Sunset Cup Coral (Leptopsammia pruvoti)
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: | Leptopsammia pruvoti |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Lacaze-Duthiers, 1897 |
| 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: | First observed in British waters in 1969 and the first quantitative records are from 1983. Numbers at monitoring sites at Lundy and in the Isles of Scilly have fallen by in excess of 50% in the 25 years since 1984, although the reasons are most likely natural and relate to long-term variability in ecosystems and the edge-of-range nature of populations. Some recent recruitment at Lundy has been reported, hence populations are assessed as currently stable but having declined from baseline. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | First UK records were from Portland and a population persisted on the Dorset coast until the 1950s. Native status was previously debated but now understood to be one of a number of Mediterranean species that extend north into oceanic parts of western Europe in warm, sunny, open habitats such as brownfield sites. Discovered at a number of sites around the Thames Estuary in the last two decades. Recent records at light in Colchester, and a cluster of records in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, one from arable field margins, suggest S. oblongiusculus continues to increase its range and possibly breadth of habitat affiliation in the UK with climate change and is not a priority for recovery action. Suggested association with Fennel (Telfer 2016) is a potential avenue for targeted searches to better understand any range expansion and validate this association. |
| 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): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Populations have continued to decline despite being in marine protected areas. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Develop an effective monitoring protocol and census and monitor populations at key sites.
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: Sites in the south west of the UK
Comments: Monitoring should be focussed on known existing populations, particularly within MPAs, as a part of site management. Surveys within protected areas could form part of 6-year monitoring and could monitor for additional key species. Citizen scientist divers could potentially be used as the species is large enough to be easily observed and is distinctive. This is a southern species, more common in Europe and the Mediterranean. Population monitoring will support identification of actions and research priorities
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Better understanding of reproduction, dispersal, connectivity and growth rates is needed before any action (if possible) is taken. This range edge southern species may benefit from warming sea temperatures but this is not currently determined.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Sites restricted to southern England: Records are reported from Portland Bill, Lyme Bay, off Plymouth Sound, Phillips Rocks, the Isles of Scilly and Lundy.
Comments: Research may be supported by PhD, but scope and feasibility need in-depth analysis. There will be high costs due to need for diving surveys.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Publicise the fragile nature of the species and of populations for sites at risk to avoid inadvertent damage by divers, boat users etc.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Determined by risk analysis based on presence of damaging activities and sensitivity of habitat, for example, populations on vertical surfaces may have different exposures to potting activity than those on horizontal.
Comments:
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.