Metaiulus pratensis
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > millipede > Millipede |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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: | Metaiulus pratensis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Blower & Rolfe, 1956 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Lee, 2015 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | EN, one old record from East Sussex but recent records all from Kent and only one post-2000 location known |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Many more locations were known within Kent in past possibly indicating decline or possibly indicating under recording |
| 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): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | First described following discovery in soil sampling for wireworms in Kent and Sussex btw 1939 and 1951. Collected in 10+ hectads but all post-1980 records have been from Medway Valley by hand searching. High water table may cause animals to be easier to find at surface in Medway floodplain. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Repeat original survey by soil cores taken from sites across Kent. Use Tullgren extraction, flotation and hand sorting methods on soil cores from same sites. Also survey by deep pitfall traps on same sites. Use results to identify most efficient methods for detecting the millipede and to determine if apparent declines since 1950 are real or are due to under recording
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Kent
Comments: Custom made deep pitfall traps will be time consuming and maybe costly to produce but would prove more efficient to use in monitoring if successful.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements, especially soil characteristics and to determine land management practices that allow species to survive
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Kent
Comments: Initial data may be collected alongside survey in action one but repeat visits to at least some sites will be required
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Using the results of actions one and two inform BMIG members and other recorders about habitat requirements and survey techniques to improve data submission to Recording Scheme and hence ability to determine population trends
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: Kent
Comments: Dependent on success of first two actions
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.