Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > bird > Bird |
| Red List Status: | Least Concern (Breeding) [LC(br)] |
| 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: | Caprimulgus europaeus |
| 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: | Population increasing, but limited by habitat. Population trend is unknown: last survey is 20 years old. Loss of habitat and recreational disturbance may have negatively impacted populations since then. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Protection needed for breeding sites as these are limiting for this species, as well as appropriate management of adjacent foraging habitats. |
| 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: | Heathland creation and recreation |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Consider increasing the protection of key breeding sites to mitigate impacts from development both by direct loss and, indirectly, by increased recreational pressure and, as appropriate, consider implementing 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: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Cannock Chase, Breckland, Dorset and Surrey Heaths. Suffolk coast, N Norfolk. Sherwood, Humberhead Levels.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Conduct repeat national heathland bird surveys to include Nightjar
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: Cannock Chase, Breckland, Dorset and Surrey Heaths. Suffolk coast, N Norfolk. Sherwood, Humberhead Levels.
Comments: Repeated once at least every 10 years
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Increase the area and extent of lowland heathland using HEaP (Heathland Extent and Potential) mapping, to increase reliance of population to climate impacts.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Cannock Chase, Breckland, Dorset and Surrey Heaths. Suffolk coast, N Norfolk. Sherwood.
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.