Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis)
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: | Lacerta agilis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Linnaeus, 1758 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Foster et al., 2021 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Two distinct forms (though not sub-species). One in southern lowland heathland and the other on coastal dunes in the north-west. |
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 and coastal sand dunes, 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 even 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 and sand dune habitats. 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, with a fine mosaic of structural diversity around ground level. There is a requirement for provision of bare ground of a particular type and configuration. Actions that increase the connectivity between occupied sites may follow from generic work to increase structural diversity. |
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. Survey data from SSSIs/NNRs should link with the NRS. It is important to understand the status of colonies and to detect any declines. |
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, misalignment with funding mechanisms, and misunderstandings over habitat requirements. Ensure that habitat management objectives and plans adequately consider sand lizard 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: Sefton Coast; New Forest; Dorset Heaths; Surrey Heaths; Thames Basin Heaths
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. There are issues with over grazing and 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. Previous and ongoing 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: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Highest priority sites vary with circumstances, as opportunities to integrate sand lizard requirements with site objectives can change when, for example, management plans are revised. Broad areas for consideration are: Dorset, Hampshire, West Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire, Kent, Devon, Cornwall, Merseyside, Lancashire. Climate change considerations may suggest other areas, if supported by evidence.
Comments: Conservation translocations for this species have been shown to be successful. There is a nationally co-ordinated reintroduction programme using captive bred stock held in around 12 facilities. However, translocations have slowed 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. Further investment is required to resolve these issues.
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 smooth snake, 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. 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.