Lion

Panthera leo

Abstract

Lion Panthera leo has most recently been assessed for The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in 2025. Panthera leo is listed as Vulnerable under criteria A2c.

The Red List Assessment i

Nicholson, S., Bauer, H., Strampelli, P., Ikanda, D., Tumenta, P.F., Asfaw, T., Venkataraman, M. & Loveridge, A. 2025. Panthera leo. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2025: e.T15951A280792135. Accessed on 21 November 2025.

Last assessed

06 May 2025

Scope of assessment

Global

The Green Status Assessment i

Nicholson, S., Aebischer, T., Asfaw, T., Bauer, H., Becker, M., Bertola, L., Breitenmoser, U., Carlton, E., Fraticelli, C., Henschel, P., Hunter, L., Laguardia, A., Loveridge, A., Ndiaye, M., Roy, S., Sogbohossou, E., Scott, C., Strampelli, P. & Meena, V. 2024. Panthera leo (Green Status assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2024: e.T15951A1595120252. Accessed on 22 November 2025.

Last assessed

Scope of assessment

Global

Population trend

Decreasing

Number of mature individuals

Species recovery score

30% (23% - 33%)

Geographic range

  • Extant (resident)

  • Possibly Extant (resident)

  • Possibly Extinct

  • Extinct

  • Presence Uncertain

  • Extant & Reintroduced (resident)

IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group 2025. Panthera leo. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-2

Assessment Information

Global Assessment

IUCN Red List Category and Criteria - Global Assessment

Vulnerable   A2c

Date assessed

06 May 2025

Year published

2025

Assessment Information in detail

Green Status Assessment Information

IUCN SPECIES RECOVERY CATEGORY

Largely Depleted

Species Recovery Score

30% (23% - 33%)

Date assessed

Year published

2024

Conservation impact metrics

Conservation Legacy
Conservation Dependence
Conservation Gain
Recovery Potential
Green Status Assessment Information in detail

Geographic Range

Native

Extant (resident)

Angola; Benin; Botswana; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Ethiopia; India; Kenya; Mozambique; Namibia; Senegal; South Africa; South Sudan; Sudan; Tanzania, United Republic of; Uganda; Zambia; Zimbabwe

Possibly Extant (resident)

Burkina Faso; Gabon; Niger; Somalia

Possibly Extinct

Côte d'Ivoire; Ghana; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Nigeria

Extinct

Afghanistan; Algeria; Burundi; Congo; Djibouti; Egypt; Eritrea; Eswatini; Gambia; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Kuwait; Lebanon; Lesotho; Libya; Mali; Mauritania; Morocco; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia; Sierra Leone; Syrian Arab Republic; Togo; Tunisia; Türkiye; Western Sahara

Extant & Reintroduced (resident)

Malawi; Rwanda

Number of locations

Upper elevation limit

4,200 metres

Lower elevation limit

0 metres

Geographic Range in detail

Indigenous and Expected Additional Range

Benchmark Year

1500

Expected Additional Range

No

Indigenous and Expected Additional Range in detail

Population

Current population trend

Decreasing

Number of mature individuals

Population severely fragmented

Yes

Continuing decline of mature individuals

Yes

Population in detail

Spatial Units

Spatial Units

Central African Unit; East African Unit; Indian Unit; North African Unit; South African Unit; Southern African Unit; Southern Central Africa Unit; Southwest Asia Unit; Tanzanian and Northern Mozambique Unit; West African Unit

Number of Spatial Units

10

Spatial Units Definition Method

Combination

Spatial units description

Spatial units were delineated based on a combination of genetic differences (Bertola et al. 2016; Kitchener et al. 2017; Smitz et al. 2018; Bertola et al. 2022a, 2022b, Chege et al. 2024), major geographic barriers, habitat connectivity (Cooper et al. 2021, Loveridge et al. 2022), and conservation management. See the spatial unit descriptions below for more information.

