Phylogeographic studies of this species based on mtDNA (Kalyabina-Hauf and Ananjeva 2004, Kalyabina et al. 2001) identified three groups of populations. Further studies of contact areas are needed to evaluate the taxonomic status of these three lineages (Crochet and Dubois 2004). This species has "many" subspecies (Speybroeck et al. 2016): nine are generally recognised (Andres et al. 2014) but others have been described and there is a degree of inconsistency between authors in both the number of subspecies and their range boundaries. Andres et al. (2014) found that Lacerta agilis boehmica is more distinct genetically from other members of the species complex than Lacerta viridis and L. bilineata are from one another, but took no taxonomic action. These authors also identified issues in need of taxonomic attention within the L. agilis complex.

Traditionally, all distinguished subspecies of this species are divided into two groups: “eastern” and “western”. In 1948, the Soviet herpetologist Sukhov even suggested that the eastern form be treated as a separate species, Lacerta exigua (Eichwald, 1831), but this division received no further support, and the taxon is retained as a subspecies. The border between the ranges of the groups runs along the Dnieper, going north to the Smolensk region and further, deviating to the east, reaches Lake Onega.

According to the results of molecular genetic studies, L. a. ioriensis is proposed to be considered as a junior synonym of L. a. boemica, while L. a. brevicaudata, L. a. grusinica and L. a. mzymtensis are proposed as synonyms of L. a. exigua (Doronina et al. 2021). In addition, it turned out that the subspecies L. a. boemica is a sister clade to all other subspecies, and the populations living in Transcarpathia and on the border of Hungary, Ukraine and Slovakia constitute a separate, as an as yet undescribed subspecies (Doronina et al. 2021).

European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

The species is assessed as Least Concern for Europe and for the EU27 Member States in view of its very wide distribution, tolerance of a degree of habitat modification in some parts of its range, presumed large population, and although it is declining in parts of its range, overall it is unlikely to be declining fast enough (30% or more) to qualify for listing in a threatened category at the either the European regional or European Union level. However, numerous subpopulations are threatened across the range of the species, primarily in northern and northwest Europe.

In the European region, this species is widely distributed in much of western, central and eastern Europe, with a western range limit in the Spanish Pyrenees at around 1,800 m asl, and a southern range limit in the Italian Alps (where it is represented by a few subpopulations in the southwestern and northeastern Alps). Its range extends southeast in Europe to northern and eastern Albania and northern Greece (where subpopulations are largely isolated in mountain ranges). In northern Europe the species occurs throughout Denmark, as patchily-distributed subpopulations in central and southern Sweden, including the border region with Norway (Sindaco and Jeremčenko 2008), and as isolated and fragmented subpopulations in the south and northwest of England and Wales (the latter as a result of reintroduction following its extinction here in the 1960s, both for conservation purposes and as "unofficial" releases - Owens et al. 2022). In 2014, it was recorded from several localities in the Turku region of Finland for the first time (Petiola 2014); the origin of Finnish subpopulations is uncertain (A. Koli pers. comm. 2015). It it is reported to occur up to at least 2,500 m asl (Bulgaria), although the highest elevation in Europe cited by Speybroeck et al. (2016) is 2,100 m asl in northern Greece.

In the eastern parts of the region, the species is distributed throughout Moldova, Belarus, the Baltic countries and Ukraine. In European Russia, the northern border runs along the north of the Leningrad region and reaches southern Karelia in the region of 62 °N, then through the Vologda and Kirov regions descends to the south, crossing the Urals in the north of Sverdlovsk region (I.V. Doronin pers. comm. October 2022).

Outside Europe, the range of this lizard ranges east though the Caucasus Mountains and Central Asia, where it ranges patchily through northern half of Kazakhstan, and north as far as 60°N in Siberian Russia; it occurs marginally in the eastern Issyk-Kul area of Kyrgyzstan (Sindaco and Jeremčenko 2008) and east to northwest China (Tien-Shan and the eastern part of Xinjiang) and southwest Mongolia. Zhao et al. (1999) describes the Chinese range as encompassing Ili, Tacheng and Altay in northwestern Xinjiang, at elevations to 500–1,200 m asl. The southern border runs in Kazakhstan from the northern shore of the Balkhash to the mouth of the Emba. In the Caucasus, it occurs almost everywhere, except for continuous mountain forests and hot semi-deserts. In the Caucasus, it inhabits altitudes from -30 to 2730 m above sea level, which is the altitudinal limits for the species (Doronina et al. 2022).The boundary runs along the taiga zone to the east, gradually moving south, reaching 54° 30' in the Baikal region. The lizard also lives in southern Transbaikalia, in eastern Semirechye, northwestern Mongolia and in the west of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in China.

