Cliff Furrow Bee (Lasioglossum angusticeps)
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: | Lasioglossum angusticeps |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Perkins, R.C.L., 1895) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Listed as RDB3 Rare in Shirt (1987) and by Falk (1991). |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Always a rare species in England, restricted to coastal sites between east Devon and the Isle of Wight. Range is stable but very vulnerable to localised extinctions through loss of nesting habitat. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Nesting is restricted to coastal cliffs and landslips, exposing clayey soils. 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 |
| 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: | A highly qualified "yes": the successional stage is recent coastal landslips and other bare cliffs with clay soil. General grassland creation would assist with providing sufficiently extensive foraging habitat. |
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 - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Nest site preferences and forage are understood. Future conservation will depend on sympathetic management of known and potential nesting sites. It is vulnerable to both cliff stabilisation measures and also catastrophic natural cliff collapse. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Include habitat requirements of this species in relevant Coastal Zone Management Plans.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Landscape/catchment/marine management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: South Dorset coast, Isle of Wight, east Devon
Comments: This bee's requirements tread a fine line between needing actively slumping coastal cliffs and being destroyed by large-scale, catastrophic collapses, often during the winter when the population 'resource' is underground.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Increase forage habitat at extant locations by 20% over 10 years.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: South Dorset coast, Isle of Wight, east Devon
Comments: The bee lives in a dynamic environment, with the need to be one step ahead in terms of ensuring adequate foraging habitat and also connectivity with new sites if extant sites become untenable.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Resurvey historic sites to ascertain presence/absence to inform conservation management
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: South Dorset coast, Isle of Wight, east Devon
Comments: Populations may get overlooked, due to unobtrusive nest sites within desiccated clay faces.
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.