Lejops vittatus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - true fly (Diptera) > Hoverfly |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Lejops vittatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Meigen, 1822) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Ball & Morris, 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Modern records confined to a relatively small number of brackish coastal marsh sites in SE England, Norfolk and the Somerset Levels (with one old record from the Gwent Levels). There are several old records from Greater London suggesting a decline within the Thames Valley. Vulnerable to coastal development and sea level rise. Apparently absent from many areas that seem to support suitable habitat e.g. Hampshire, Lincolnshire. Vulnerable in Europe (IUCN). The UK may be a global hotspot for this species (see: https://stamfordsyrpher.blogspot.com/2017/11/lejops-vittatus-has-it-declined-or-is.html) |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Specific requirement for Sea Clubrush ditches and pools that hold permanent/semi-permanent water for larval development (as opposed to Sea Clubrush stands in drier situations). |
| 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 extensive coastal grazing marsh with plentiful brackish pools/ditches is critical. Does not generally occur at small isolated sites. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Formal surveying is sporadic. Some amateur recording takes place but only at known sites, ignoring other potential sites. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Map suitable breeding habitat (brackish pools and ditches with Sea Clubrush stands that do not often dry out) focussing on Sussex, Kent, Thames Gateway, Norfolk and Somerset Levels. This should be a combination of desk study and ground truthing.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 100 sites
High priority sites: Thames Gateway because of development pressure.
Comments: Surveying for Sea Clubrush habitat does not require an expert entomologist, though finding the fly itself requires a targeted and bespoke approach using an expert.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Creation of new Sea Clubrush pools and ditches in and around known modern Lejops hotspots.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Cuckmere Valley, Ouse Valley (Newhaven-Lewis), Rye Harbour, Thames Gateway.
Comments: Actions 1 and 2 are linked.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Specific targeted surveying/monitoring in the key areas identified by Action 1 to investigate the extent of populations and whether there are specific habitat needs.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Thames Gateway and other suitable areas of Sussex, Kent, East Anglia and Somerset.
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.