Four-banded Weevil-wasp (Cerceris quadricincta)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - hymenopteran > Wasp |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Cerceris quadricincta |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Panzer, 1799) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Currently listed as Endangered (RDB1) in Shirt (1987) and Falk (1991). |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Always a rare species, vulnerable to loss of brownfield habitats through urban development and natural succession and loss of diverse foraging habitat. Not recorded recently in Colchester, which was a century-old stronghold. One Suffolk location, current status unknown. Stronger population along north Kent coast but under development pressure. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Conservation of required habitats (nesting and foraging) ought to allow for stable populations within known range. However, these sites tend to be temporary features. Brownfield sites need to be protected in the planning system. There is an urgent need for new survey work in Essex and Suffolk. |
| 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: | Not exclusively found in brownfield sites, but many known populations occur in this early succession habitat or other disturbed places creating nesting opportunities. Needs extensive flower-rich grassland or extensive tall ruderals to hunt prey and sloping bare, sandy ground for nesting. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Policy conflict (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Brownfield sites are viewed as sites for development not nature conservation, with conflicting national and local policies at play. Autecology is sufficiently well known, but protection of habitats is paramount. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Survey all previous sites in Essex and Suffolk to determine if species is still present.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Colchester Castle and surrounding Roman walls; Colchester, Hilly Fields; Colchester, Middlewick Ranges; Colchester, environs of former Ozalid works; Tilbury Ash fields; Great Cornard/Sudbury (Suffolk).
Comments: The species was recorded nesting in the streets of Colchester before tarmaced roads over 100 years ago and the town was a traditional stronghold. The Castle and Hilly Fields should be stable sites where conservation effort is possible. Middlewick Ranges and Tilbury sites are threatened by development.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Survey potential sites around Colchester to ascertain presence/absence to inform conservation management
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Worked-out sand/gravel pits at Stanway and Ardleigh; High Woods Country Park; sites along Colne Valley between Stanway and Rowhedge.
Comments: The species appears to be sufficiently resourceful to exploit very small, opportunistic nesting sites but if these are transient in nature then the species may be hard to find year on year, if these are lost.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Seek to protect large brownfield sites as Local Wildlife Sites to preserve existing populations and reduce the chances of loss through development.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Site protection
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Brownfield sites are threatened by development along Thames estuary; Suburban sites, Margate to Ramsgate. Protecting a series of large brownfield sites would aid with the conservation of this wasp, C. quinquefasciata and many other scarce invertebrates.
Comments: There has been an increase in records from Kent but this may be because of pre-development survey activity. Local authorities need to protect key sites and thereafter stimulate appropriate management.
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.