Sitticus caricis
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: | Attulus caricis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Westring, 1861) |
| 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: | No evidence of recent, overall decline although apparently lost from several fen sites in E England (including Wicken), where it remains particularly vulnerable to desiccation. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Fragmented habitat and apparently absent/lost from some suitable sites |
| 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: | Recovery potential likely restricted by climate change and other hydrological challenges to its lowland raised bog and fen habitat. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of all recorded sites and similar near-by habitat 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:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to establish microhabitat requirements at apparently contrasting sites 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: e.g. Redgrave & Lopham Fen, Suffolk; Bloxworth, Dorset; Fenn's & Whixall Mosses, Shropshire
Comments: Focus on reliable but contrasting sites in terms of both habitat and geography
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Provide targeted advice to project/land managers of peatland management/restoration/re-creation restoration projects (including palludiculture) in relevant areas, on the species location/s and habitat/management requirements (informed by actions 1 and 2) to avoid damage to current resource and maximise new colonisation opportunities.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: A liaison action for BAS, NE and site 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.