Giant Earwig (Labidura riparia)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - earwig (Dermaptera) > Earwig |
| Red List Status: | Regionally Extinct (GB scale) (Not Relevant) [RE(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: | Labidura riparia |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Pallas, 1773) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Sutton, 2015 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | There have been no confirmed records of the species in England since the early 1930s but the recent Red Listing suggests it could in fact have been native. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | As the species is considered as regionally extinct, it would require actions such as translocation . |
| 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): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | There is some doubt as to whether the English population of this species was a natural population at the edge of its range (the species is widespread in mainland Europe) or an introduced species. Sutton (2015), however suggests that it is likely to have been a true native. It formerly occupied sandy beaches, with burrows close to the strand line, persisting in suitable habitat in Bournemouth until the early 1930s. It is not clear why the species declined in England, however. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: To conduct a feasibility study for a translocation. Following the DEFRA conservation translocation guidelines for England, the report should cover factors such as whether we know enough about the reasons for the decline of the species in England, suitable donor populations, suitable receptor sites and a disease risk assessment.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Not Applicable
Comments: The reasons for the decline of the species in England are not clear at present. It seems feasible that tourist pressure and resort expansion could have affected the Bournemouth population early last century, but this question needs to be investigated alongside factors such as suitable receptor sites and donor populations.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: If the feasibility study favours such an approach, conduct conservation translocations and subsequent supplementation from suitable donor populations in mainland Europe to suitable habitat (white sand beaches or river banks) within the former range of the species in England.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Sandy beaches in Dorset.
Comments: Beaches in Bournemouth where the species once occurred may now be subject to too much tourist pressure. Suitable white sand beaches with less tourist pressure should be identified in close proximity within Dorset and adjacent counties.
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.