Xerotrema quercicola
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Fungus or lichen > fungus > Non-lichenised microfungus |
| 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: | Xerotrema quercicola |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Coppins & Aptroot |
| 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: | Rare. Widespread but fragmented population. In England only recorded in New Forest and SW (15 hectads in total). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Key evidence gaps exist concerning its current status, autecology, threats and remedial measures. Need to understand reasons for decline and best action moving forward. |
| 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: | Yes |
| Justification: | Should respond well to bringing extensive oceanic woodlands into good condition, especially restoring sustainable grazing and maintaining a gladed structure. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Dependent on large dead wood retention in humid well-lit oceanic old growth woodlands, threatened by increasing shade in unmanaged pasture woodlands. Healthy populations require extensively grazed minimum intervention pasture woodland, restoring grazing to woodlands is difficult and opposed by some policies. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Research into autecology needed e.g. characteristics of sites, niche etc
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments: Could combine with other lignum specialists e.g. Lecanora strobilina
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Produce a species dossier to collate information on current and historic sites, including results of surveys and assessment of threats and remedial actions
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments: Could combine with other lignum specialists e.g. Lecanora strobilina
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Advise and support site owners and managers to implement the site-level actions identifies in A1 and A3
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Could combine with other lignum specialists e.g. Lecanora strobilina
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.