Lesser Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros)
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: | Rhinolophus hipposideros |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Bechstein, 1800) |
| 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 lesser horseshoe bat is a range restricted species for which it is recognised GB has particular importance and responsibility. The lesser horseshoe bat is a widespread but rare species in central and southern Europe. It has suffered widespread population declines, especially in the more northern parts of its European range. In Britain populations appear to be increasing but there is evidence that this recovery has plateaued in England. This is set against a backdrop of massive declines and range restrictions. England has seven Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) in place for this species and a greater number of SSSI. It is important to address the main threats to this species. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Whilst general good practice land management will assist this species, this does not address specific needs. The most important specific needs are to ensure that dung fauna are not impacted by endectocides and are available all year round, ensuring that woodland management takes their specific needs into account, and the negative impacts of artificial lighting on roosts and landscape use. |
| 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: | Similar to greater horseshoe bats, lesser horseshoe bats feed on different prey species according to availability, which changes throughout the year. Although they are more woodland dependent than greater horseshoes, they will also forage over parkland, hedges, tree-lines, and scrub. Anything that increases insect abundance and diversity within these habitats will be beneficial (e.g. water, dung heaps, livestock) in providing increased foraging area quality and choice. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Ongoing legal protection of roosts is vital. As is the protection of SACs around our most important roosts. To note that although greater horseshoe bats and lesser horseshoe bats have some specific needs in common, there are important differences too. However, if a focus is put on their shared needs they will often have a complementary approach their specific conservation needs. Their roosts are always built structures or underground sites and their inability to crawl means they need to be able to fly into their roosts. The heavy historic losses are thought to be due to the use of chemicals in building roosts, the loss of access and disturbance around roosts. They also have specific needs for foraging. Both species of horseshoe bat have a reliance on the dung fauna associated with farming stock, especially cattle. The use of endectocides on cattle has a strongly negative impact on the availability of their prey. For lesser horseshoe bats this is an important prey source all year round but especially in winter when the diversity and abundance of prey species is limited. The lesser horseshoe bat is particularly sensitive to artificial lighting. They are also impacted by inappropriate woodland management. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Encourage widespread lesser horseshoe bat-friendly farming via targeted advice to farmers/landowners. This would include maintaining/creating smaller fields surrounded by mature hedges and tree-lines, and encouraging hay production rather than sileage. Mixed farming should be encouraged to minimise fertiliser need. A reduction in endectocide use should also be discussed (e.g. by rotating livestock to reduce need: cattle in summer, sheep in winter) or find alternative in species range. These actions should be monitored and evaluated in order to quantify the extent of farm management changes within range areas.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: Areas around SACs could be considered a priority but, for the species to benefit, should be applied across their range in England
Comments: Whilst the reduction in use of pesticides could be deemed a wider measure that would benefit this species, specifically there is an issue with parasitic wormers in livestock reducing availability of dung fauna. The lesser horseshoe bat relies on smaller species that form part of the dung fauna, such as yellow dung flies and lesser dung flies. These are sensitive to the use of treatments for internal parasites or liver flukes. National in this context is within the range of this species in England. See also the importance of dung fauna for serotine and greater horseshoe bat. For arable, this should include substantial thick (2-3m high) hedges plus 5-10m wide edge buffer strips. Hedges should not be severely cut each autumn (at most this should be done for short strips on a five year rotation). Mixed farming should be encouraged to minimise fertiliser need. For pasture, this should include keeping some cattle out of sheds over winter, especially Oct/Nov & Jan to March. This is particularly important if sheep (or other livestock) not present. Intensive maize fields (for livestock food) should be discouraged. Dung fauna prey items are important year round but take on a particular importance during the winter months when this species frequently forages to top up its body weight and when the diversity and abundance of prey species are much reduced. Having livestock where their dung is still available across those months is an important consideration within 2km of the roost (ideally 1km in winter) for this species. Other aspects of land management are notable. Removing/changing livestock species, increasing field sizes, land drainage, and changing from hay to sileage production are all likely to have a negative impact on habitat insect productivity that has yet to be fully quantified. Quantifying the extent of these changes within range areas would be very useful, and have direct relevance to national land use policy (e.g. for solar farms).
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Provide good practice lesser horseshoe bat woodland management guidance and training (with wider species needs awareness) via the provision of landowner workshops. This would include recommendations to create/maintain a complex woodland structure with a well-developed understorey, to maintain a linked landscape containing woodlands, tree-lines and hedgerows, and reduce land drainage to create wet woodland where possible.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: SACs could be a focus for this work with the learning being spread across their range in England and beyond.
Comments: Mature beechwood is also notable. Ideally woodland should be in blocks or strips with maximised edge length using curves. These woodland management needs will also support barbastelle, Bechstein's bat and brown long-eared bat.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure suitable roost provision across the whole of the species English range (including expansion areas) through targeted advice. This would involve identifying and assessing roosting potential (typically large buildings/mansion houses) adjacent to large areas of suitable habitat. The advice package would aim to maximise the roost potential of buildings, e.g. by providing suitable roost entrances, reducing light/wind roost ingress, and exploring ways to provide a range of internal roosting temperatures.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Lesser horseshoe bats have very specific roosting requirements, needing to fly directly into their roosts, and requiring specific temperature and humidity conditions at different times of the year. With clear guidance, it should be possible to conserve both greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe within the same building. NE could then work with landowners to maximise roost suitability. This could include increasing internal temperatures via the use of heaters, increasing the range of available spaces bats could access, provision of anti-predator measures, provision of suitable roost entrances, provision of continuous dark commuting corridors in the immediate vicinity, and removal of any artificial lighting in the immediate roost vicinity. New smaller night roosts could be provided within or on edge of woodland (e.g. Vincent Wildlife Trust cathedine night roosts).
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.