White-faced Darter (Leucorrhinia dubia)
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: | Leucorrhinia dubia |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Vander Linden, 1825) |
| 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: B2a, B2b, iii,iv). England now only supports a small number of known British breeding sites. The State of Dragonflies in Britain and Ireland 2021 report found that the species significantly declined in occupancy in England from 1970-2019 (Taylor et al., 2021). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | English populations are located in the West Midlands and Cumbria. The species is associated with acidic peatland wetlands with deep open water and a good coverage of floating Sphagnum bog-moss. Breeding pools are located in woodland glades or heathland sites near to woodland/scrub. Surviving populations are isolated to fragments of suitable habitat making them vulnerable to local extinction and their sites require management to maintain suitable conditions. Due to the sites’ small and isolated nature, their populations are unlikely to expand unaided. Recent re-introduction/introduction projects have varied in success. Suitable habitat no longer exists across much of its historic range. However, extinction is unlikely if its sites are protected and maintained, and re-introduction/introduction projects continue. |
| 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: | Creation of mosaics heathland and woodland with deep pools. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 8. Species recovering |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | All surviving sites receive some level of monitoring. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Enhance habitat on sites to encourage population growth. This includes: creating new pools for breeding, improving water retention on-site through ditch blocking, tree clearance to improve connectivity between potential breeding pools, clearance of encroaching scrub, and increasing heather coverage through seeding. Sites' existing species monitoring projects can be used to assess success.
Action targets: 8. Species recovering
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Existing sites: Drumburgh Moss, Delamere forest, Chartley Moss, Fenn's Whixall and Bettisfield Mosses, Foulshaw Moss, Scaleby Moss.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Re-introduction and introduction projects. Much of its historic southerly range no longer contains suitable habitat and will be hard to reestablish in the long term due to the pressures of climate change. Re-introduction at northern historic sites and introduction to novel northern sites are more likely to be successful in the long term. Wetlands within large areas of suitable habitat and multiple potential breeding pools (or the potential for habitat creation) are the preferred re-introduction/introduction sites. Use examples of previous successful projects (Fowlshaw Moss and Drumburgh Moss ), as well as NE guidance and government guidelines to develop the methodology. Monitoring of donor and translocation sites is required under government guidelines and will be used to judge success.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Solway Mosses.
Comments: Introduction to the Solway Mosses is currently underway. Due to the lack of suitable donor sites, multiple projects are unlikely to be carried out concurrently.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Carry out habitat creation in and around existing sites. This includes creating stepping stones of breeding pools and performing heathland restoration including tree and scrub clearance, and seeding and introduction of bog vegetation spp., such as Sphagnum cuspidatum. Existing monitoring projects should be adapted to assess the success of habitat creation.
Action targets: 8. Species recovering
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Existing sites: Drumburgh Moss, Delamere forest, Chartley Moss, Fenn's Whixall and Bettisfield Mosses, Foulshaw Moss, Scaleby Moss.
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.