• Summary
• Text account
• Data table and detailed info
• Distribution map
• Reference and further resources

Taxonomic note
Larus argentatus and L. smithsonianus (the latter including vegae and mongolicus) (del Hoyo and Collar 2014) were previously lumped as L. argentatus following Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993).

Taxonomic source(s)
del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A. and Fishpool, L.D.C. 2014. HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Volume 1: Non-passerines. Lynx Edicions BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.

Red List criteria met

Critically Endangered	Endangered	Vulnerable
-	-	-

Red List history

Year	Category	Criteria
2021	Least Concern
2018	Least Concern
2016	Least Concern
2015	Least Concern
2014	Least Concern
2012	Not Recognised
2008	Not Recognised
2004	Not Recognised
2000	Not Recognised
1994	Not Recognised
1988	Not Recognised

Migratory status	full migrant	Forest dependency	does not normally occur in forest
Land-mass type		Average mass	-

	Estimate	Data quality
Extent of Occurrence (breeding/resident)	7,180,000 km2	medium
Extent of Occurrence (non-breeding)	7,470,000 km2	medium
Severely fragmented?	no	-

	Estimate	Data quality	Derivation	Year of estimate
Population size	1060000-1220000 mature individuals	poor	estimated	2018
Population trend	decreasing	-	suspected	-
Rate of change over the past 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	1-19%	-	-	-
Generation length	12.45 years	-	-	-

Population justification: The breeding population is estimated to number 531,000-608,000 pairs, which equates to approximately 1,060,000-1,220,000 mature individuals and 1,590,000-1,830,000 individuals (BirdLife International in prep.).

Trend justification: This species is endemic to Europe where there are well-established monitoring schemes that include the species (Keller et al. 2020, JNCC 2021, BirdLife International in prep.). This monitoring data, collated for all range states has reported an overall rapid decline in the order of 37% over the equivalent of the past three generations (BirdLife International in prep.). However, trends within the two countries holding the majority of the breeding population, Norway and the UK have low confidence, to the extent that the conservation status of the species in the UK was recently considered data deficient based on the same data (Stanbury et al. 2017). While long-occupied coastal colonies are considered well-monitored, data for the inland population is less certain and these colonies have increased rapidly (Mitchell et al. 2004, Keller et al. 2020). The reporting of Seabird 2000 (Mitchell et al. 2004) included estimates for Great Britain and Ireland for both natural and roof-nesting birds. At that time the numbers of the latter were growing at an annual rate of nearly 14% (Mitchell et al. 2004). If both the rate of decrease in the 'natural' nesting population and increase in the roof-nesting population continued at these rates, the population would have nearly doubled overall by 2021. As such, the lack of monitoring within urban areas where gulls have expanded their range, and so data from coastal communities may not be reflective of the global population (J. Coulson in litt. 2021). 

Further large uncertainty is present in the numbers reported for Norway. Limited count data has been collected and numbers reported are based on extrapolations of estimated trends from a small number of colonies. Consequently the two values that could be used for deriving a rate of reduction, 233,000 pairs assigned to 2005 (Barrett et al. 2006) and 72,000 pairs (Anker-Nilssen et al. 2015) are values based on extrapolations of much of the same count data with different modelled trends derived from a small percentage of the breeding population (Fauchald et al. 2015). Fauchald et al. (2015) record that the latest counts were from 1983 for the Norwegian Sea, 2005 for the Barents Sea and 1986 (for both North Sea and Skagerrak). It appears that a considerable extrapolation was used to generate the values given for 2005: the numbers for the most recent counts were 16,620 pairs for North Sea and Skagerrak (from 1986), 41,553 pairs for Norwegian Sea (1983) and 33,631 pairs for Barents Sea (2005), totalling 91,444 pairs for a timeframe that spans 22 years. Modelled populations using measured demographic parameters have been subsequently used to generate predictions of the population trends, but the relevant confidence to assign to these is unclear, and resurveys of large colonies are needed.

Both the UK and Norway data hint at a likely population reduction over the past three generations, which may have been at a moderate or rapid rate. Data for Sweden also indicate a very rapid decline (equivalent to 72% over three generations, although slowing recently [BirdLife International in prep.), but this is thought to have been offset by birds switching colonies to Denmark, which has seen a 174% increase over the same period. But reductions are also noted for the Netherlands, Finland, Estonia, Germany, Ireland and France and while the larger population sizes in the UK and Norway result in much uncertainty in the trend, a suspected overall population reduction of between 1-19% over the past three generations is considered to be the most likely range of the current trend.
 
The species's population increased and the distribution expanded in many range states and overall during the 20th century (Tucker and Heath 1994, BirdLife International 2004, Weseloh et al. 2020). Around the turn of the century, declines began in several key countries, including Norway (Fauchald et al. 2015) and the UK (JNCC 2020). The decline appears to be partly linked to waste management and reduced fishery discards, and so the species's population may be readjusting to a lower level similar to that before it was able to take advantage of anthropogenic and unsustainable food sources. Population declines may be particularly attributed to low recruitment, as juveniles are especially reliant on waste and fishery discards (V. Dierschke in litt. 2021).

