Simplocaria maculosa
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Pill beetle or ally |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Not Relevant) [VU(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: | Simplocaria maculosa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Erichson, 1847 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Lane, 2021 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Vulnerable. First recorded in Britain from the River Ouse at Kelfield (Yorkshire) and Bewldey (Worcestershire), pre-1960. In England since 1989 found on the River Severn at Preston Montford. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Apparently found in very little of its highly specialised habitat, and there is a lack of understanding about species ecology to suggest effective conservation management |
| 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 - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Associated with well-vegetated exposed riverine sediment. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements and inform management, using standardised methodology to establish baseline for national monitoring programme
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: Vegetation and microhabitat preferences should be quantified
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Resurvey historic sites without recent records, and other locations with Exposed Riverine Sediment
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: Site selection will have to be based on a desk-study if data are not available from a recording scheme
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure appropriate habitat management is implemented at all occupied sites. This should be based on the results of Actions 1 and 2, and may include clearing invasive species, or scrub
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: Site prioritisation will be based on the results of Actions 1 and 2
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.