Wart-biter (Decticus verrucivorus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - orthopteran > Grasshopper, cricket or ally |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Decticus verrucivorus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Sutton, 2015 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Listed as Endangered on the GB Red List and all GB populations are in England. Known from only 6 chalk grassland sites and some are not doing well. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The populations in England are fragmented and there is little chance of natural recolonisation (the species is flightless). The species requires targeted habitat management, to which it can respond well. |
| 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: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
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: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | The species is at the edge of its range in England and has specific habitat requirements. Suitable habitat is very fragmented and the species is poor at dispersing, hence the recovery potential is classed as low. Targeted habitat management and translocations are needed. National Monitoring does not currently cover areas into which populations have expanded. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake appropriate habitat management at all sites to maintain a small scale habitat mosaic, with patches of bare ground, short, herb-rich turf, together with patches of taller, tussocky grass. This can be achieved by appropriate winter grazing by cattle/ Exmoor ponies. Scrub control is also needed on some sites, especially at Kingston Escarpment.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: On-going habitat management is required at all 6 sites, but Kingston Escarpment is a priority for scrub control and Mount Caburn requires appropriate grazing.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Give in person advice to landowners to increase suitable habitat in land surrounding/ adjacent to core sites in order to allow the populations to expand. This species requires patches of bare ground, short, herb-rich turf, together with patches of taller, tussocky grass. This can be achieved by appropriate winter grazing by cattle/ Exmoor ponies. Scrub control is also needed on some sites, especially at Kingston Escarpment.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Undertake further translocations to new sites. Conservation translocation has proven to be a successful conservation action for this species in England (three of the current sites have resulted from conservation translocations). Further sites, across the former range of the species in England, should be assessed for their suitability as receptor sites for translocations. Appropriate habitat management could then be implemented at these sites and translocations and subsequent monitoring and reinforcement conducted.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: The scale of future conservation translocations will be limited by the availability of suitable donor populations. The Castle Hill site in E Sussex is currently the most likely donor population for future translocations. Given this constraint, it is probably only realistic to translocate to one site in the next 10 years. Deep Dene is likely to increase in population to the extent that it can be a donor site. This would increase potential translocations to 2 or 3 over the next 10 years.
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.