Erratic Ant (Tapinoma erraticum)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - hymenopteran > Ant |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Tapinoma erraticum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (not specified) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | sensu lato |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Tapinoma erraticum s.l. has been shown to have two species present within it: T. erraticum and T. subboreale. Currently listed as Notable B (now known as Nationally Scarce Nb) (Falk, 1991). |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A rare species complex, restricted mainly to heaths in southern England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | It has a requirement for short sward heathland and areas of bare ground with high insolation rates. Studies into the distribution of the two species s.s. within this complex is desirable. |
| 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: | Only within heathland habitats. Creating early succession bare ground or short sward |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Habitat requirements are reasonably well understood (for the species complex). It has always been a very restricted species. Ant recorders are rather thinner on the ground than those recording bees and wasps. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Maintain early successional heathland habitats within current sites.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: New Forest; Surrey heaths
Comments: The ant is vulnerable to scrub invasion, shading by overly old heather, afforestation and adverse developments. Cutting turf or scraping off old vegetation cover may be beneficial, whilst fires are thought to be detrimental.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Identify sites with colonisation potential and assess habitat condition.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Other (specify in comments)
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Surrey heaths, New Forest
Comments: Potentially suitable sites for colonisation close to extant sites may need restoration management.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Raise awareness of heathland ants and their habitat requirements to land managers and the public.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Surrey heaths, Dorset heaths and New Forest
Comments: The requirement of heathland ants has probably not been so widely disseminated, compared with bees and wasps. The public probably mainly consider ats to be pest species rather than something in need of conservation.
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.