Ladybird Spider (Eresus sandaliatus)
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: | Eresus sandaliatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Martini & Goeze, 1778) |
| 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: D2: more translocated populations created since 2017 review but remains conservation dependent. Confined to Dorset. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Populations highly isolated/fragmented in relation to 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): | 8. Species recovering |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Dry open S heathland specialist. Reduced to a single, very small population but now translocated successfully to create >15 new foci. Currently requires ongoing habitat micro-management but, with this and macro habitat restoration to adjoining and interconnecting habitat, may have medium/high recovery potential. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Maintain translocation programme, by augmentation when needed and continuing to review need for further introductions, including further afield.
Action targets: 8. Species recovering
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Dorset/Hants. Heaths
Comments: Expansion of existing reintroductions through targeted management (Action 2), including improvements in connectivity should take precedence over new introductions
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Maintain micro-management of translocation sites until meta-population is better established and macro-management of wider habitat delivers more favourable conditions
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Introduce experimental grazing and ground disturbance immediately beyond the margins of one or more established population to test impacts on expansion.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Aim to increase sustainability of new populations by reducing need for micro-management (Action 2)
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.