Mesophylax impunctatus subsp. zetlandicus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - caddis fly (Trichoptera) > Caddisfly |
| 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: | Mesophylax impunctatus subsp. zetlandicus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | McLachlan, 1884 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Wallace, 2016 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | There are no obvious reasons for the decline, which may be climate related, and thus no obvious remediation that is likely to succeed. (Probably commoner in Scotland but few modern records due to lack of survey.) Malham Tarn seems to be the main English site. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | There are only 2 or 3 modern sites but that may be due to a climate-related retreat to higher altitudes which have not been surveyed. |
| 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: | Upland lakes do not seem to be a habitat considered by this question |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Climate change |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Exclusion of sheep is a possible general improvement to upland waters. Alleged plans for Malham seem to act against the general idea of increasing habitat diversity. But the usual plan for low nutrients seems sensible and avoidance of severe drop in water level due to abstraction at any site should be avoided as the shallow margins of lakes and streams seem important. The habitats where larvae used to live in the lower lakes do not seem to have disappeared. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Survey Lake District sites that are medium-sized tarns with a stony substratum with a slightly raised water calcium level (e.g. the area around Helvellyn), including those at medium altitude seem especially worth investigating.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Sites need noting in management plans as needing no disturbance.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake site surveys to find the habitats that are used by larvae of this species and inform land managers of the results.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Malham Tarn
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.