Wall Mason Bee (Osmia parietina)
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: | Osmia parietina |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Curtis, 1828 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Listed as a Rare species (RDB3) in Shirt (1987) and by Falk (1991). |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This is a scarce bee throughout Britain (with most records from north Wales). It may have quite precise nesting requirements, although its preferred forage plant (Common Bird's-foot Trefoil) is unlikely to be a limiting factor. As a boreo-alpine species, it may be vulnerable to climate change. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Regionally Extinct. Only two modern records in Scotland at the Black Wood of Rannoch in 1865 and 1870. In England only known as a Neolithic subfossil from the Somerset Levels, so not a candidate for species recovery here. |
| 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: | It has been suggested that the nest sites in north-west England are often sections of limestone pavement with high insolation levels with some scrub protection. |
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: | This species may be vulnerable to long-term climate change. Also, in north-west England it appears to be largely limited to limestone pavement areas or rock exposures with similar thermal properties, which may naturally limit its distribution potential. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Monitor all extant populations annually.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Nantmawr, Shropshire; all sites in Lancs and Cumbria
Comments: The north-west England population would appear to be stable in terms of distribution but small, isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction events.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Survey potential sites in Shropshire to ascertain presence/absence to inform conservation management
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Sites close to Nantmawr
Comments: Nantmawr is a relatively isolated population, but this may indicate other populations nearby. If not, it may be particularly vulnerable to local extinction.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Create new areas of open limestone pavement grassland as large glades in scrub/woodland cover. Further details in action comments.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Limestone pavement areas of Lancs and Cumbria
Comments: It has been suggested that surrounding scrub cover is an important habitat component, but forage areas need to be sufficiently large to support populations.
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.