Laccornis oblongus
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: | Laccornis oblongus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Stephens, 1835) |
| 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: | No |
| Justification: | Laccornis oblongus appears to be a sedentary species whose current distribution is a remnant of a wider pre-drainage range. It is more widespread than most other 'relict-fen' water beetles and relatively frequent in Norfolk fens, suggesting it is a lower priority for action than some species with similar attributes. There are modern (post-1980) records from around 80% of the English hectads from which it has been collected (Foster et al 2016), so evidence of recent range loss is limited. On the other hand, like H. scalesianus, some of its sites are small, isolated and therefore particularly vulnerable to the effects of surrounding land use. Laccornis oblongus is relatively easy to identify in the field (in contrast to Dryops, Hydroporus and Hydrochus species), making it useful for monitoring fens. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Laccornis oblongus belongs to a suite of water beetles apparently dependent on relict fens. Others include Agabus striolatus, Dryops anglicanus, D. auriculatus, D. griseus, Helochares obscurus, Hydraena palustris, Hydrochus brevis, H. ignicollis, H. megaphallus, Hydroporus elongatulus, H. glabriusculus, H. scalesianus & Limnebius aluta (Agabus labiatus and A. undulatus may also be relevant). If a 'grouped action plan' approach is taken for these species, this taxon should be included. Also refer to Q3 justification. |
| 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: | Too localised to benefit from generic measures. Generic pond management prescriptions may put populations of this species at risk, especially in small, isolated sites as it is usually associated with marginal moss carpets which are easily damaged by management. |
Species Assessment
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.