Caviphantes saxetorum
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: | Caviphantes saxetorum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Hull, 1916) |
| 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: B2a: recorded from 4 (/5) English hectads since 2000. 15 recorded hectads in Wales and Scotland. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Very restricted even in relation to its river shingle 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: | An upland/northern river shingle species found under small embedded boulders usually close to water's edge and always damp beneath. Very specific habitat and frequent difficulties of site access may result in under-recording. Recovery likely to be restricted by paucity of habitat, degradation by sewage pollution, INNS and illegal aggregate exploitation, and the species' intrinsically low productivity. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of recorded and nearby 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: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: River Lune and Upper Kellwood shingles, Cumbria; Tyne and Allen shingles, Northumbria
Comments: Combine with survey for Diplocephalus connatus, ensuring timing to maximise likely overlap in adult phenologies
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Reduce upstream sewage pollution; particulates smother shingle and eutrophication changes entire community.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Particularly a problem towards lower reaches of rivers. Combine action with that for Diplocephalus connatus.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Control INNS (particularly Himalayan Balsam and Japanese Knotweed) at known and potential sites.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: Initial focus on River Lune and Upper Kellwood shingles, Cumbria; Tyne and Allen shingles, Northumbria
Comments: Action likely to be absorbed within local INNS control initiatives. Combine action with that for Diplocephalus connatus.
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.