Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Species seems to be extinct in the Austrian Alpine Region. ||
->Population: Species seems to be extinct in the Austrian Alpine Region. ||
->HabInfo: Species seems to be extinct in the Austrian Alpine Region. ||
->Future: Species seems to be extinct in the Austrian Alpine Region. ||
->Conclusion: According to expert opinion, Cerambyx cerdo seems to be actually missing in the alpine biogeographic region. For the next reporting period, the status has to be re-assessed and and, if necessary, the check list has to be updated. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Species seems to be extinct in the Austrian Alpine Region.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Il est impossible de différencier un trou de Cerambyx cerdo des autres espèces de Cerambyx et en particulier de Cerambyx welensii (Küster, 1845) et difficile parfois avec Prinobius myardi Mulsant, 1842 ou Aegosoma scabricorne (Scopoli, 1763). Ces autres espèces peuvent d’ailleurs partager le même arbre que C. cerdo, notamment dans le Sud de la France et en Corse. D’un point de vue de la conservation, ces espèces présentent un intérêt patrimonial et une fonction écologiques équivalents (voire supérieurs) à C. cerdo et peuvent être inventoriées au même titre et les risques de confusion ne faussent pas le diagnostic patrimonial.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The estimate of population size is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Gatunek nie notowany od 1985 roku w alpejskim regionie biogeograficznym, współcześnie prawdopodobnie już tu nie występuje. ||
->Population: Gatunek nie notowany od 1985 roku w alpejskim regionie biogeograficznym, współcześnie prawdopodobnie już tu nie występuje. ||
->HabInfo: W granicach bioregionu alpejskiego występują nieliczne siedliska, które może zasiedlać kozioróg dębosz, jednak ich stan jest nieznany. ||
->Future: W latach 1985 – 2016 w obrębie alpejskiego regionu biogeograficznego nie stwierdzono obecności gatunku. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
W okresie sprawozdawczym nie stwierdzono obecności gatunku w alpejskim regionie biogeograficznym.
Populacja:
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja):
Brak stwierdzenia gatunku wyklucza możliwość oceny parametru Populacja.
Siedlisko gatunku:
W granicach bioregionu alpejskiego występują nieliczne siedliska, które może zasiedlać kozioróg dębosz, jednak ich stan jest nieznany.
Perspektywy ochrony:
Gatunek w obrębie bioregionu alpejskiego współcześnie nie występuje.
Ocena ogólna:
Brak stwierdzeń obecności gatunku w granicach alpejskiego regionu biogeograficznego uniemożliwia sformułowanie oceny ogólnego stanu ochrony.
Jak oszacowano wielkość populacji gatunku w obszarach Natura 2000:
W obszarach Natura 2000 w granicach alpejskiego regionu biogeograficznego jest brak stanowisk kozioroga dębosza.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: 1. Pufferung der GIS-Koordinaten anhand der Vorkommensdefinitionen (100 m)
2. Verschneidung mit dem 1x1km-Raster
3. Ermittlung der besetzten grids1x1 (Min: Anzahl durch Koordinaten getroffene grids1x1) ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Il est impossible de différencier un trou de Cerambyx cerdo des autres espèces de Cerambyx et en particulier de Cerambyx welensii (Küster, 1845) et difficile parfois avec Prinobius myardi Mulsant, 1842 ou Aegosoma scabricorne (Scopoli, 1763). Ces autres espèces peuvent d’ailleurs partager le même arbre que C. cerdo, notamment dans le Sud de la France et en Corse. D’un point de vue de la conservation, ces espèces présentent un intérêt patrimonial et une fonction écologiques équivalents (voire supérieurs) à C. cerdo et peuvent être inventoriées au même titre et les risques de confusion ne faussent pas le diagnostic patrimonial.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Data for this biogeographic region does not allow defining a credible range, so no value is presented. ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: The species is associated with quercines (Q. rotundifolia and Q. suber). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The distribution map presented took into consideration the data collected for the period 2013-2018, as well as part of the squares presented in the previous report for which no recent observations were collected but considered as areas of current occurrence of the species. The data come from localized works and occasional personal communications, and there is no systematic prospecting of the species. Only in mid-2018, as part of the Red List of Invertebrates project, systematic exploration work began, with particular focus on classified areas, but the results will only be reflected in the next report.
