Clubiona caerulescens
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > spider (Araneae) > Spider |
| 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: | Clubiona caerulescens |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | L. Koch, 1867 |
| 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: | VU, criteria: B2ab(ii,iv): most of the GB population in England, where there have been 3 records since 2000 (/15), 2 at new sites, but still apparently in long term decline |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Very much more restricted in occurrence than apparently suitable 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: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Found on low plants among scrub and overgrown, semi-natural woodland. Largely nocturnally active - may be under-recorded. |
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: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Sites widely scattered; combine survey with appropriate other species. Use method appropriate to largely nocturnally active species (in silk retreats during the day). Consider enlisting next-box/dormouse surveyors.
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: Chambers Wood complex, Lincs; Blean Woods complex, Kent
Comments: focus on reliable sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Manage habitat to encourage shrub layer in semi-natural woodland
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Blean Woods, Kent; Chambers Wood complex, Lincs; Oversely Wood, Warks; Cranham Woods, Glous;
Comments: Disseminate though (e.g.) Woodland Trust, Royal Forestry Society, Forestry Commission. Combine with advice for other woodland understorey rarities.
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.