Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > bird > Bird |
| Red List Status: | Least Concern (Non-breeding) / Endangered (Breeding) [LC(nbr) EN(br)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | Limosa limosa subsp. limosa |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Limosa limosa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Stanbury et al., 2021 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | in s41 as Limosa limosa subsp. limosa |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Breeding population of subsp. at a small number of sites. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | For breeding population of limosa subspecies |
| 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: | Species requires targeted management at key sites for maintenance and recovery - but bordering on landscape scale change to provide an equivalent area of habitat that does not flood in spring around Fenland. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | National Action Plan produced to 2033 outlines detail of recovery actions (see Lee, 2023). |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Maintain and improve existing key Fenland breeding sites, and extend availability of flood-free wet grassland, to increase occupancy and improve productivity of wild nesting birds to a level that supports population growth. Consider and as appropriate implement the recommendations of the SPA Reviews for this species. This should include both outstanding actions from the 2001 SPA Review and additional recommendations of the 2016 SPA Review.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Nene Wash and Ouse Washes sites
Comments: benefits to other priority species including snipe and lapwing
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Research to increase understanding of the factors influencing predation pressure and breeding success and investigate methods to address these factors at a site and landscape level, working closely and sharing information with partners in other breeding range states.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Fens and potential sites for future translocation
Comments: Overall action is important for a range of species, including other breeding waders such as Curlew
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Support recovery across other suitable wetland landscapes, including taking steps towards establishing new breeding populations and reinforcing existing populations through headstarting and translocation where feasible.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: To be determined by ongoing feasibility work.
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.