Corncrake (Crex crex)
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: | Crex crex |
| 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: | Species in process of being Re-introduced to England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Required to sustain the current re-introduction programme. |
| 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: | Habitat not a limiting factor for this species, but would benefit from new flood free areas to overcome spring flooding issues and creation of new flood free sites. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Reintroduced population, some issues potentially outside UK. Need flood free wetlands, more genetically diverse breeding stock and potentially multiple releases due to females tendency to disperse / outbreed. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Incorporate Corncrake requirements into habitat management on sites where birds derived from the reintroduction programme are present and other sites should birds colonise, and consider, as appropriate, the recommendations of SPA Reviews for this species (this should include both outstanding actions from the 2001 Review and any additional recommendations of the 2016 SPA Review).
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Ouse and Nene Washes, Lower Derwent Valley
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Review reintroduction project and recommend next steps to assess the feasibility of future/potential reintroductions into English landscapes.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Undertake releases in additional flood-free areas whilst also increasing the genetic diversity of the captive breeding stock (ensuring no undue impacts to the donor populations).
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Fenland, Lower Derwent Valley
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.