Wood Snipefly (Rhagio annulatus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - true fly (Diptera) > Soldier fly or ally |
| 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: | Rhagio annulatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (De Geer, 1776) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Drake, 2017 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Few records in the past 10 years, distinct habitat associations are not known but the species does seem to favour woodland edge with dappled shade. No consistent soil type has been identified so in theory the habitat should not be particularly rare. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Only four records in the past ten years which may be due to scarcity; however, it should also be considered that sightings may be dismissed or recorded incorrectly as the very similar and common, R. triangarius. Specific careful surveying by experienced dipterists may find that the fly is less vulnerable than currently accepted. conversely this may indicate that more specific actions are required to conserve the species |
| 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: | Expansion of deciduous woodland within the species range, protection of scrub edges and maintenance and increasing of glades and rides with woodland as a whole, would be a positive approach that could help other species and orders that require similar habitats. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Small populations that were assumed to be stable in the NERC 192 report (2017). Less records since but this may be down to misidentification something that needs clarifying |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted surveying by experienced dipterists to ascertain a more accurate assessment of distribution and populations bearing in mind confusion species. Possible use of Recording Schemes to promote surveying on a more general basis in suitable areas.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Latest records from: Southover, Dorset (SY62169488), Wytham Woods, Berkshire (SP45450833) Ashton Rowant NNR, Oxfordshire, (SU722965).
Comments: To determine if older sites are still populated and also to discover if other viable sites have undiscovered populations. This would then hopefully allow for more targeted approaches.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Following on from initial surveys on sites where populations are confirmed, research aimed at understanding the exact habitat requirements to allow more precise actions in relation to larval requirements would be beneficial.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Latest records from: Southover, Dorset (SY62169488), Wytham Woods, Berkshire (SP45450833) Ashton Rowant NNR, Oxfordshire, (SU722965).
Comments: As conservation and habitat requirements are assumed, any advance in knowledge re. larval requirements should be beneficial, (along with adult requirements) if exact ecological requirements can be determined.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Conservation management relation to rotational clearance/.cutting of woodland ridea and edges under the assumption from previous records and sites that the fly relies on transitional edges between woodland and more open areas.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Latest records from: Southover, Dorset (SY62169488), Wytham Woods, Berkshire (SP45450833) Ashton Rowant NNR, Oxfordshire, (SU722965).
Comments: New information from Actions 1 & 2 will have an impact on precise approaches.
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.