Chaenothecopsis debilis
Key Details
Taxonomic Groups: | Fungus or lichen > fungus > Non-lichenised microfungus |
Red List Status: | Extinct (globally) (Not Relevant) [EX(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: | Chaenothecopsis debilis |
UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Sm.) Tibell |
UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
Red List Citation: | Woods & Coppins, 2012 |
Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
Response: | Yes |
Justification: | Redlisted as Extinct (2012) - One recent record (2018) from Windsor Park, otherwise recorded from deadwood in Scotland (1985). |
Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
Response: | Yes |
Justification: | A rare, but probably underecorded species. Without evidence of the national status of this species it will be very difficult to assess which other species-specific actions are required for its conservation. |
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: | There is no evidence that an increase in the structural diversity of the habitat will directly benefit this species. |
Species Assessment
Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
Species Comments: | In the 19th Century known from old timber of buildings (under the eaves of thatched buildings) in Sussex (Woods & Coppins, 2012). There is a JNCC recognised redlist for GB, but that is over 10 years old. The ongoing redlisting project (not published at the time this was completed) assessed this species as Data deficient. The recovery potential is unknown due to there being very little information available about this species which appears to be very rare, but there is also a possibility that it is underecorded. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: A targeted survey of the known English site (Windsor Park) should be conducted.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Known, existing site (Not currently accessible via BLS or NBN) but referred to in Redlisting project data.
Comments: There is some potential that this species is underecorded as it is difficult to spot, and so rare that it might not be recognised.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake research into the autoecology of this species and/or key pressures/threats, with studies designed to ascertain its resource requirements. (E.g. It has been recorded on standing, dead Pinus and Quercus as well as building timbers). It should be ascertained how generalist/opportunist a species it might be, or if there are anomalies to these records.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Windsor Park
Comments: The species is known from a single English site in the last 50 years. Once the autecology is understood, it may be possible to ascertain the pressures on this species that inhibit its spread.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Seek getting protection of host tree(s) (standing, dead Quercus), and other potentially beneficial management into Site Management Plan.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Windsor Park
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.