Crystal Moss-animal (Lophopus crystallinus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > bryozoan > Bryozoan |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Lophopus crystallinus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Pallas, 1768) |
| 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: | A GB Red List assessment has not been conducted on this species so far, therefore no clear status has been declared for this species. However, it is clear that the species needs conservation/recovery in England. Its decline, while not clearly documented over the years, is prevalent in work being carried out now. They are not present/ very difficult to locate in all previous strongholds i.e. blow wells at Far Ings. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Not at risk of extinction in England |
| 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: | Lophopus crystallinus requires a substrate to live on, therefore an increase in habitat mosaics at key sites (in particular - a wider range of in-water vegetation) would benefit the species greatly. The species has believed to have declined due to loss of suitable habitat, so it is believed that the species could benefit from any habitat management. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | The species really needs a more regular monitoring system that is not reliant on masters students, as it currently is. After this, the fate of the monitoring is left unknown. Therefore, conducting at least an annual survey would provide a much clearer picture of the species' true status. It is believed it would be best to survey seasonally - as right now it is believed the species is more prolific in the winter months and it would be interesting to know whether their supposed metapopulation dynamics are having an effect on the species returning each year. A further 4th action would be around genomic studies- genomic studies would also provide great insight into the current genetic diversity of the species and allow us to better understand if they are in crisis or if there is still enough genetic diversity. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Following on from nationwide surveys - processing these will provide a new scope for the species i.e. its presence in any previous strongholds (or absence) and possibly the discovery of new sites for the species.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 100 sites
High priority sites: Far Ings blow wells - Lincolnshire Burton mill pond - West Sussex
Comments: This action is a wide scale operation that is aiming to cover as much ground as possible in search for the species. More sites may be possible in the near future. This was done using eDNA sampling and the qPCR detection assay is currently being developed.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Hatching of any statoblasts found in hopes of possible translocation into suitable sites or genomic studies. Will be conducted by The Deep in Hull and the University of Nottingham.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: River Foss - York
Comments: This process has brought much hope for the project, the River Foss has provided 50+ statoblasts, which is essential in research and recovery for the species.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Translocation into suitable habitats in the wild.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Other (specify in comments)
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Not known yet
Comments: It is essential for the survival of this species both in the wild and in captivity. This species has seen massive decline in the past 20 or so years and regular monitoring has not taken place therefore we can only speculate on the reason for decline - climate change and pollution. There has yet to be a successful colony established in captivity (hence the importance of action 2) and therefore there is no guarantee they may be sustained in captivity. With the seemingly alarming rate of decline in previous strongholds, like in the blow wells at Far Ings in Lincolnshire, I believe the best chance the species has not to be lost in the wild would be translocation, we know what kind of environment the species can thrive in and therefore can be placed in those environments and create new strongholds.
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.