Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > bird > Bird |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Breeding) / Vulnerable (Non-breeding) [NT(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: | Mergus serrator |
| 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: | Info on any Eng breeding pop needed. Eng WeBS trends (25 yr -47%, 10 yr -35%). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Rare and localised breeder Action focused on 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: | Not enough information on breeding population |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Review data to identify key breeding areas, and issues affecting species e.g. (WQ/diet/interspecific competition/persecution/nest site availability etc).
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: N England
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Minimise predation and disturbance in key breeding areas and monitor breeding numbers and success.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Special (in situ) measure
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Cumbria + others
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Consider and as appropriate implement 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: ≤ 10 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.