Noctule (Nyctalus noctula)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > terrestrial mammal > Bat |
| Red List Status: | Least Concern (Not Relevant) [LC(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: | Nyctalus noctula |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Schreber, 1774) |
| 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: | The noctule roosts in cavities in trees. Old woodpecker holes are often favoured. A succession of such potential roost types being available is a vital component of this species recovery. This is often lost when woods are opened up and suitable roosting habitat lost. It's ability to forage successfully is very much influenced by nature friendly land management. It flies over a range of habitats but declines in insect abundance are a threat to this species recovery. This species has a flight pattern that brings it info conflict with onshore wind turbines. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Special protection and licensing provisions are already in place for this species. Threats to recovery associated with foraging can be addressed by general wildlife friendly land management. The need to provide for successional roosts is important, though this can be achieved through long term habitat creation and appropriate woodland management, including consideration of habitat for woodpecker species. Threats from windfarms are addressed by current best practice guidance relating to placement, monitoring and mitigation measures of new and existing windfarms. Monitoring windfarms impacts will help inform future decision making in relation to potential negative impacts. Targeted actions additional to this are not considered necessary at this time. |
| 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: | The species could benefit from long term habitat creation and appropriate woodland management. The species typically forages over pasture next to woodland, over pasture/grassland, over water or wet/marshy grassland. Decline in insect abundance is a threat to recovery. Any management that increases habitat quality and insect abundance and diversity will be beneficial in providing increased availability of quality foraging habitat. The availability of successional roosts in trees is important for the species. |
Species Assessment
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.