Yellow-striped Bear-spider (Arctosa fulvolineata)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > spider (Araneae) > Spider |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Arctosa fulvolineata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Lucas, 1846) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Harvey et al., 2017 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | NT, criteria: B2b (ii,iv): slight increase in recorded occurrence since 2017 review. Largely restricted to vulnerable, soft coasts of S and E England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Occurrence limited even in comparison to its specialist habitat |
| 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): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Found under debris, stones and mud lumps at the top of saltmarshes, at the foot of the sea walls, and in cracks in upper saltmarsh mud. Recovery potential likely to be limited by anthropogenic (including climate change induced) changes to the soft coasts of E. Anglia |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of recorded and other apparently suitable sites, using standardised methodology to assess current status (and establish baseline for national monitoring programme)
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Pitfall trapping and night survey (lamping) likely to be needed. Combine with surveys for other rarities in this habitat that have similar phenologies and are amenable to similar methods.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements and inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Yelland, Cornwall; Orfordness, Suffolk
Comments: Focus on reliable and contrasting sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Advise coastal protection/realignment/development-offsetting schemes on the development of suitable new habitat (informed by Action 2).
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Once new habitat is established, follow-up with translocation assessment. Links to action for Heliophanus auratus
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.