Fauna Spotters logo

Yanchep Peacock Spider (Maratus yanchep)

The Yanchep Peacock Spider is a small jumping spider known from coastal dunes near Yanchep, north of Perth. Its known range is very limited, and development-related clearing has been reported close to its habitat. It is listed as DBCA Priority 1, with no national listing given.

Conservation status

Western Australia, WA Threatened and Priority Fauna List: Priority 1.

Seasonal planning

Seasonal activity and breeding months for Maratus yanchep have not been established. Plan surveys and safeguards for the full work period rather than relying on a seasonal absence.

Species-specific timing: Not documented.

General peacock spider context: A source describes male displays in many peacock spiders as typically occurring in August to September, but this timing is not confirmed for Maratus yanchep.

Seasonal guidance is precautionary planning only, not a statement of the species' activity or breeding cycle.

  • Survey and work planning: Use as a planning window only. Maintain survey and avoidance precautions throughout the work period because species-specific seasonal timing is unknown.

Identification: Appearance and size

Described in 2023, the species varies in appearance among known individuals. Clear photographs and specialist review can help confirm identification.

The species is a peacock spider. Known individuals look strikingly different from one another.

A complete diagnostic description and species-specific body size have not been documented. Many peacock spiders are only 4 to 5 mm across, but this is not a measurement for this species.

Identification: Similar species

No particular species are known to be easily confused with Maratus yanchep. Peacock spiders have distinctive patterns, but identification should not rely on colour alone, especially given the reported variation within this species.

Identification: Field signs

Species-specific tracks, webs, retreats and other field signs have not been documented. A spider sighting or photograph is the useful record. Retain images that show the animal clearly and the surrounding site.

Distribution: Known range

The known range is highly localised in the Yanchep area. Records do not establish that the species occurs elsewhere.

The species is known only from a small area of coastal dunes near Yanchep, north of Perth. Atlas of Living Australia records show five Western Australian records across three distinct 0.1-degree locations, between latitude -31.5 and -31.4 and longitude 115.7 and 115.8.

Distribution: WA regions and limits

The DBCA Priority Fauna List flags the Swan region. The known records do not confirm a wider distribution or establish absence from other areas.

Habitat: Known setting

Coastal dunes near Yanchep are the only known habitat setting. Further habitat preferences have not been documented.

The species is known from a small area of coastal dunes near Yanchep. Particular dune features, plant species, soil conditions and vegetation structure used by the spider have not been documented.

Habitat: Site assessment

Treat dune habitat in and around known records as potentially relevant until an appropriately designed survey has assessed it. Do not assume that apparently disturbed or open areas are unsuitable.

Foraging habitat: Known information

The species' prey and foraging locations have not been documented.

Its diet, prey, hunting behaviour and foraging microhabitat have not been documented.

Foraging habitat: Precaution

During site checks, avoid restricting searches to a particular plant or surface type. Search the relevant dune habitat carefully and record where each individual is found without disturbing it unnecessarily.

Breeding habitat: Known information

Species-specific breeding sites, timing and reproductive details have not been documented.

Egg sacs, egg-laying locations, juvenile habitat and the breeding period for Maratus yanchep have not been documented.

Breeding habitat: Courtship observations

A general account of peacock spiders says males commonly display during short periods, typically August to September. This timing is not confirmed for Maratus yanchep and should not be treated as its breeding season.

Sheltering habitat: Known information

Sheltering locations and inactive-period behaviour have not been documented.

Species-specific retreats, nests, burrows, leaf-litter use and other sheltering behaviour have not been documented.

Sheltering habitat: Precaution

Avoid turning over or removing material during searches unless necessary and authorised. If potential shelter features are disturbed, inspect them carefully and return displaced material as close as practicable to its original position.

Threats: Development and clearing

The narrow known range makes site-level changes important. Coastal dune clearing for development has been reported as a concern.

A 2024 report described the known coastal dunes as close to land being cleared for large housing estates, with the dunes reported to be about 20 metres from the clearing. The site was reported to be earmarked for extensive development at that time.

Threats: Status and uncertainty

DBCA lists the species as Priority 1, described as poorly known, known from few locations and not known from conservation lands, on its list dated 1 July 2025. This is a DBCA priority category, not a listing under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. No national listing is given.

Population size has not been quantified, and the current extent of any development impact has not been established.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

Because the species is small and poorly known, use targeted, documented searches and allow for the possibility of non-detection.

