Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > bird > Bird |
| Red List Status: | Least Concern (Breeding) / Endangered (Non-breeding) [LC(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: | Larus marinus |
| 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: | Eng WeBS trends (25 yr -44%, 10 yr -44%). Seabirds Count -3% since S2K and HPAI impacts since then |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | For non-breeding pop. Priority to address breeding population. |
| 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: | No |
| Justification: | priority to address breeding population |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Manage most important breeding sites optimally, taking into account predation, biosecurity and the results of site monitoring and evaluation.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Isles of Scilly
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Regularly review the impacts of licensed control of this species using an evidence based approach, whilst taking into account the effects of HPAI.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Legal protection
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Consider and as appropriate implement 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: ≤ 5 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.