Surveys, especially nocturnal surveys, would provide better understanding of the true distribution of this species. Perhaps make use of AI algorithms to define areas of potential occupation, but only when microhabitat preferences have been defined.
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: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Do existing populations have limited genetic variability?
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Captive breeding for autecological research
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites:
Comments: The foodplant (Yarrow) is common and easily grown, so establishing a captive population(s) may not be too difficult. Important questions to try and answer with targeted research include: What do the larvae need? What are the dispersal abilities of the adults? How will existing populations be impacted by climate change.
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.