White Skate (Rostroraja alba)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes) > Fish |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Rostroraja alba |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Lacepède, 1803) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Critically Endangered. According to historical literature, white skates appear to have occurred more frequently in previous decades. ICES therefore considers the northeast Atlantic stock to be depleted (2019). Vulnerable to capture by fishing gear and its population demography allows little capacity for it to withstand exploitation. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Research required |
| 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): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Policy Conflict. Threatened by trawling bycatch. Pressures outside England. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Given the depleted nature of the stock throughout its distributional range, many fishers and sea-going research staff or fisheries observers are unfamiliar with this species. Moreover, white skate may be misidentified or confused with other skate species encountered at sea, such as large Dipturus species (e.g. D. batis, D. intermedius and D. oxyrinchus) and potentially the shagreen ray Leucoraja fullonica. Improved identification and educational material should be developed and circulated to fishers, in order to aid in data collection and to highlight the need to release prohibited species once they are landed aboard.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Greater enforcement of protection of the species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Legal protection
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Improved understanding on discard survival to inform fishery management measures
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
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.