Bledius erraticus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Rove beetle (macrostaph) |
| 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: | Bledius erraticus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Erichson, 1839 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Boyce, 2022 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Recent records are almost entirely restricted to the River Wharfe in Mid-west Yorkshire (VC64) and the River Tees and its tributary in County Durham (vc66). Pre-1980 sites are more widely distributed. Fast-flowing upland streams/rivers have faced many historical pressures, some of which are still operating. ERS habitats face increasing pressure from INNS. Habitat management/pressure mitigation/catchment enhancements are required. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Current status and distribution unknown. Targeted survey required. |
| 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: | Species is associated with exposed riverine sediments, particularly steep sandy banks. Management of rivers to reinstate dynamic hydrological processes that create exposed sandy banks through erosion would be beneficial. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Potential to expand beyond already occupied catchments might be very limited. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey for the species along the River Wharfe, River Tees, the Egleston Burn and potentially suitable nearby catchments to determine the current status and distribution of the species and identify key stretches of the rivers where populations occur. This can be combined with survey for Bledius defensus.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: River Wharfe SSSI, River Tees, Egleston Burn
Comments: Survey could be easily combined with survey for Bledius defensus.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Provide species advice/support for river restoration schemes to reinstate more natural and dynamic hydrological processes that create exposed sandy banks through erosion.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: River Wharfe SSSI, River Tees, Egleston Burn
Comments: The River Wharfe Restoration Plan has identified many relevant issues and threats and successful implementation may benefit this species. Some costs may be covered by existing funding. However, efforts to stabilise banks and reduce erosion as part of the Management plan may be detrimental to Bledius defensus and Bledius erraticus which depend on bare sandy banks. Combine action with that for Bledius erraticus.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Control INNS (particularly Himalayan Balsam and Japanese Knotweed) at known and potential sites.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: River Wharfe SSSI, River Tees, Egleston Burn
Comments: Action likely to be absorbed within local INNS control initiatives. Combine action with that for Bledius erraticus.
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.