Greater Mouse-eared Bat (Myotis myotis)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > terrestrial mammal > Bat |
| Red List Status: | Critically Endangered (Not Relevant) [CR(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: | Myotis myotis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Borkhausen, 1797) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Mathews & Harrower, 2020 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This is complex. It is listed as critically endangered but in fact the population has only ever been extremely small and is on the northern edge of its range. For decades now we have had only one (or in the last year two) individual bats known to be present, which are found at one hibernation site. There is a case that this species could be expected to move northwards and populate this country due to climate change. So far this has not been seen and it is not certain what factors may be preventing this. In a recent Forest Services exercise, this species was listed for possible reintroduction. However, what would be needed before any action is a feasibility study. BCT do not feel the outcome of a feasibility study would support a reintroduction but have no evidence to support this. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | There is an evidence gap as to why this species has not naturally repopulated in England. Species habitat and roosting requirements and dispersal routes are better understood in Europe. These requirements need to be compared with those available in England so that specific management recommendations can be made to aid natural recolonisation. |
| 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: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 1. Taxonomy established |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Ongoing legal protection of roosts is vital to prevent extinction. This would be at substep 0 of step 1 on the species recovery curve as there is no action other than the vital protection afforded to the hibernation sites used and its annual monitoring, plus the ambition of a feasibility study. It is very difficult to talk about its recovery potential when only two bats are known to be present in the UK (winter only). What is needed is a feasibility study to understand better the reasons why this species is not naturally populating the east of England by looking at its needs in Europe and comparing with landscapes, habitats and roosting potential in this country. Also looking at its dispersal routes and ability in Europe. This would also inform whether or not a reintroduction programme would be feasible. BCT anticipate it is unlikely that this would be a species suitable for reintroduction. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Carry out a feasibility study on all aspects of the reasons why this species has not naturally repopulated the South East of England. It is hoped that this would result in specific management recommendations that would aid natural recolonisation.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Other (specify in comments)
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: East and south east woodland
Comments: The action need would take the SRC from step 1, sub-step 0 to establish the needs of this species in England via a feasibility study. A feasibility study is not accurately described as scientific research although there are scientific elements to it. There cannot be a scale of implementation to a feasibility study. The scale of relevance would be all south east and southern woodland.
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.