Review current DBCA fauna information, occurrence records and project survey requirements before work. Map known records and coastal dune habitat near Yanchep, and confirm whether the works footprint or adjacent areas overlap potentially relevant habitat.

Survey methodology: 2. Field search

Undertake careful visual searches across relevant dune habitat, using close observation suited to a very small spider. Search systematically and record the date, time, conditions, search area and effort. A species-specific survey season or method has not been established.

Survey methodology: 3. Records and verification

Photograph any suspected individual in place, including images clear enough to show distinguishing features, and record precise coordinates. Avoid unnecessary handling. Seek identification from a suitably experienced arachnologist and report records through appropriate channels.

Vegetation associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific vegetation association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Ecosystem associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific ecosystem association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Soil and substrate associations: Sandy soils or sand

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

The species is known only from a small area of coastal dunes near Yanchep, north of Perth.

Automatically indexed from existing profile text. Not a verified preference, mapped occurrence or habitat requirement. Check the original source and regional qualifiers before use.

Evidence: Unreviewed profile-derived candidate

Confidence: Not independently verified

Region: Scope as described in the quoted profile text; not independently verified. Profile states: WA.

Habitat use: general

Attribution gap: No sentence-level reference is attached to the original profile block. Review the profile bibliography; this candidate is not source-verified.

Water and wetland associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific water association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Fauna records and mapped habitat: Not yet analysed

Record locations can be overlaid with mapping, but record frequency alone does not measure habitat preference. No species is excluded from desktop assessments by this analysis.

No quality-controlled record-to-map analysis has been completed for this species. The existing generalised distribution dots and indicative range polygons have not been treated as precise occurrence coordinates.

A defensible run needs dated, independently attributable records, coordinate uncertainty, duplicate and captive-record checks, layer versions and regional scope. Preference and absence require additional survey-effort and detection evidence.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: No supported exclusion recorded

Not recorded is not the same as cannot occur. Low suitability, resident habitat, breeding habitat and occasional movement are different conclusions.

This library has not established a vegetation, ecosystem or soil-type exclusion for this species. This does not mean all habitat is suitable; the evidence needed to justify an exclusion has not been assembled.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: Before using a negative association

  • Confirm the taxon, geographic region, life stage and habitat function covered by the evidence.
  • Check survey methods, season, repeated effort and detectability before interpreting non-detection.
  • Investigate credible contradictory records and microhabitats absent from broad mapping.
  • Do not convert a missing map class, low record count or failed data request into species absence.

Before habitat disturbance: 1. Confirm information

Plan to avoid impacts to known records and potentially suitable coastal dune habitat before clearing begins.

Check the current DBCA status and occurrence information, and consult a qualified ecologist about survey needs. Do not assume the species is absent because no recent observations are available.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Avoid and brief

Where practicable, avoid clearing known record locations and nearby potentially relevant dune habitat. Mark approved work limits clearly, brief crews on the species' small size and localised known range, and establish a stop-work and escalation process for suspected sightings.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Control the work area

Keep disturbance within approved limits and respond cautiously to any suspected spider found during works.

Keep vehicles, machinery, stockpiles and foot traffic out of marked exclusion areas. Minimise the area and duration of disturbance in coastal dune habitat and avoid unnecessary movement of surface material.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Respond to sightings

If a suspected individual is found, stop work locally, prevent further disturbance and notify the site environmental representative. Photograph and record the location without handling the spider unless a qualified person determines that intervention is necessary and authorised.

During habitat disturbance: 3. Resume only after review

Have the sighting assessed by a suitably experienced specialist and follow project approvals and DBCA advice before restarting affected work. Do not assume that moving an individual to another location is an appropriate mitigation measure.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Record and report

Document outcomes and check that disturbance has not extended beyond the approved footprint.

Record detections, non-detections, disturbance events and response actions, including coordinates, photographs and survey effort. Share verified records with the relevant project and fauna authorities as required.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Review impacts

Inspect the work boundary and any retained habitat for unintended disturbance. Escalate unexpected impacts or new records promptly and seek specialist advice on follow-up actions.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Protect retained habitat

Species-specific rehabilitation requirements have not been documented, and rehabilitated habitat has not been shown to support this spider.

Prioritise avoiding further disturbance to retained coastal dune habitat. Prevent rehabilitation works from encroaching into known or potentially relevant habitat.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Plan and monitor

Use site-specific ecological advice to select rehabilitation methods, and avoid claiming that revegetation replaces habitat lost before the species' requirements are better understood. Document the work and monitor retained and rehabilitated areas where required by approvals.

Sources