Euophrys herbigrada
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: | Euophrys herbigrada |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Simon, 1871) |
| 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: recent discoveries/rediscoveries may reduce threat status at next review. Confined to the S coast of England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Less frequent 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: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Restricted to S coast between Eastbourne and the W tip of Cornwall, usually in cliff-top, stoney grassland/heath |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of recent and nearby sites, using standardised methodology to assess current status
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Significant H&S issues with survey for this species - best practise for cliff top sites to be strictly observed.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Advise land managers at and in the vicinity of known sites with on the need for scrub control with aftermath grazing to maintain short, open turf. Refine locations in the light of Action 1 and specificity of recommendations re Action 2.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Action likely to be integral to wider management objectives for sites.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements and inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Focus on reliable and recent sites, including those where scrub is being controlled. Include assessment of recolonisation rates following scrub control (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.