Black-headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > bird > Bird |
| Red List Status: | Least Concern (Breeding) / Vulnerable (Non-breeding) [LC(br) VU(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: | Chroicocephalus ridibundus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1766) |
| 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: | Eng WeBS trends (25 yr -31%, 10 yr -20%). Breeding :12% decline since S2000 - 38% decline on coast. Seabirds Count -12% since S2K |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Winter population has contracted in range. Breeding pop in England in decline, big declines on coast, increases inland. |
| 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: | large inland wetlands complexes if they provide safe nesting areas. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Ensure the most important colonies are well managed, taking into account predation, biosecurity, disturbance, habitat change, and species competition, whilst considering the recommendations of the 2016 SPA Review for this species.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: various coastal and inland sites
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Provide new safe nesting areas through coastal habitat creation and creation of new inland habitats and use of rafts.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Conduct a review on the effect of licenced collection in N Yorkshire, in context with HPAI, with a view to support the moratorium on licenced egg collection of BHG eggs on South Coast colonies.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Legal protection
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: south coast harbours, N Yorks
Comments: A long term ban would be a possible outcome/ recommendation following the proposed review
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.