Berosus luridus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Water beetle |
| 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: | Berosus luridus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1761) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Foster, 2010 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species is undoubtedly declining with a major contraction in range, although drivers are unclear. In localised areas of the Cambridgeshire Fens, it remains frequent in nondescript IDB ditches and field drains. Most sites for B. luridus are outside protected sites. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Berosus species show marked flutuations in distribution which are difficult to elucidate. The fact that strongholds for B. luridus are mainly nondescript agricultural drains suggests that evidence-based species-specific measures will remain elusive beyond promoting generic good practice, e.g. encouraging establishment of buffer zones and selective re-profiling of trapezoidal drains to expand shallow-flooded margins. Nonetheless, recent surveys in Fenland have highlighted key strongholds for this species which allow such measures to be targeted effectively. |
| 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: | I'm not sure how "untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics" would benefit this species. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Ad hoc recording as part of GB water beetle recording scheme (Balfour-Browne Club/Aquatic Coleoptera Conservation Trust). Several surveys of Fenland drains have been completed recently under the aegis of Cambridgeshire Acre and Cambridge University. These have added to and updated records of B. luridus. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Target management towards sympathetic ditch management (e.g. promotion of buffer zones) which will likely benefit B. luridus. This could form part of general package to support & coordinate best practice in managing Fenland drains for the benefit other biodiversity including wetland invertebrates. This would be best accomplished by working with local initiatives and ensuring that guidance is disseminated to key stakeholders such as Internal Drainage Boards and farm businesses.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
High priority sites: Focus on Fenland (South Lincs, Cambridgeshire, West Norfolk), especially drainage districts identified as strongholds for B. luridus (e.g. Haddenham and Sutton & Mepal).
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.