Hazel Pot Beetle (Cryptocephalus coryli)
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: | Cryptocephalus coryli |
| 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: | Populations recently rediscovered, but still only known from a small number of localities |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Piper and others have worked on this species, but more data is needed, especially the habitat preferences of the adults as they appear to have a greater affinity for the higher reaches of mature birch trees than previously assumed. |
| 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: | Possibly with the creation of woodland edges, glades, rides and scrub. However, is the localised distribution of this species simply due to the poor dispersal abilities of the adults or narrow micro-habitat requirements of adults and larvae? |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Species now fairly well understood, although many autecology questions still to answer. Successful captive rearing and translocations |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted aerial surveys of potentially suitable sites
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Sites with potentially suitable habitat
Comments: Use techniques to search higher parts of potentially suitable host-trees, e.g. cherry-pickers, long-pole nets, drones, ladders, binoculars from the ground to detect previously unknown populations and rediscover historical populations. The species may have a greater preference for the higher parts of host trees than was previously assumed. Perhaps make use of AI algorithms to define areas of potential occupation
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Translocations of adult beetles to sites with suitable habitat
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Translocations on a small scale have proved to be successful, but these could be attempted on a bigger scale, involving larger releases and more sites. Tie in with surveys to confirm absence of species from donor sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Raise awareness among the public of this species as it's fairly large, distinctive and would be noticed by casual observers. Given the disjunct population, other populations are probably to be discovered.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: Partner with relevant organisations to highlight this species in apps and explore other channels to target casual observers
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.