Five-banded Weevil-wasp (Cerceris quinquefasciata)
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 quinquefasciata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Rossi, 1792) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Listed as Rare (RDB3) in Shirt (1987) and Falk (1991). |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Although the current distribution map (BWARS website) suggests it is widely found in East Ang lia and south-east England, this masks the fact that many of its former sites have been lost to development and others are threatened by future development or natural succession. Many brownfield specialists have dynamic populations that exploit different habitat patches as they wax and wane in suitability. |
| 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 a need for systematic re-surveying of recorded sites. |
| 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: | Habitats possibly clumped into three habitat resources: sandy brownfield; heathland; coastal dunes/cliffs. Populations should be self-sustaining if given suitably extensive forage habitat, localised disturbance creating bare ground and protection in the planning system. Threats come in the form of development and vegetation succession. |
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 - insufficient |
| 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. A rapid re-evaluation of recorded sites to better understand its true distribution in core ranges. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Compile register of recorded sites and research current site statuses.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 500 sites
High priority sites: All English sites
Comments: This opportunistic species can utilise complexes of brownfield habitat but these are often short-term features that get developed or succumb to natural succession. The "spot map" distribution probably over-estimates how widespread it is. Sites should be categorised as being heathland, coastal or brownfield with each site evaluated via aerial photography or local knowledge as to whether or not they still exist.
Key Action 2
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: National
High priority sites: Depends on outcome of site review, but Essex and Kent likely to remain as strongholds.
Comments: Species can survive long-term, provided suitable nesting sites and extensive foraging habitat is conserved, which is best brought about through planning/development control.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Survey potential habitats beyond current known range to ascertain presence/absence of further unknown populations, especially focussed on suitable habitats in close proximity to northern range limit.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Sandy sites west of a line connecting Portland Bill and The Wash
Comments: The range of this species has a decidedly sharp north-western edge, suggesting that climatic factors may be at play in limiting spread. Climate change may relax these pressures and allow range expansion into new territory.
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.