Trachys minuta
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: | Trachys minutus |
| 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. The species has declined across much of its limited modern range in Britain. Only eight hectads have records for the period 1980 to 2012; there are 30 hectads with only older records. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Distribution is now highly fragmented and the species requires targeted habitat management to maintain suitable conditions within individual sites |
| 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: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Associated with enclosed and ungrazed ancient semi-natural woodlands which have a history of management as coppice or coppice-with-standards. In the absence of an active coppice-cutting regime it seems able to survive along rides that are regularly maintained and kept open. |
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: Bardney Limewoods NNR (Lincolnshire), Botley Wood (Hampshire)
Comments: Insufficient data are available to characterise the age or situation of occupied host bushes.
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 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 coppicing
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.