Smooth Snake (Coronella austriaca)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > reptile > Reptile |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(nr)] |
| 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: | Coronella austriaca |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Laurenti, 1768 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Foster et al., 2021 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species is considered to have undergone a significant reduction in range and abundance over the last century. Efforts are required to maintain and enhance existing populations, and to restore the range. The species is considered conservation dependent in that it lives predominantly in lowland heathland, with particular habitat conditions that require ongoing intervention. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The habitat requirements of this species are not comprehensively met via a generic approach, and some common habitat management practices can be detrimental. To restore the range, conservation translocation is required. Whilst climate change effects may result in this species becoming more of a habitat generalist in future, that is not currently the case, and ongoing targeted actions are needed in the near to medium term. |
| 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: | To some extent the species is likely to benefit from efforts to increase structural diversity of heathland. However, the extent to which it benefits would depend on the precise nature of the altered habitat condition, and the methods involved; this species has some vulnerabilities. The species generally prefers mid-successional stages. Climate change impacts may alter the effective habitat selection in future, and work to diversify current heathland habitats needs research to ensure the right balance of meeting current and future needs, whilst not adversely impacting other interests. It is possible that this species will move into or partially inhabit woodland or woodland edge habitats in the future due to climate change. It is therefore important to encourage a mosaic of habitats that will include areas of greater cover/shade. |
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: | Further development of and investment in national monitoring is required. The National Reptile Survey (NRS, part of the National Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Programme) started recently and will generate useful data with further uptake. Considerable data was gathered a part of the Snakes in the Heather project and it would be good to try to find a successor to this and to continue to monitor populations and habitat preferences. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Habitat management at sites supporting this species often does not provide suitable conditions for thriving populations. Several elements combine to create this situation, including conflicts in site objectives and misunderstandings over habitat requirements. Ensure that habitat management objectives and plans adequately consider smooth snake requirements at all sites where the species occurs and on sites ear-marked for conservation translocation.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: New Forest; Dorset Heaths; Surrey Heaths; Thames Basin Heaths, possibly Weald heathlands in Sussex
Comments: Will require complex discussions to resolve issues around SSSI and SAC procedures (especially interest feature considerations, FCTs and condition assessment), and problems arising from emerging norms in heathland habitat management, including the management of bracken without the use of chemicals.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: To restore the range, conservation translocation is required because the species is unable to colonise unoccupied sites separated by short distances of unsuitable habitat. Early work demonstrates this can be effective. Undertake conservation translocations according to a national strategy and based on good practice.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Highest priority sites vary with circumstances, as opportunities to integrate smooth snake requirements with site objectives can change when, for example, management plans are revised. Broad areas for consideration are: Dorset, Hampshire, West Sussex, Surrey, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Devon. Climate change considerations may suggest other areas, if supported by evidence.
Comments: Conservation translocations for this species have been shown to be successful, based on wild-to-wild translocation. However, translocations have not been progressed in recent years for two main reasons (a) candidate release sites with the appropriate conditions are rare, particularly because of ongoing habitat management conflicts, and (b) preparing and implementing translocations requires substantial resources, especially to meet current standards. Following a recent major investigation of smooth snake status ("Snakes in the Heather" project, funded by NLHF and led by ARC), there is more evidence on which to plan reintroductions. Note that an ex situ captive stock is not required. Heathland restoration and management could be enhanced, especially in habitats that are adjacent to existing colonies.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Undertake research to fill evidence gaps in order to optimise conservation practice. This includes the implications of climate change and climate adaptation and the associated risks of wildfire and altered management techniques such as bracken control.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Would ideally be run as a series of co-ordinated research projects. Note that some issues could potentially be investigated jointly with sand lizard, as the broad issues are often similar. Should be established by clearly establishing the research questions, with the route from evidence gap to informing conservation practice clearly explained. Will require significant interaction between research institute(s) and conservation practitioners, and long-term habitat management. Also, further research to understand populations dynamics and particularly connectivity and potential translocations would be useful.
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.