A Leafhopper (Chlorita viridula)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - true bug (Hemiptera) > Bug |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Chlorita viridula |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Fallén, 1806) |
| 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: | Confined to SE England where it has a highly restricted distribution (salt marshes along Thames estuary); most records in 1980s, none since 1988. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Specialist on single host plant (Sea Wormwood, Seriphidium maritimum) which has a restricted ecological range (upper saltmarsh & sea walls). Recovery depends upon protection of host plant, which is threatened by sea-level rise, artificial flood defence construction, other estuarine developments (industrial, marinas etc). |
| 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): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Threatened by same factors as those affecting other salt marsh species (development, flood defence, sea-level-rise), but also opportunities for (re)introduction as part of salt marsh creation, managed realignment projects etc. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Protect vulnerable populations from destructive development. Protect and encourage expansion of 5 existing populations over 5 years.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Thames & Medway estuaries salt marshes
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Trial (re)introduction of species to sites containing strong population of host plant within Thames and Medway estuaries. Introduce species to 5 new (or previous) sites containing the food plant over 5 years.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Salt marshes at Cliffe & Allhallows, Isle of Grain; Elmley & Harty, Isle of Sheppey
Comments: Initial action to survey estuaries for presence of host plant, followed by trial introduction of leafhopper to most promising 5 sites. Best introduced as nymphs.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Trial introduction of species to new sites after successful (re)introduction of host plant with intention of extending distribution northwards into estuaries of Rivers Crouch and Blackwater in Essex. Introduce species to 5 new sites over 5 years.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Crouch and Blackwater estuaries.
Comments: Most northerly record of leafhopper (in 1988) is Paglesham Creek (which is connected to Rivers Roach and Crouch, and borders Wallasea Island). Opportunity to link action with Wallasea Island Wild Coast project.
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.