Scarlet Malachite Beetle (Malachius aeneus)
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: | Malachius aeneus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| 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. Known from as few as 5 recent sites in 2013. Now believed lost from New Forest sites and translocation from Essex populations being considered in 2025. Ongoing loss of populations suggests threat much greater than NT. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Now confined to hay meadows which are directly accessible from thatched roofs without any barriers to flight. |
| 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): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | This species has been intensively surveyed by Ian Hughes under species recovery projects. It requires ongoing management to keep breeding locations accessible from thatched roofs, as tall shrubs and trees are a barrier to flight. Rethatching can also cause local extinctions. Populations have been augmented by creating artificial nurseries. While intensive interventions are justified in halting further site losses, the conservation of this species needs placing on a more sustainable footing in the medium to long term. This likely involves understanding better life-cycle resource needs in the wild and promoting appropriate management. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Continue annual monitoring at all recently occupied sites, supported by minor interventions to remove vegetation forming a barrier to flight between areas used by larvae and adults
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Howlett End, Furzey Gardens, South Gorley, Langley Lower Green, Stickling Green
Comments: In 2013 Howlett End and Furzey Gardens were considered to be the priority sites as these had more stable populations
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Resurvey historic sites without recent records
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: Sites should be prioritised based on how recently the beetle has been recorded
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Reintroduction to 20 sites within the historic range
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: Suitable sites will have hay meadows, thatched shelters need to be built within these and the beetles reintroduced from nursery stock. There should be 2 shelters at each site to allow for rethatching in future. Portable nurseries have been used to augment populations though these are probably less suitable for maintaining self-sustaining populations with minimum management input. Though intensive approach with portable, thatched nurseries is not ideal, it seems the best approach for securing populations at multiple sites currently, and translocating to more sites. A permanent thatched roundhouse is preferrable in terms of creating something that offers more larval niches and should be capable of supporting larger populations of larvae. Some of these already exist in association with hay meadows (e.g. at RHS Rosemoor in North Devon) so there could already be potential for trialling reintroductions.
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.