Southern Yellow Splinter (Lipsothrix nervosa)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - true fly (Diptera) > Fly |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Lipsothrix nervosa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Edwards, 1938 |
| 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: | Widespread records in the past 10 years south of a line between Birmingham and the Wash; however, these are spread over a large area and may give a false impression of the flies abundance. Reported as being locally frequent in the right habitats such as fen carr and calcareous seepages, habitats that could be at risk from drying out, water abstraction and pollution. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The habitat requirements are quite specific and as with other species in the genus the fly requires wet dead wood in permanently wet areas. |
| 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: | Management of surrounding areas to prevent drying out of inhabited sites, mitigation against pollution, expansion or linking of wet fen areas would potentially benefit the species. The rise of beavers in the landscape greatly aids these Lipsothrix craneflies |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Widespread but sporadic in distribution in the southern part of England, wet fen carr and calcareous seepages along with permanently wet dead wood are critical. Unlike the two other species in the genus mentioned here, the dead wood can be small branches that fall onto permanently wet substrate rather than just larger logs jammed into woodland streams. Potential 4th action suggestion around a wider action of reviewing beaver dams and their fit against niches used by Lipsothrix craneflies, as they are a strong driver towards adding wet timber back into the landscape. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Tailored surveys of known sites and also suitable habitats that have no records at this time to confirm a more precise distribution picture.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Ten sites show records from the past 10 years in England. These are listed in iRecord and could be a good starting point.
Comments: Targeted approach to known sites or potential sites to ascertain presence or not. (Inclusion of the Cranefly Recording Scheme/ Dipterists Forum to see if a larger scale approach can be introduced)
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Advice to landowners/managers on conserving the habitat required by this species
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Ten sites show records from the past 10 years in England. These are listed in iRecord and could be a good starting point.
Comments: Focussed around any specifics found by previous studies and the importance of retaining wet, anchored, coarse woody debris. Work with fluvial flood defence schemes adding timber to water-courses to increase flow, ensuring design reflects the sort of niches used by the Lipsothrix flies.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Advice and support for local landowners, farmers and agency staff.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Landscape/catchment/marine management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Ten sites show records from the past 10 years in England. These are listed in iRecord and could be a good starting point.
Comments: Liaising with local landowners and farmers in relation to water abstraction, slurry, run-off, cattle drinks and potential of ingress by avermectins and other harmful chemicals that may kill larvae or make areas uninhabitable.
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.