Enoplognatha tecta
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: | Enoplognatha caricis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Fickert, 1876) |
| 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,iii,iv): since 2017 review (1 extant, 1 lost population), 4 new sites discovered but 3 likely imported with wetland vegetation. Status re-evaluation will be challenging. Confined to England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Apparently absent from many suitable wetland sites |
| 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: | Likelihood that 3 of the recent new populations (2 in glass houses) are founded by imports with wetland vegetation |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of Suffolk Broads, former Dorset and recent Hants. semi-natural 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: Suffolk Broads grazing marshes; River Piddle valley, Dorset; Farnborough area, Hants.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Investigate status/origins of recently discovered populations in atypical situations, including genetic comparison with specimens from both older populations
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Balancing pond, Gloucester; Garden Centre, York
Comments: To reassess species' status, need to establish whether recent finds are likely to differ in origin to those at known at semi-natural sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure managers of semi-natural sites are aware of possibility of species presence and its vulnerability
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Assemble mailing list and update site managers at species-appropriate intervals; most easily delivered by BAS/SRS.
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.