Pseudopsis sulcata
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Rove beetle (macrostaph) |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Pseudopsis sulcata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Newman, 1834 |
| 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: | A patch habitat species associated with the dry parts of litter piles and haystacks. It has undergone a severe decline since 1980 but appears to have stabilised in recent decades. Most often found in haystacks and grass heaps. Much of its decline may be attributable to the widespread change from haymaking to silage production. There are apparently few modern sites. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A strong association with relatively dry piles of plant material - e.g. haystacks, cut sedge piles etc. - gives a specific target for conservation actions. |
| 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: | Increasing provision of cut litter piles in situations where they have an opportunity to dry out more widely across the landscape may benefit this species if it is able to disperse to them. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Dispersal ability is not well understood. Patch habitat species are often good dispersers but the apparent rarity of this species may limit recovery potential. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Provision of piles of cut plant material in relatively dry locations on known sites.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Milden Hall, West Suffolk (vc26); Rockland St. Peter, West Norfolk (vc28); Wicken Fen, Cambridgeshire (vc29); Hameringham, North Lincolnshire (vc54) Far Grange Country Park, South-east Yorkshire (vc61); Elland Park Wood, South-west Yorkshire (vc63) and Stocksfield, South Northumberland (vc67)
Comments: Provision of litter piles should be an ongoing component of wider habitat management.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Work with site managers to encourage provision of litter piles/haystacks from material cut during management in suitable locations (e.g. not compromising any other features of interest) on wildlife conservation sites more widely, especially in the regions of known sites.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 100 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Provision of litter piles should be an ongoing component of wider habitat management.
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.