Large Dune Leafhopper (Doratura impudica)
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: | Doratura impudica |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Horváth, 1897 |
| 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: | Limited number of known sites, all in SE England or East Anglia; limited number of coastal sand dune sites from Sandwich Bay to Hunstanton. targeted survey in 2010-13 revealed 2 extra sites in Essex and Norfolk, absence from 2 historical sites and lack of populations in suitable sand dune systems from Sussex to South Wales. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species occupies the narrow strip of very vulnerable unstable fore-dune containing Elytrigia juncea as its sole foodplant. It is at risk from trampling on any sites that are under even mild visitor pressure and requires actions to establish new populations on sites with suitable habitat that is protected.’ |
| 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: | Species is dependent upon earliest stage of sand dune development. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Pressures acting outside England |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Vulnerable to visitor pressure, sea level rise, both prompting construction of artificial defences between beach and established dune. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Manage known sites to facilitate natural creation and maintenance of foredune habitat (i.e. reduce/remove impacts that destroy this habitat or prevent it from forming). Most tractable approach would be physical protection of foredune from trampling. Fence off foredune at 5 sites over 5 years where vulnerable to trampling, with appropriate interpretation. Adopt a similar approach to that used for tern and ringed plover nesting sites
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Sandwich Bay NNR, Kent; Colne Point NNR, Essex; Crabknowe Spit, Essex; Holkham, Norfolk; Holme Dunes NNR, Norfolk; Blakeney NNR, Norfolk; Titchwell, Norfolk; Gibraltar Point, Lincs
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Develop and test robust and repeatable technique for introduction of species into sites with areas of protected foredune habitat. Experimental translocation of nymphs to 5 appropriate sites followed by monitoring over 5 years.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Reintroduction has not been attempted before. Technique should focus on translocation of nymphs rather than adults.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Introduce species to 5 suitable locations containing extensive length of protected foredune habitat over 5 years.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Action is dependent upon successful completion of Key Action-2.
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.