Woodlark (Lullula arborea)
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: | Lullula arborea |
| 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: | Increasing nationally but habitat-limited species that is subject to local/regional declines related to habitat availability |
| 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. |
| 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: | Provide large areas of short vegetation and bare ground within wooded/heathland landscapes. Forestry clear-fells (and arable fallows) are also an important habitat. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| 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 Heathland sites to mitigate impacts from development both by direct loss and indirectly by increased recreational pressure, and, as appropriate, consider implementing the recommendations of SPA Reviews for this species. This should include both outstanding actions from the 2001 SPA Review and additional recommendations of the 2016 SPA Review. Up to date evidence is also required.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Site protection
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Cannock Chase, Breckland, Dorset and Surrey Heaths. Suffolk coast, N Norfolk. Sherwood.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Conduct repeat national Heathland bird surveys
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.
Comments: Repeated once at least every 10 years
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Sustain breeding populations on non-heathland areas, notably in clear-felled/re-stocked conifer plantations and on lowland farmland, through targeted management.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Cannock Chase, Breckland, Dorset and Surrey Heaths. Suffolk coast, N Norfolk. Sherwood.
Comments: This action replaced (which we would include if 4 actions were possible): Increase the area of lowland heathland created/restored to mitigate against the increased risk of habitat destruction via wildfires.
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.