The project "Red List for Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrate groups in mainland Portugal" started in mid-2018. This operation will be carried out over 3 years, covering the entire national territory of the continent, with particular focus on Sites of Community Importance (SCI)and on terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate species belonging to the annexes of the Habitats Directive but the results will only be reflected in the next report.
The main objectives of this project are:
(a) assess the conservation status, according to IUCN criteria, of species for some terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate taxonomic groups in mainland Portugal;
(b) to fill knowledge gaps in terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate species protected by the Habitats Directive to enable conservation status to be assessed under that Directive;
c) to elaborate and publish the Red List of Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrate groups of mainland Portugal in physical and digital support;
d) create a websig platform for storing information, publishing and disseminating results.
This operation will be carried out over 3 years, covering the entire national territory of the continent, with particular focus on Sites of Community Importance (SCI)and on terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate species belonging to the annexes of the Habitats Directive but the The results will only be reflected in the next report.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range is calculated from observations recorded in Swedish Species Observation System, 'Artportalen'. Known range is the same as 2013 no new localities have been found.
Only one locality has been known with certainty since 1980s. So during this period the range has been small and stable. A species action program has suggested a future larger range including parts of the past range which still have oak forest of good quality. This range has been set as a FRR. To achieve this range a transplantation program is necessary. The species has been relocated to new suitable areas during 2018, including continental region. However, the outcome of these relocation are not known yet.
Suggested FRR area on border to continental region, 4200 km2 in boreal region, 400 km2 in continental region. The sum exceeds the total when some squares are counted in both regions. The species has a historic occurrence in continental region.
FRR same as 2013. ||
->Population: Only one locality has been known with certainty since 1980s. The population has been small since then. There is an yearly monitoring of number of oaks with fresh hatching holes, 12 years out of 14 (2004-2017). A species action program has suggested a future larger range including parts of the past range which still have oak forest of good quality. A transplantation program is necessary to achieve this goal. The first transplantations outside known range started 2018. The transplanted population is not included in the assessment of population size. Population was 2013 reported as inhabited trees (fresh hatching holes), 2019 this parameter is used in the additional population size 6.4, trends, and FRP. ||
->HabInfo: The species use oak with forest sun exposed trees, mainly 9070 Fennoscandian wooded pastures.
Only one locality has been known with certainty since 1980s. Within this locality monitoring of suitable trees has been done yearly as a complete survey. The amount of substrate (old oak trees) is small but fairly constant, so the assessment is; area ‘stable’ /quality ‘stable’ on short term as well as long term. However the amount of substrate will probably decreasing in the future since there is a low recruitment in the area. A species action/LIFE program has 2018 initiated a recolonization within the past range, in areas that still have oak forest of good quality (after restoration). The recolonization program is taken place in boreal as well as continental region. The outcome of this program is not yet known and is not included in the judgement here.
The species is severely fragmented according to IUCN criteria. ||
->Future: Only one locality has been known with certainty since 1980s. The population has been small since then. A species action program and a LIFE project have resulted in newly started, conservation measures (restoring habitat, relocation). The outcome of the measures are not possible to predict at date. The species has a long development as larvae, and the recruitment of substrate is very slow. Signs of improvement will consequently be delayed. Therefore have future prospect for range and population been assessed as 'unknown' pending future monitoring of the effects. The quality of the habitat will be improved by restoration so 'poor (positive)' is judged as an appropriate assessment. ||
->Conclusion: Changes compared to previous report. Future prospects is changed from bad to unknown. The reason is newly started conservation measures (restoring habitat, relocation). The outcome of the measures are not possible to predict at date. Therefore have future prospect been assessed as 'unknown' pending future monitoring of the results. This don't change the overall conservation status. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The suggested Favourable Reference Range is partly located in the continental region.
