Plagionotus arcuatus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Longhorn beetle |
| Red List Status: | Regionally Extinct (GB scale) (Not Relevant) [RE(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: | Plagionotus arcuatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Alexander, 2019 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Regionally Extinct. In Britain Plagionotus arcuatus was confined to southern and eastern England, probably to Essex, Kent, and Middlesex excluding introductions. It is widespread in continental Europe. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The species has been assessed as Least Concern at a European level and the extinction in the UK is an exception to this. Given that it has not been recorded even as a vagrant in 150 years, it may be unlikely to naturally recolonise Britain from the continent which is surprising given that it is frequent in the forests of northern France. |
| 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): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Larvae develop for two years under bark and in the outer sapwood of recently dead branches and stems of oak, occasionally other hardwoods, and pupate in the wood or in thick bark. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Complete desk study to determine whether a reintroduction is feasible under current Natural England codes and guidance for England
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Not applicable
Comments: This will probably need to be completed in tandem with Action 2
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements and inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: As this species is extinct in Britain, ecological studies would have to be based on fieldwork in Europe. This should document the size, condition, and situation of suitable dead wood.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Reintroduction if this is judged to be feasible based on the results of Actions 1 and 2.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Unknown
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.