Bledius terebrans
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 terebrans |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Schiødte, 1866) |
| 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: | Only reliably known from the River Irthing at Kellwood, Cumberland (vc70) since 1980. A single 1980 record from Chichester, West Sussex (vc13) is considered plausible due to historical records from the area. Apparently declining in both AoO and EoO. 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: | No |
| Justification: | Distribution and exact ecological requirements unknown. Apparently very locally distributed and may be unlikely to benefit from untargeted habitat management. |
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: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of River Irthing catchment and nearby potentially suitable habitats, as well as potential sites in Sussex/Surrey. Old sites on the Sefton Coast could also be investigated. Survey should aim to clarify current distribution and elucidate autecology.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: River Irthing catchment, Sussex/Surrey (especially sites near Chichester), Sefton Coast
Comments:
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 Irthing catchment
Comments:
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 Irthing catchment
Comments: Action likely to be absorbed within local INNS control initiatives.
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.