Sitticus floricola
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > spider (Araneae) > Spider |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Calositticus floricola |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (C. L. Koch, 1837) |
| 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: | NT, criteria: B2a: No apparent further decline. Apart from one hectad in SW Scotland, remains tightly clustered around the Shropshire/Cheshire mosses. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Very restricted range and specialised habitat, which is not fully occupied |
| 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: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Tightly clustered around the Shropshire/Cheshire mosses. Requires open, wet basin mire vegetation with good growth of Eriophorum species (egg sacs are built in the seed heads), ideally on schwingmoor. More abundant near open water but can persist in dryer basin mires although lost to scrub invasion/desiccation. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey at Shropshire sites to establish extent, size and (initially) annual variability in population sizes
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Cheshire sites were the subject of a recent thorough survey
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to establish microhabitat requirements and inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites:
Comments: Since all sites are clustered, restrict to most reliable and easily accessed option
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Provide Forestry England with up to date information (informed by Actions 1 and 2) to consider in relation to the species' requirements in the Delamere Forest management plan/s. Raise awareness with managers at the other protected sites.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Delamere Forest
Comments: Regular liaison with FE on monitoring (Action 1) and autecological study (Action 2) results.
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.