Talavera petrensis
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: | Euophrys petrensis |
| 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: B2ab(ii,iv): continuing decline, recorded in only 10 of 28 hectads from 2000 onwards. Most GB records are from S England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Apparently declining faster than its specialist habitat. Often in very small areas where it occurs. |
| 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: | Primarily a species of early successional, dry heathland with bare ground. Predominant restriction to S England suggests that thermophilic requirements as well as habitat shortage may limit recovery. |
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: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research particularly to characterise microhabitat requirements and inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Focus on sites with reliable records and contrasting habitat
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Advise heathland land managers at and around current and former sites on the need for continuity and maintenance of bare ground in heathland management and in planning for dry heathland restoration/reconnection projects (advice will become progressively more specific in light of actions 1 and 2)..
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Action may be largely absorbed within wider schemes but requires effective liaison (BAS, NE, site managers) re Actions 1 and 2.
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.