C. cerdo is redlisted as critically endangered (CR) in Sweden (2015), same as in earlier redlists (2000, 2005, 2010). Suggested redlist category 2020 is critically endangered (CR).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Verschneidung der Vorkommenspunkt (Distribution) mit grids1x1 und Habitatmaskierung mit CorineLandCover-Klassen ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Der Gesamttrend wird abweichend von den Guidelines mit "sich verschlechternd" beurteilt, weil nach Trendangaben der Länder maximal von einem stabilen Trend der Range ausgegangen werden kann. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Il est impossible de différencier un trou de Cerambyx cerdo des autres espèces de Cerambyx et en particulier de Cerambyx welensii (Küster, 1845) et difficile parfois avec Prinobius myardi Mulsant, 1842 ou Aegosoma scabricorne (Scopoli, 1763). Ces autres espèces peuvent d’ailleurs partager le même arbre que C. cerdo, notamment dans le Sud de la France et en Corse. D’un point de vue de la conservation, ces espèces présentent un intérêt patrimonial et une fonction écologiques équivalents (voire supérieurs) à C. cerdo et peuvent être inventoriées au même titre et les risques de confusion ne faussent pas le diagnostic patrimonial.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The estimate of population size is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: W latach 2010 – 2016 zebrano nowe informacje i zweryfikowano starsze o występowaniu kozioroga dębosza w Polsce. W świetle uzyskanych wyników stwierdzono, że duża część wcześniejszych danych bazowała na błędnych oznaczeniach (np. odnoszących się do dyląża garbarza lub innych gatunków z rodziny Cerambycidae).
Zasieg jest nadal niedostatecznie rozpoznany, w związku z tym zasięg referencyjny określono jako nieznany.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: Minimalną wielkość populacji w nowych jednostkach – zasiedlonych polach siatki 1x1 km – określono, przyjmując, że w jednym polu siatki 10x10 km ze stwierdzeniem gatunku, zasiedlone jest przynajmniej jedno pole 1x1 km.
Gatunek według dostępnych danych występuje obecnie w ponad 133 polach 1x1km2. Część stanowisk podawanych w poprzednim raporcie zweryfikowano negatywnie (błędne informacje o aktualnym występowaniu). Część stanowisk wymaga weryfikacji w terenie. ||
->HabInfo: Zdecydowano się na negatywne określenie dostępności odpowiednich siedlisk w oparciu m. in. o dane monitoringowe. Jest bardzo duże zróżnicowanie powierzchni i jakości siedliska na badanych stanowiskach. Różnice dotyczą przede wszystkim powierzchni stanowisk, zasobu bazy rozwojowej (liczby drzew senilnych) i stopnia zacienienia drzew (na ogół nadmiernego, szczególnie na stanowiskach leśnych). ||
->Future: Perspektywy dla zasięgu trudno ocenic, gdyż jest on niedostatecznie poznany. Słabe oceny perspektyw ochrony dla parametrów „Populacja” i „Siedlisko gatunku” wynikają z danych monitoringowych, z ogólnie małej liczebności gatunku na większości monitorowanych stanowisk, jak też ograniczonej liczby drzew rozwojowych (zasiedlonych i zdatnych do zasiedlenia przez kozioroga dębosza) na poszczególnych stanowiskach oraz stwierdzanych oddziaływaniach i zagrożeniach. ||
->Conclusion: W okresie sprawozdawczym nie odnotowano istotnych zmian w odniesieniu do Oceny ogólnej stopnia ochrony gatunku w kontynentalnym regionie biogeograficznym w Polsce. Kierunek zmian określono aktualnie jako nieznany (negatywna weryfikacja części podawanych wcześniej stanowisk); poprzednio określono go jako spadkowy. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
W okresie sprawozdawczym zasięg i rozmieszczenie gatunku w kontynentalnym regionie biogeograficznym w Polsce nie uległy istotnej zmianie, mimo sprostowania części wcześniejszych informacji na podstawie wyników rozpoznania faunistycznego. Dostępne dane nie upoważniają do przyznania oceny zasięgu innej niż stan nieznany (XX).

