Clanoptilus marginellus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Soldier 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: | Clanoptilus marginellus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Olivier, 1790) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Alexander, 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Near Threatened. Most modern records are from coastal sites, These are shingle in East Sussex and Kent: The Crumbles, Eastbourne; Winchelsea Beach; Dungeness; and also river valley marshes as at Lower Test Marshes Nature Reserve in South Hampshire. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Site protection and general conservation management have not proved to be adequate – the species has not been recorded in Monks Wood NNR since 1965, Wicken Fen since 1950, and Slapton Ley since 1943. |
| 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: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | The larvae are unknown but probably develop in the hollow stems of large herbaceous plants. |
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: The Crumbles and Winchelsea Beach (Sussex), Dungeness (Kent), and Lower Test Marshes (Hampshire)
Comments: Records need to be properly documented, including precise locations, vegetation structure, and any management regimes at sites where the species occurs.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Resurvey historic sites without recent records
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 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 creation/restoration and management of flower-rich rich grassland.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 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.