Common Fan-foot (Pechipogo strigilata)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - moth > Moth |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Pechipogo strigilata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| 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: | GB Red List (Fox et al. 2019): NT; no long-term trend data available. Suffered severe historical declines and now reduced to around 10 populations in England. Not present elsewhere in GB. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Requires bespoke status surveys to maintain up to date information on populations. Recovery likely to depend on gaining a better understanding of the larval ecology and implementing appropriate management. |
| 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: | Greater structural diversity in woodland likely to benefit this species at some sites (but not all). |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Likely to be slow to colonise woodlands with suitable habitat. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Adult surveys (light trapping) at all known sites at least once every 3-5 years to maintain up to date status information.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: 9 sites
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: We currently have an incomplete understanding of the autecology. The moth uses mature coppice regrowth at some sites, but other sites are mature woodland with no recent history of management. Undertake larval research and habitat assessments across all sites to gain a clearer understanding of the moth's requirements.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Landscapes where populations of the moth remain present.
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.