Spatial Units in detail

Habitat and Ecology

Generation length (years)

6.98 years

Congregatory

Movement patterns

Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat

Yes

Habitat and Ecology in detail

Ecological Function

Functionality description

A spatial unit is considered Functional if the following criteria are met:

First, 'genetic viability' - which refers to maintaining genetic diversity and adaptive capacity - must be observed. The following indicators of genetic viability are based on indicators outlined by Hoban et al. (2020), which can be used even in the absence of genetic data:

  1. There is a total population size of >5,000 individuals within a spatial unit. A threshold of 5,000 is based on the broadly accepted rule of thumb that effective population size is an order of magnitude smaller than the census size of a population, and that an effective population size of 500 individuals is required to avoid loss of genetic diversity in the long term. We acknowledge that due to the group-living nature of Lions, the measure of an order of magnitude of the census size might be an overestimate. Alternatively, dependent on the information available, as proposed by Björklund (2003) a threshold of 50 prides (preferably 100 prides), between which there are no limits for male dispersal, could be used in place of the 5,000 individuals threshold. The philosophies of these two thresholds (individuals vs. prides) are similar, with a distinction between short-term goals (avoiding inbreeding) and long-term goals (maintaining adaptability), even if the numbers may differ (L. Bertola pers. comm. 2024). A spatial unit's historically suitable area and historical (1500 CE) population size should also be considered here, as well as connectivity to other units (i.e. a spatial unit with a naturally small population can still fulfill this criteria if connectivity to another spatial unit leads to a total connected population of >5,000 individuals; this is in line with the Green Status Standard, which allows naturally small populations to be assessed as Functional).
  2. The number of genetically distinct subpopulations within the spatial unit is equivalent to the number present in 1500 CE (this is a measure of loss of historical genetic diversity, which has been significant for Lions; Dures et al. 2019, Curry et al. 2020, Loveridge et al. 2022).
  3. The within-species genetic diversity of extant subpopulations within the spatial unit has been assessed and is being monitored using DNA-based methods.
Second, in at least 50% of the indigenous occupied area of the spatial unit, the following criteria must be met. Either criterion can be used to indicate functionality, based on data availability, but if data indicate that one is violated, the spatial unit cannot be classed as Functional:
  • Prey species are not significantly depleted/reduced by human activities relative to the levels extant in 1500.
  • Lion subpopulations are at carrying capacity. Proxies for determining whether this condition is met include the following: (a) Lions are at least at 50% carrying capacity relative to levels expected given non-depleted prey species, as measured by Lindsey et al. (2017), (b) Indicators of healthy metapopulation dynamics are exhibited. These indicators may vary between regions, but include factors such as: genetic variation within and between subpopulations; high habitat connectivity, with functioning dispersal corridors between subpopulations and regular migration between subpopulations, resulting in high genetic diversity (see Lion habitat connectivity models from Loveridge et al. 2022); overall growth/stability of the metapopulation (even though individual subpopulations may decline or go extinct); effective recolonization after local extinction; balanced source-sink populations, such that source populations with high reproductive success consistently supply individuals to sink populations with lower reproductive success; adaptation to local conditions (which may differ from one area to another), enhancing metapopulation resilience to environmental changes; varied age distributions in each locality within the metapopulation, ensuring ongoing reproduction and generational turnover.

Ecological Function in detail

Conservation Actions

In-place research and monitoring

  • Action Recovery Plan : No
  • Systematic monitoring scheme : No

In-place land/water protection

  • Conservation sites identified : Yes, over part of range
  • Percentage of population protected by PAs : 31-40
  • Area based regional management plan : Unknown
  • Occurs in at least one protected area : Yes
  • Invasive species control or prevention : No

In-place species management

  • Harvest management plan : No
  • Successfully reintroduced or introduced benignly : Yes
  • Subject to ex-situ conservation : No

In-place education

  • Subject to recent education and awareness programmes : Yes
  • Included in international legislation : Yes
  • Subject to any international management / trade controls : Yes
Conservation Actions in detail

Bibliography

Red List Bibliography
Green Status Bibliography

External Data

CITES Legislation from Species+

Data source

The information below is from the Species+ website.

CITES Legislation from Species+ in detail

Ex situ data from Species360

Data source

The information below is from Species360's Zoological Information Management System (ZIMS).

Ex situ data from Species360 in detail

Studies and Actions from Conservation Evidence

Data source

The information below is from the Conservation Evidence website.

Studies and Actions from Conservation Evidence in detail