Dasytes virens
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: | Dasytes virens |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Marsham, 1802) |
| 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. At the time of the most recent red-list (2014) there were modern records from only 11 hectads and in the past from a further 29 tetrads. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Declines suggest that general habitat management is not effective for conservation of this species, and there is a lack of understanding about species ecology to suggest better alternatives |
| 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 the diversity of sites suggests that they develop in the hollow stems of large herbaceous plants such as umbels and thistles in stands of tall herbaceous vegetation. |
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: Amberley Wildbrooks (Sussex), Swanscombe Peninsula (Kent)
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 is likely to 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.