Sandbowl Snail (Quickella arenaria)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > mollusc > Mollusc (non-marine) |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Not Relevant) [VU(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Quickella arenaria |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Potiez & Michaud, 1835) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Seddon et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Only known from 2 areas in England (Braunton Burrows, Devon and the western Pennines) and all of GB population is in England. Surveys of all Pennine sites in 2015 found the species and habitat in good condition. The situation at Braunton Burrows is unknown; nearly 20 years since last NE systematic surveys. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The species lives in two discrete areas (1) Braunton Burrows, Devon in dune slacks and (2) in western Pennines in a few areas within base-rich flushes. Two habitat features are important: (1) maintaining a high water table and (2) avoiding site shading by scrub. Maintenance of these is key to retention of species. |
| 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: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | At both sites, water abstraction is an issue. In both cases two features are important: (1) maintaining a high water table and (2) avoiding site shading by scrub. Both sites are protected areas (SSSIs, NNR), although it may be that one of the locations lies just outside of the SSSI boundary which should be modified. NE has undertaken period reviews of these sites, most recently all Pennines sites in autumn 2015. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Resurvey selected dune slacks at Braunton Burrows and compare to last survey results.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Braunton Burrows
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Provide advice to land owners / managers on control of invading scrub.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: All Pennine sites (The Braunton sites are well managed as part of a NNR).
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.