Sussex Diving Beetle (Laccophilus poecilus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Water beetle |
| Red List Status: | Critically Endangered (Not Relevant) [CR(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: | Laccophilus poecilus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Klug, 1834 |
| 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: | There are records from 11 English hectads but most are very old. The former site at Thorne Moors (where it was recorded 1907-1990) has been intensively and extensively searched with no more recent discoveries, and it was last found in Britain in E Sussex in 2002. Laccophilus poecilus is an enigma in England since it is widespread and occupies a broad range of habitats in Continental Europe. It could be regarded as an edge-of-range 'natural rarity' but it was well established historically around the south-east coast with a separate and likely distinct population on the Humberhead Peatlands. Given the recent date of the last records, it seems appropriate to continue to treat this species as Critically Endangered and therefore a high conservation priority. Laccophilus poecilus 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: | It is possible that L. poecilus is recently extinct in Britain but given the recent dates of the last records, one more push to locate any remaining populations seems warranted. Further actions would depend on the outcome of surveys. |
| 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): | 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Resurvey last known sites for Laccophilus poecilus in England. If found, review potential threats and recommend mitigation measures as appropriate.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Lewes Levels, Thorne Moors and Pevensey Levels
Comments: Relevant to 3 sites
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.