Southern Damselfly (Coenagrion mercuriale)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - dragonfly (Odonata) > Dragonfly or damselfly |
| 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: | Coenagrion mercuriale |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Charpentier, 1840) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Daguet et al., 2008 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Listed in the British Odonata Red Data List (Daguet et al., 2008) as Endangered (qualifying criteria: B1a, B1b, iii,iv; B2a, B2b, iii,iv). A significant proportion of the British population is located in England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species has very specific habitat requirements and is a weak disperser which reduces its ability to colonise novel suitable sites and allows populations to become easily isolated. The species is associated with shallow, permanent, slow-flowing flushes and streams on lowland heathland, as well as chalk streams and calcareous fens. These watercourses are unpolluted, base-rich and well-oxygenated with a fine sediment/detritus benthic layer. Breeding sites are unshaded and consist of mosaics of open water and lush, diverse vegetation growth; plant life includes Potamogeton polygonifolius and Hypericum virginicum on heathland wetlands, and Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum and Helosciadium nodiflorum in calcareous wetlands. It's surviving populations are located in the South of England and are mostly small and isolated to fragments of suitable habitat. The effects of climate change, particularly droughts, are a significant threat to their shallow wetlands. Many sites are becoming degraded due to a lack of appropriate management. |
| 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: | Yes |
| Justification: | Diversification of suitable lowland wetland area to create its preferred shallow, flowing, well-vegetated habitat. For example, the creation of shallow, river-fed ditch systems within the floodplains of chalk rivers. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Some sites are under structured monitoring; most are occasionally surveyed. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Establish a national monitoring programme to monitor species and habitat at breeding sites. Monitoring programmes will collect data on population size and location, as well as the condition and location of suitable breeding habitat.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Some monitoring is already being performed by NGOs and volunteer groups. Results used to inform Key Action 2 and 3. Would there be economies if the monitoring actions for Coenagrion mercuriale, Lestes dryas, and Somatochlora metallica were combined? There would be some reduction in cost, but the 3 species occur in different sites so you cannot monitor all 3 at the same site.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Use results of Action 1 to inform site management; management actions will aim to protect and enhance habitat on sites to encourage population growth. This may include activities such as the establishment of grazing/ cutting regimes to control vegetation growth, tree removal, or mechanical waterway reprofiling. Success will be measured by Key Action 1.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: The duration and priority sites will be determined by Key Action 1.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Carry out habitat creation around existing breeding wetlands to encourage range expansion and population growth, as well as re-connecting isolated populations. This may include activities such as the establishment of grazing/ cutting regimes to reduce and control vegetation growth, tree removal, mechanical waterway reprofiling, and the removal of barriers to dispersal, for example, creating gaps in tree/scrub growth separating breeding sites. Existing monitoring projects should be adapted to assess the success of habitat creation.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: The duration and priority sites will be determined by Key Action 1.
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.