Long-spined Ant (Temnothorax interruptus)
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: | Temnothorax interruptus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Schenck, 1852) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Listed as rare (RDB3) in Shirt (1987) and by Falk (1991). |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Always a very rare species, it has seemingly been lost from a number of sites. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | T. interruptus has been shown to have a preference for specific habitat conditions, namely lightly grazed Arrhenatherum grassland on shingle or sandy substrates, ideally with large stones/flints. |
| 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: | Only in a more or less coastal zone, with no known records far inland. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Hymettus research has led to a broad understanding of habitat requirements. It has always been a rare species and its range has not changed greatly. Suitable habitat management should allow for population stabilisation. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Set up a monitoring scheme across the known range, including historic sites.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Dorset heaths; New Forest; Rye Harbour; Dungeness
Comments: Habitat preferences gleaned from studies at Dungeness may allow for more targeted surveys and identify sub-optimal habitat.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Implement suitable grazing management within all coastal sites with suitable vegetation and substrate. Further details in action comments.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Dorset heaths; New Forest;
Comments: Light grazing is beneficial because it will help to maintain high insolation levels at the ground surface and help to expose large stones that may help to incubate brood by holding heat. Excessive grazing will remove vegetation cover and hence reduce prey abundance.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Raise awareness of the species and their habitat requirements in land owners and managers of dry coastal grasslands to ensure species needs are considered in relevant land management decision making.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Coastal zone between Dorset and Kent
Comments: Landscape-scale manipulation of grazing levels may be needed in order to facilitate spread of this species.
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.