Meioneta fuscipalpa
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: | Agyneta fuscipalpa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (C. L. Koch, 1836) |
| 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: hectads increased from 1 to 3 since review but always tightly confined to small area of Breckland and likely to remain VU |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Occurrence apparently much more restricted than that of its specialist Breckland 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: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Particularly from broken ground within calcareous Breckland grass heaths. Possibility of some underrecording because of winter activity period and confusion with A. rurestris. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of existing 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: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: all short grass Breck heaths
Comments: Focus particularly on broken ground, often created in Stone Curlew and Breckland rare plants. Combine with actions for other winter-active Breckland rarities e.g. Walckanaeria stylifrons.
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: Hockwold Heath and Stanford training area, Breckland
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Maintain rotational areas of broken ground/turf stripping
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Stanford training area, Hockwold and Weeting Heaths
Comments: Surveys (Action 1) expected to confirm current observations that this species is most abundant on recently disturbed ground. Action likely to be compatible with management for other objectives (Stone Curlew and plant rarities) and absorbed within site management. To be delivered by liaison between BAS/NE/land managers
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.