Aphodius paykulli
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Scarab beetle or ally |
| 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: | Chilothorax paykulli |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Bedel, 1908) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Lane and Mann, 2016 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Approximately 10 sites since 1990; formerly more widespread. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Chilothorax paykulli occupies patch habitats not necessarily created through habitat management. It requires a year round supply of herbivore dung. |
| 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: | Yes, if this involved grazing animals in the absence of endectocides on unimproved pasture. Its precise breeding requirements are unknown so a mosaic of different swards heights and bare ground could be beneficial to allow a dung to fall in a variety of situations. It is possibly under recorded as it is active in winter; making year round availability of dung crucial to its persistence at a site |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Possibly under recorded as it is active in winter; making year round availability of dung crucial to its persistence at a site |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Implement year round low intensity cattle or sheep grazing at sites across the key landscapes. Do not use endectocides. In winter livestock should not be fed in silage, maize or soya since this affects the quality of the dung and its nutritional value to coprophagous invertebrate larvae.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Known sites should be sought from the Scarabidae Recording Scheme and Local Environmental Records Centres
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Targeted non-lethal monitoring to assess population trends in response to amended livestock management techniques
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Known sites should be sought from the Scarabidae Recording Scheme and Local Environmental Records Centres
Comments: monitoring of Action 1 results
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Field study to establish exact habitat requirements for A. paykulli to breed successfully and understand its dispersal capability.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Known sites should be sought from the Scarabidae Recording Scheme and Local Environmental Records Centres
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.