Sea-fan Anemone (Amphianthus dohrnii)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > coelenterate (=cnidarian) > Cnidarian |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Amphianthus dohrnii |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Koch, 1878) |
| 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: | Formerly common in the English Channel and around southern Ireland. Recently, however, this anemone appears to have become rare. The species may have variable recruitment at different locations. Keith Hiscock estimated that this species had experienced at least a 50% decrease over the last 75 years. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | There is just one post-1980 record of H. melancholicus from England which relates to a single individual captured in a moth trap at Bewl Water, Sussex in August 2003. There have been no further records from this location, suggesting that it likely related to a dispersing individual from further afield, or even an immigrant from the continent. The species is established at a single site in south Wales, where a population was discovered at Stackpole Warren, Pembrokeshire in 1992. Recent (2017) survey work targeting this site has significantly advanced the knowledge base by characterising preferred microhabitats, confirming food plants and identifying potentially suitable localities for further survey. Recovery actions for this species are therefore most gainfully employed in Wales. |
| 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: | Not relevant to marine species |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Dispersal potential is considered to be low based on reproduction which occurs asexually by basal laceration. Nevertheless, the presence of single Amphianthus dohrnii on sea fans at a number of sites suggests that some pelagic dispersal occurs supporting population spread and recovery but that the potential recovery may be low. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Repeated monitoring within sites where this species is known to occur, potentially as part of NE condition assessments for protected areas. Ad-hoc assessments by Seasearch could be supported further with utilisation of scuba divers as citizen scientists.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Recorded from the west coast of Scotland but most frequently recorded from Devon, Dorset and Cornwall.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Raise awareness of species among scuba diving community and utilise divers as citizen scientists, potentially considering this species with other subtidal reef species of interest (cup corals, sea fans)
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: West coast of Scotland, Cornwall and Devon
Comments: Awareness raising could include other species of interest and include pressures monitoring. Costs will vary according to scale of project and approach taken and delivery partner.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Based on actions 1 and 2 develop a research plan to understand more about ecology and to provide information about species habitat preferences and dispersal
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Informed by monitoring, disparate study sites and lab research may be required.
Comments: Dispersal potential is a key evidence gap, work to address this would be important to inform connectivity between sites and population viability
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.