Country/Territory	Presence	Origin	Resident	Breeding visitor	Non-breeding visitor	Passage migrant
Albania	extant	native			yes
Austria	extant	native			yes
Belarus	extant	native	yes
Belgium	extant	native	yes
Bulgaria	extant	native			yes
Croatia	extant	native			yes
Cyprus	extant	vagrant			yes
Czechia	extant	native			yes
Denmark	extant	native	yes			yes
Egypt	extant	vagrant
Estonia	extant	native	yes
Faroe Islands (to Denmark)	extant	native	yes
Finland	extant	native	yes			yes
France	extant	native	yes			yes
Germany	extant	native	yes			yes
Gibraltar (to UK)	extant	native			yes
Greece	extant	native			yes
Greenland (to Denmark)	extant	native		yes
Hungary	extant	native			yes
Iceland	extant	native	yes
Ireland	extant	native	yes
Israel	extant	vagrant			yes
Italy	extant	native			yes
Kazakhstan	extant	vagrant
Latvia	extant	native	yes
Lithuania	extant	native	yes
Luxembourg	extant	vagrant
Malta	extant	vagrant
Moldova	extant	vagrant
Montenegro	extant	vagrant
Morocco	extant	vagrant
Netherlands	extant	native	yes
North Macedonia	extant	native			yes
Norway	extant	native	yes			yes
Poland	extant	native	yes			yes
Portugal	extant	native			yes
Romania	extant	vagrant
Russia	extant	native		yes		yes
Russia (European)	extant	native		yes		yes
Serbia	extant	vagrant
Slovakia	extant	native			yes
Spain	extant	native	yes		yes
Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands (to Norway)	extant	native		yes
Sweden	extant	native	yes			yes
Switzerland	extant	native			yes
Ukraine	extant	native			yes
United Kingdom	extant	native	yes

Country/Territory	IBA Name
Netherlands	Duinen en Lage Land Texel
Netherlands	Duinen Vlieland
Netherlands	Grevelingen
Netherlands	Wadden Coast
Netherlands	Wadden Sea
Netherlands	Westerschelde & Saeftinghe

Habitat (level 1)	Habitat (level 2)	Importance	Occurrence
Artificial/Aquatic & Marine	Artificial/Aquatic - Excavations (open)	suitable	breeding
Artificial/Aquatic & Marine	Artificial/Aquatic - Water Storage Areas (over 8ha)	suitable	non-breeding
Artificial/Terrestrial	Arable Land	suitable	non-breeding
Artificial/Terrestrial	Urban Areas	suitable	breeding
Artificial/Terrestrial	Urban Areas	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Coastal/Supratidal	Coastal Freshwater Lakes	suitable	breeding
Marine Coastal/Supratidal	Coastal Freshwater Lakes	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Coastal/Supratidal	Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands	suitable	breeding
Marine Intertidal	Rocky Shoreline	suitable	breeding
Marine Intertidal	Salt Marshes (Emergent Grasses)	suitable	breeding
Marine Intertidal	Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc	suitable	breeding
Marine Intertidal	Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches	suitable	breeding
Marine Intertidal	Tidepools	suitable	breeding
Marine Neritic	Estuaries	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Neritic	Macroalgal/Kelp	suitable	breeding
Marine Neritic	Macroalgal/Kelp	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Neritic	Pelagic	suitable	breeding
Marine Neritic	Pelagic	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Neritic	Seagrass (Submerged)	suitable	breeding
Marine Neritic	Seagrass (Submerged)	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Neritic	Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel	suitable	breeding
Marine Neritic	Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Neritic	Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs	suitable	breeding
Marine Neritic	Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Neritic	Subtidal Sandy	suitable	breeding
Marine Neritic	Subtidal Sandy	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Neritic	Subtidal Sandy-Mud	suitable	breeding
Marine Neritic	Subtidal Sandy-Mud	suitable	non-breeding
Marine Oceanic	Epipelagic (0-200m)	marginal	resident
Marine Oceanic	Mesopelagic (200-1000m)	marginal	resident
Wetlands (inland)	Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha)	suitable	breeding
Wetlands (inland)	Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha)	suitable	non-breeding
Altitude	0 - 2000 m	Occasional altitudinal limits

Threat (level 1)	Threat (level 2)	Impact and Stresses
Biological resource use	Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources - Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Causing/Could cause fluctuations		Low Impact: 5
		Stresses Indirect ecosystem effects
Biological resource use	Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals - Persecution/control	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Negligible declines		Low Impact: 4
		Stresses Species mortality
Climate change & severe weather	Habitat shifting & alteration	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Low Impact: 5
		Stresses Indirect ecosystem effects, Ecosystem degradation
Energy production & mining	Renewable energy	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Negligible declines		Low Impact: 4
		Stresses Species mortality
Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases	Problematic native species/diseases - Clostridium botulinum	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Causing/Could cause fluctuations		Low Impact: 5
		Stresses Species mortality
Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases	Viral/prion-induced diseases - Avian Influenza Virus (H5N1 subtype)	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Unknown		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Species mortality
Pollution	Garbage & solid waste	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Reduced reproductive success, Species mortality
Pollution	Industrial & military effluents - Oil spills	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Unknown		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Species disturbance, Ecosystem degradation, Species mortality

Purpose	Scale
Food - human	subsistence, national
Pets/display animals, horticulture	international
Sport hunting/specimen collecting	subsistence, national

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: European Herring Gull Larus argentatus. Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/european-herring-gull-larus-argentatus on 22/12/2024.
Recommended citation for factsheets for more than one species: BirdLife International (2024) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/search on 22/12/2024.