Heath Grasper (Haplodrassus dalmatensis)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > spider (Araneae) > Spider |
| Red List Status: | Least Concern (Not Relevant) [LC(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: | Haplodrassus dalmatensis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (L. Koch, 1866) |
| 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: | S41 and Amber listed for apparent decline, especially from New Forest stronghold with no evidence that this has changed since 2017 review. Now largely restricted to S and E coastal dunes and shingle, with 2 (/39) hectads in N Wales. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Missing from much 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: | too tied to habitat niches to generally apply here. |
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: | On dry heathland at ground level among heather and under stones, and sometimes on stable coastal sand dunes and shingle |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of all former, nearby and other suitable 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: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
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: Minsmere, Suffolk; Thursley Common, Surrey; Slapton Ley, Devon
Comments: Use contrasting and reliable sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure site managers are aware of species past/recent presence and vulnerability on their sites. Update them with Action 1 and 2 results to provide any resulting guidance on locations/management and inform commissioning of invertebrate survey work (methods likely to detect/damage species, need for retention and examination of spider by-catch when not a survey target)
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 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.