Red-shanked Carder Bee (Bombus ruderarius)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - hymenopteran > Bumblebee |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Bombus ruderarius |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Müller, 1776) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Declining in England. Local distribution - widespread but low abundance. Also declining in Europe |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Requires a review of its status, and bespoke management. Widespread but low abundance makes it difficult to study |
| 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: | This species needs a large-scale, well-connected area of flower-rich habitats (primarily April-July) particularly grasslands and early successional habitats such as brownfield sites, and a mosaic of habitats such as heathland, hedges, urban and suburban habitats, flood defences etc |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | More effort required to detect this species as is low abundance and difficult to separate from similar species (Bombus lapidarius); it is scarcer so easily overlooked. Scope for genetics work to better understand population structure. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Research into autecological factors that are contributing to its catastrophic decline, as it appears to be more generalist than other Thoracobombus in its habitat and forage selection, and emerges relatively early from hibernation - these are more commonly features of widespread & abundant species. Determining whether it is a specialist in pollen collection and generalist in nectar collection by distinguishing between pollen and nectar collection and examining pollen loads; examine habitats (particularly differences in micro & macro habitat preferences vs more common equivalent species) by reviewing extant and extinct sites to elucidate whether there are clear threats and preferences; study into nesting and hibernation site choice e.g. elevation, aspect. Little is known about parasites and predators, however this is difficult to study due to low numbers of the species; determine forage and dispersal distances; examine potential impacts of climate change on UK distribution by researching into its range across Europe.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Testing suitability of habitat interventions in key areas, such as re-seeding to flower-rich grassland in arable areas, creating tall open grassland with scrubby tussocky rough grassland areas for nesting, an abundance of early forage, creating more of this nesting habitat in urban/suburban areas (loss of nesting habitat here is considered to be a factor in its decline), and boosting connectivity between known high-quality areas of grassland habitat
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Salisbury Plain, Cotswolds Chilterns, Kent, Sussex and Essex
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Landscape scale habitat creation and management, the specifics of which will be elucidated in the previous action. Once requirements are known and trial solutions tested, roll out more widely. Target areas where there are current records, across a variety of habitat types, such as chalk grassland, brownfield sites, coastal and wetland habitats, and in buffer areas surrounding known populations in order to increase connectivity across the wider landscape
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
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.