Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > terrestrial mammal > Rodent |
| 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: | Arvicola terrestris, European Water Vole |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Arvicola amphibius |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| 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: | Massive population decline since 1990's which has not been reversed to date. Impact of invasive American mink is significant, combined with habitat loss and fragmentation results in ongoing downward trajectory. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Landscape scale control of American mink is a key component for water vole conservation, without which water voles will not recover. Landscape scale habitat improvements are also needed - connectivity and quality will benefit a range of species. |
| 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: | Increased habitat mosaics, diversity etc will improve the overall robustness of the ecological system at both a local and landscape level. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | We have defined the constraints to water vole recovery and a pilot is currently being devised for roll-out later in 2024. Mink control is a key factor, and evidence suggests that eradication is a viable prospect, however determining a robust funding stream is imperative. Fossorial water voles are not covered here. We do not know enough of their ecology, previous range, distribution etc to understand whether recovery of fossorial populations of water voles is necessary/required. Therefore, the actions are relevant to 'aquatic' water voles only and not the fossorial form. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Initiate a nationwide mink eradication campaign, collaborating with environmental agencies, wildlife conservation groups, and local communities, employing strategies such as humane trapping, and other approved methods. This strategy should continue and extend work already being undertaken by the Waterlife Recovery Trust, and encourage use of the MinkMApp app to record mink rafts in situ.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Implement landscape-scale habitat improvements, focusing on enhancing water vole habitats by creating and improving terrestrial wetland habitats, interconnected waterways and buffer zones. This should include measures such as rewilding riparian corridors with appropriate buffers to protect against adjacent land use, appropriate management to prevent too much scrub encroachment and controlling invasive species.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Landscape/catchment/marine management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Initiate a scheme to coordinate the conservation translocations of water voles, using modelling work to aid identification of sites where natural recolonisation or recovery is unlikely, employing rigorous pre-release habitat assessments and post-release monitoring.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Must take into account parasites and pathogens, and genetic diversity.
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.