Tadpole Shrimp (Triops cancriformis)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > crustacean > Crustacean |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Triops cancriformis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Bosc, 1801) |
| 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: | As a native only exists in 1 pond in England. Requires translocation to other ponds to secure further populations. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Several old sites not recently checked but an apparently expanding species that seems well established in the Severn and Wye and some tributaries. Therefore would probably now be just Near Threatened if even that. |
| 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: | If untargeted management did benefit this species then it would have spread to other ponds naturally. So logic dictates that untargeted management will not benefit this species. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Work to establish the ecological, physical, geological, hydrological and chemical parameters restricting Tadpole Shrimp to so few ponds in UK.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: New Forest
Comments: 2025-2027
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Prior to translocation (see action 3) the reasons for decline need to be understood. Changes to old sites need to be investigated and autecology more fully understood (see action 1) in order to establish reasons for decline.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Scattered sites across UK
Comments: 2026-2028
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Translocation is required to secure this species from negative events to the single native site in England. The aim is to secure stable populations in a number of other ponds, locally in New Forest and potentially at sites with previous records. A steering group is to be re-established, statement of aims written and suitable receptor sites investigated. Translocation should be easy as the species is easy to breed in captivity and there are still captive populations from the New Forest pond. Monitoring for a number of years is essential to assess success of any translocations.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: New Forest
Comments: 2027-2032
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.