Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > marine mammal > Cetacean |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | Bottle-nosed Dolphin |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Tursiops truncatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Montagu, 1821) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species occurs year-round in English waters, as with most marine mammals there are numerous potential threats to the species, including nutritional stress, entanglement, bycatch, plastics, pollution, toxins from harmful algae, anthropogenic sound, and pathogens. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The population of bottlenose dolphins along the south coast of England is experiencing a decline, underscoring the need for targeted, species-specific conservation measures. Tailored actions are essential to effectively address their conservation needs. The South Coast Bottlenose Dolphin Consortium is currently deliberating on protective measures. To fully comprehend the factors contributing to their population decrease, research is paramount. |
| 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 relevant to marine species |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 1. Taxonomy established |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Monitoring resources consist of ad hoc recording via various marine mammal focussed organisations and structured monitoring via large scale ship and aerial surveys and stranding/bycatch investigations. Gaps in knowledge indicate that increasing monitoring effort would be useful but would likely rely on improving the large scale operations. GB Red list status has not been assessed. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Build a small cetacean species review and monitoring project to establish detailed baselines, population trends, and mortality rates. While certain small cetacean populations have been extensively monitored, many others remain understudied.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Small cetaceans, unlike their larger counterparts, are often found in coastal and shallow waters, yet consistent monitoring remains a challenge due to their elusive nature and the complexity of their habitats. The 2023 EFRA report 'Protecting Marine Mammals in the UK and Abroad' highlights the necessity for enhanced monitoring efforts. It is vital to resource the essential work of the pathology network to ensure swift identification of emerging or increasing threats and maximise opportunities for combined and standardised datasets. Investment in technologies is critical to expand marine mammal monitoring and bridge the existing data gaps that hinder effective conservation measures. These technologies include passive acoustic monitoring and Low Earth Orbit satellites equipped with AI image recognition, offering potential breakthroughs in tracking and studying these animals. Collaborative efforts among marine scientists, technology experts, and conservation organisations are crucial to adopt and integrate these advanced methods, ensuring comprehensive monitoring of small cetaceans. This will not only improve our understanding of their ecological roles and behaviours but also support the development of informed and effective conservation strategies.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Research to identify methods to monitor bycatch more consistently, reliably and effectively by using emerging and current technologies that can help reduce bycatch. These need to be tested in situ to ensure they are fit for purpose for potential future legislation changes. Such technologies include acoustically ‘visible’ nets and acoustic deterrents. Whist these technologies are being tested on a small scale, this needs to be enhanced to ensure commercial viability. The use of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) on fishing vessels to monitor bycatch needs to be tested on active fishing vessels, particularly those <12m length to understand where these need to be positioned, how they are used and how the data can be processed and reported.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Underpin this with a comprehensive framework that demands and guides the formulation of action plans to reduce bycatch by local fishery authorities. This framework should be formulated with input from scientists, NGOs, and the fishing industry including the local fishery authorities themselves, and capture learning from existing frameworks such as Take Reduction teams in the US. Action plans can take into account the local authorities’ capability to implement any realistic plans.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Implement enhanced monitoring of vessel disturbance on this species to allow provision of more guidance/education to reduce this pressure
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
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.