Potter Flower Bee (Anthophora retusa)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - hymenopteran > Bee |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Anthophora retusa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Listed as Rare (RDB3) by Else & Spooner (in Shirt, 1987) and as Endangered (RDB1) by Falk (1991). |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | There has been a very marked contraction in range over the last 50 years and it is also declining over much of its worldwide range. Its former range had a very sharply defined northern edge, suggesting that climatic factors may have been limiting its range expansion prior to the more recent, significant contraction. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Autecology studies suggest that the bee ought to be able to survive in areas of extensive, flower-rich grassland. It forages from a wide variety of plants. Detailed actions were identified in the Buglife South West Bees Project report, Nov 2013, https://cdn.buglife.org.uk/2019/07/South-west-bees-project-final_1.pdf, which has general applicability. |
| 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: | Range contraction may have been exacerbated by loss of extensive, flower-rich grassland. A diverse, flower-rich landscape ought to be highly beneficial to this species. |
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 - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Limiting factors may be climatic, loss of habitat or another, unknown factor, or combinations of these. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Increase the extent of flower-rich clifftop grassland at its known coastal sites by 40% in the next 10 years
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Seaford Head (Sussex), Red Cliff and Culver Cliff (Isle of Wight).
Comments: The overall priority is to halt any further decline. This creation of flower-rich grassland could be achieved by decreasing the grazing pressure on existing swards or the creation of new grassland areas.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Monitor populations at Seaford and Isle of Wight (if still present).
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Seaford Head and Red/Culver Cliffs.
Comments: It will be important to determine if this habitat enhancement work alone is capable of reversing the fortunes of this bee, before rolling it out more widely.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Survey at recent former sites in Dorset, north Hampshire and north Essex.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Sites in Dorset, North Hampshire and north Essex, identified in BWARS species profile.
Comments: The bee is easy to overlook or mistake for the very similar A. plumipes. "Citizen science" effort needs to be informed and concentrated at these recent former sites.
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.