Marpissa radiata
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: | Marpissa radiata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Grube, 1859) |
| 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): little change since review. Most records from England, with a small enclave in S Wales. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Absent from many apparently suitable sites even within its very restricted habitat preferences |
| 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 - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Restricted to highly fragmented, often small, fen remnants but absent from many apparently suitable sites. Females build cocoons in Phragmites australis heads but it is not a species of dense reedbeds. Targeted surveys in E. Anglian stronghold have not covered all former sites. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of all former 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: E. Anglian Fens; Shapwick Heath, Somerset Levels; Holme/Clean Moors, Somerset
Comments: Important to include Shapwick Heath and similar habitat within the Somerset Levels, where the species has not been recorded for decades
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: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: e.g. Redgrave & Lopham Fen, E. Anglia and Holme Moor, Devon.
Comments: Use reliable and geographically contrasting 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: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 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.