Black-veined Moth (Siona lineata)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - moth > Moth |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Siona lineata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Scopoli, 1763) |
| 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: | GB Red List (Fox et al. 2019): CR; no long-term trend data available. Has suffered historical losses of distribution in southern England and is now restricted to a few sites in Kent. Bespoke monitoring (2002-2021) indicates that the species has continued to decline though populations may now have stabilised. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Habitat specialist that requires bespoke management of downland sites (generic management often creates a sward that is too short for the moth). Targeted monitoring / status assessments also required. |
| 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: | Very restricted range and unlikely to colonise newly-available habitat unless this is close to source populations. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Habitat creation projects in Kent show that the species can colonise land reclaimed from arable farmland, indicating that recovery can be achieved in a relatively short time frame. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: The moth has colonised sites that have been created from arable farmland. These colonisations have happened recently and further evaluation is required to establish: continued persistence of the moth, larval host plants and sward structure, and ongoing habitat changes.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Habitat creation sites in Kent.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Knowledge of larval host plants remains patchy. Undertake nocturnal torchlight research for larvae to improve understanding of the range of host plants used and which of these are key host plants. Also assess sward height and structure at locations where larvae are found.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Continue to survey all existing sites annually to maintain up to date information on species status and habitat condition. Also survey potential sites within occupied landscapes, and continue annual monitoring at all key sites.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
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.