Populacja:
Gatunek według dostępnych danych występuje obecnie w ponad 133 polach 1x1km2. Część stanowisk podawanych w poprzednim raporcie zweryfikowano negatywnie (błędne informacje o aktualnym występowaniu). Część stanowisk wymaga weryfikacji w terenie. Z powyższego powodu stan populacji oceniono jako nieznany (XX).

Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja):
Mimo znaczącego zwiększenia wiedzy na temat gatunku w kontynentalnym regionie biogeograficznym w Polsce nie można jeszcze jednoznacznie określić wartości referencyjnych dla zasięgu i populacji (wymagane są dalsze badania). Były one określone poprzednio, jednak według obecnego stanu wiedzy nie wiadomo tak naprawdę, czy referencyjne populację i zasięg można uznać za zbliżone do aktualnych, tak jak to było w poprzednim okresie raportowania.
Siedlisko gatunku:
Generalnie stan siedlisk gatunku w Polsce oceniono jako niezadowalający (U1). Przyczyną jest stosunkowo mały udział zasiedlonych lub zdatnych do zasiedlenia senilnych dębów (szypułkowego i bezszypułkowego) na poszczególnych stanowiskach i na ogół ich nadmierne ocienienie. Siedlisko oceniono jako niewłaściwe również w raporcie z roku 2013.
Perspektywy ochrony:
Perspektywy ochrony kozioroga dębosza w kontynentalnym regionie biogeograficznym w Polsce oceniono, jako niezadowalające, a to przede wszystkim za sprawą niezadowalającego stanu siedlisk i istniejących oddziaływań i zagrożeń. Prognoza jest zatem taka sama jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania.
Ocena ogólna:
Ocena ogólna stanu ochrony kozioroga dębosza w Polsce jest niezadowalająca. W perspektywie najbliższego wielolecia są nikłe szanse na jej poprawę. Ogólny kierunek zmian w stanie gatunku jest nieznany (w raporcie z 2013r. określono go jako spadkowy).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Cerambyx cerdo have a historic range including continental and boreal region in Sweden. At present there is only one known remaining Swedish population of the species on the island of Öland. The species probably went extinct on the Swedish mainland before 1995, the last adult beetle were observed in the 1960s in boreal region. A national species action program suggest a future larger range including parts of the past range (boreal and continental region) which still have oak forest of good quality. This range has been set as a FRR, which is reported under boreal region. A LIFE project started 2018 to reintroduce C. cerdo at two sites on the Swedish mainland within its former range, one in boreal region and one in continental region. However, the outcome of these relocation are not known yet.
Suggested FRR in boreal region is partly located in continental region, 4200 km2 in boreal region, 400 km2 in continental region. The sum exceeds the total when some squares are counted in both regions. ||
->Population: Cerambyx cerdo have a historic range including continental region in Sweden. At present there is only one known remaining Swedish population of the species on the island of Öland, in boreal region. The species probably went extinct on the Swedish mainland before 1995, the last adult beetle were observed in the 1960s in boreal region. However, suspected hatching holes have been observed in continental region in recent time, but could not be verified. A species action program has suggested a future larger range including parts of the past range which still have oak forest of good quality. A transplantation program is necessary to achieve this goal. The first transplantations outside known range started 2018, and included one locality in continental region. The transplanted population is not included in the assessment of population size. Population was 2013 reported as inhabited trees (fresh hatching holes) in boreal region, 2019 this parameter is used in the additional population size 6.4. ||
->HabInfo: Exp species ||
->Future: Exp species ||
->Conclusion: No changes since no previous report exists for continental region. The outcome of the relocation measures (2018) are not possible to predict at date. Therefore is overall conservation status assessed as 'unknown' pending future monitoring of the results. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Cerambyx cerdo has 2018 been relocated to one locality in continental region. The outcome of the relocation is not possible to predict at date because larval development takes at least 5 years. The suggested Favourable Reference Range specified under boreal region is partly located in the continental region. The species have a historic range in continental region. The year of extinction in continental region is difficult to assess, the last actual observations of adult beetles are from late 1800s but trees with possible hatching holes were found in the late 1900s.
