Pink Sea-fan (Eunicella verrucosa)
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: | Eunicella verrucosa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Pallas, 1766) |
| 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: | Historic declines in extent have been suggested, with recent declines (to the 1980s) attributed to souvenir taking and disease. Population is considered to be stable but species is uncommon. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Largely confined to England, the latest status review (2016) reported P. cruxmajor from just six post-1980 hectads in England and the data suggested a continuing decline, although it is regarded as a species that undergoes large population fluctuations. However, it has been found in a further 11 hectads since then, with a strong cluster of records along the River Trent west of Lincoln, between Newark-on-Trent and Gainsborough, as well as records from several other sites in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Leicestershire. Many of these have been during the winter, when adults have been found under flood debris, sometimes in numbers. Many beetle recorders, particularly in the north midlands, are now aware of this species, which is distinctive and can usually be identified from a photo. In the light of the above, this species does not seem a suitable candidate for recovery actions at the current time. |
| 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): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Much relevant work already done. Populations are mainly healthy and main threat is mobile fishing gear. Recovery potential, although high, will be achieved through fisheries measures and does not need other action. Recent research work has considered reproduction, dispersal and population connectivity. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: The main threat to population recovery is mobile fishing gear, this should be managed and removed in key areas, as achieved at Lyme Bay.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Special (in situ) measure
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Subtidal hard rock habitats and is recorded in the south west (Cornwall, Devon and Dorset).
Comments: Habitat management to reduce fishing pressure is required, considering co-location of less damaging activities and site selection to minimise impacts on fishing communities and livelihoods. Areas of specific importance for connectivity could be established for protection based on habitat modelling and data collection.
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.