Oxbow Diving Beetle (Hydroporus rufifrons)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Water beetle |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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: | Hydroporus rufifrons |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Müller, O.F., 1776) |
| 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: | Hydroporus rufifrons has been the subject of intensive survey effort in GB. In England, it has disappeared entirely from lowland fenland in the east though it has been found in over a dozen locations in and around southern Lakeland. An attempted reintroduction in North Lincolnshire persisted for several years but now appears to have petered out. Hydroporus rufifrons is a NERC Act S41 'species of principal importance' and was the subject of a UKBAP Species Action Plan. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The English distribution of H. rufifrons is now much better known than previously as a result of survey work undertaken under the aegis of the UKBAP SAP. Further survey is probably not a priority. However, many of its sites are unprotected and potentially vulnerable to agricultural improvement. Ongoing reintro efforts demand a targeted approach. |
| 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: | A qualified 'No' in this instance. H. rufifrons is rarely found on protected sites, and is a key species of high-quality temporary and fluctuating ponds in the wider countryside, particularly on river floodplains, where it often occurs with the UK-BAP mud snail, Omphiscola glabra (ACCT, 2025). It appears to be particularly sensitive to the effects of fertilisers and other forms of agricultural ‘improvement’ (ACCT, 2025). This is therefore a species which could benefit from targeted wider countryside measures which protect wet grassland and ponds from agricultural intensification in southern Lakeland (most sites are south of Ambleside). Creating new ponds close to existing sites may also be beneficial (Freshwater Habitats Trust, 2015). |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Concerted survey work has been undertaken in response to the UKSAP (Aquatic Coleoptera Conservation Trust). Key reference is Foster et al. 2008. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Target appropriate management options and advice on existing and potential habitats for this species within its recent range. Guidance on creating and managing ponds for this species has already been published by Freshwater Habitats Trust (2015).
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Unknown
High priority sites: Southern Lake District and adjoining areas, at low to intermediate elevations (Foster et al 2016).
Comments: Key reference is Foster et al. 2008.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Review results of re-introduction attempts in North Lincolnshire and Norfolk. Based on lessons learned, assess the viability of further trials at historic sites, e.g. at Askham Bog (York)
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Needs a structured approach to reintroductions rather than the ad-hoc attempt at Epworth Turbary. Askham Bog SSSI is an historic site which should be considered a candidate.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: In the same areas as A1, encourage and provide advice on aquatic invertebrate surveys to inform any planned pond management or restoration works not concerning this species, to avoid inadvertent harm.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
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.