C. cerdo is redlisted as critically endangered (CR) in Sweden (2015), same as in earlier redlists (2000, 2005, 2010). Suggested redlist category 2020 is critically endangered (CR).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Il est impossible de différencier un trou de Cerambyx cerdo des autres espèces de Cerambyx et en particulier de Cerambyx welensii (Küster, 1845) et difficile parfois avec Prinobius myardi Mulsant, 1842 ou Aegosoma scabricorne (Scopoli, 1763). Ces autres espèces peuvent d’ailleurs partager le même arbre que C. cerdo, notamment dans le Sud de la France et en Corse. D’un point de vue de la conservation, ces espèces présentent un intérêt patrimonial et une fonction écologiques équivalents (voire supérieurs) à C. cerdo et peuvent être inventoriées au même titre et les risques de confusion ne faussent pas le diagnostic patrimonial.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Sampling localities were visited twice in 2014 & 2015. Time series data and exact population data are missing. Therefore, we used grid cell 10x10km as the population unit as a safe alternative. Minimum population size equals the number of grid cells resulting from its distribution, while the maximum population size equals the number of grid cells resulting from its range.
The population size in 6.2.d has been calculated in GIS using spatial information from the distribution data (10x10 km or smaller grids if additional data were available). Following the conversion of the available data in 1x1 km grid unit, marine or terrestrial grid cells have been deleted and thus excluded from the calculation, depending on the biogeographical region where the species occurs (MED or MMED, respectively). ||
->HabInfo: The surface area of the habitat is estimated at 88.54 km2, the area of suitable habitat is 319.15 km2 and its quality is unknown. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The estimate of population size is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: The species is associated with quercines (Q. rotundifolia and Q. suber).
The areas most favorable to the occurrence of the species are associated with
agro-forest ecosystems exploited in extensive or semi-extensive regime, where some old trees are kept. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The distribution map presented took into consideration the data collected for the period 2013-2018, as well as part of the squares presented in the previous report for which no recent observations were collected but considered as areas of current occurrence of the species. The data come from localized works and occasional personal communications, and there is no systematic prospecting of the species. Only in mid-2018, as part of the Red List of Invertebrates project, systematic exploration work began, with particular focus on classified areas, but the results will only be reflected in the next report.
The project "Red List for Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrate groups in mainland Portugal" started in mid-2018. This operation will be carried out over 3 years, covering the entire national territory of the continent, with particular focus on Sites of Community Importance (SCI)and on terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate species belonging to the annexes of the Habitats Directive but the results will only be reflected in the next report.
The main objectives of this project are:
(a) assess the conservation status, according to IUCN criteria, of species for some terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate taxonomic groups in mainland Portugal;
(b) to fill knowledge gaps in terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate species protected by the Habitats Directive to enable conservation status to be assessed under that Directive;
c) to elaborate and publish the Red List of Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrate groups of mainland Portugal in physical and digital support;
d) create a websig platform for storing information, publishing and disseminating results.
This operation will be carried out over 3 years, covering the entire national territory of the continent, with particular focus on Sites of Community Importance (SCI)and on terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate species belonging to the annexes of the Habitats Directive but the The results will only be reflected in the next report.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Cerambyx cerdo"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report