Phaeocedus braccatus

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: Phaeocedus braccatus
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: VU, criteria: B2ab(ii,iv): no longer and evidence of recent decline, with new records since 2017 review. Confined to SE England.
Question 2: Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions?
Response: Yes
Justification: Much less frequent than calcareous grassland and dry heathland specialism suggests
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: Opportunistic - insufficient
Species Comments: Restriction to sparsely-vegetated chalk grasslands and heathlands in extreme SE of England suggests that this is a thermophilic species, for which any recovery will be limited by temperature as well as habitat availability. Largely lost from Hants/Dorset heaths but now found more widely in sparsely vegetated calcareous grasslands and SE coastal shingle.

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: ≤ 50 sites

High priority sites:

Comments:

Key Action 2

Proposed Action: Autecological research to establish microhabitat requirements at contrasting and reliable sites

Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood

Action type: Scientific research

Duration: 3-5 years

Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites

High priority sites: Orford Ness, Suffolk; Malling Down, Kent; Avon Heath, Dorset

Comments: Use reliable and 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: >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.

Return to List

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.