Pochard (Aythya ferina)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > bird > Bird |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Breeding) / Endangered (Non-breeding) [VU(br) EN(nbr)] |
| 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: | Aythya ferina |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Stanbury et al., 2021 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Scarce breeder. Eng WeBS trends (25 yr -64%, 10 yr -28%) |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | creation and management of new early successional shallow wetlands with reedbeds |
| 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: | Creation and management of new early successional shallow wetlands |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Appears to be doing well in newly created restored wetland sites. Our understanding of the impacts of hunting on this species are constrained by the lack of a robust hunting bag reporting system (including data collection). |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Conduct a review of Pochard breeding data in all areas of suitable lowland wetlands to identify habitat attributes driving population changes and identify any management measures required at the most important sites for this species (e.g. early successional wetland habitat, marginal vegetation, predator management and water quality).
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Coastal sites around Thames/Gtr London, Fens, Broads Somerset Levels.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Consider and as appropriate implement the recommendations of the 2016 SPA Review for this species. Up to date evidence is required.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Site protection
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
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.