This species can be common in suitable habitat, but has undergone declines across much of northwest Europe. In the UK, it was lost from much of its historical range in England and Wales prior to conservation interventions (House and Spellerberg 1983, Woodfine et al. 2017), and declines have been recorded in northern France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and in Estonia (Edgar and Bird 2006). It is locally declining in Switzerland (Monney and Meyer, 2005), and is considered to be in "strong decline" in Germany over both the long- and short term (the latter inferred from a decline in cell occupancy from national atlas data), and densities are considerably lower in the northwest than in continental Germany (Rote-Liste-Gremium Amphibien und Reptilien 2020). In Sweden, it occurs along the southern coast in continuous subpopulations; inland subpopulations are tiny (5–10 individuals) and relictual. This species is undergoing local declines in Slovenia and Croatia (M. Vogrin pers. comm.). While only recently recorded from Finland, and in a rather restricted area, it is thought that the national population may number at least in the hundreds (A. Koli pers. comm. 2015).

The population trend in southern and eastern parts of its range in Europe are not known.

The species can be found in meadows, heathland, coastal dunes, grassland, steppe, subalpine and alpine meadows, shrubland, hedgerows, open woodland, in alpine areas, traditionally managed agricultural land and rural gardens. Sometimes it is present in sandy semi-desert areas. It is frequently found in drier and more open habitats than related species, including roadsides, hedgerows and quarries (Speybroeck et al. 2016). In the northwest of its range (e.g. UK) it is largely restricted to open heathland and coastal dune habitats, provided these contain suitable vegetation structure for foraging and shelter and areas of sand for oviposition (Woodfine et al. 2017).

The female may lay a clutch of between 5-10 eggs per year in sand or loose soil in June or July, and in climatically suitable areas a second clutch follows in September or October (Speybroeck et al. 2016). The incubation period lasts 50-55 days.

Despite the fact that this lizard is generally a eurytopic species, its biotopic confinement differs markedly in different parts of its range. In the forest zone, typical biotopes are mainly forest edges, clearings, floodplain forests, floodplain meadows, watershed meadows and coastal slopes, and only to a small extent anthropogenic biotopes. The number of lizards in this zone is relatively insignificant in different biotopes inhabited by them (up to 8.3 ind./1,000 m²). The maximum abundance of the species in this zone was found on slopes. The next in terms of population density of lizards in the natural biotopes of the forest zone are forest edges (4.1 ind./1,000 m²) and light floodplain forests (3.3 ind.1,000 m²). The average number of lizards in the forest zone, in biotopes suitable for it, is generally very low - 4.4 ind./1,000 m². The number of lizards in the forest-steppe zone is noticeably higher than in the forest. This is confirmed by the maximum numbers in suitable biotopes (up to 38.6 ind./1,000 m²) and the average abundance throughout the zone (17.3 ind./1,000 m²). In the steppe zone, the agile lizard is the most numerous. At the same time, it should be taken into account that this zone surpasses the rest in terms of the diversity of biotopes occupied. Up to 100 ind./1,000 m² and in terms of average density for the entire zone (40.4 ind./1,000 m²) it certainly surpasses all other zones. In this zone, the agile lizard finally replaces the biotopes associated with the forest with the biotopes of open spaces. However, the most preferred natural biotopes are still the slopes of ravines, gullies, coastal slopes and other natural depressions, where the agile lizard reaches its greatest abundance. In the semi-desert zone, the population density of lizards is not very high. The biotopes preferred here, as in the steppe zone, belong to the biotopes of open spaces: floodplain meadows, slopes and other natural depressions. The population density in such biotopes reaches 32.7 ind./1,000 m². The average density for the natural biotopes inhabited by the lizard in the semi-desert zone is 13.3 ind./1,000 m² (The Sand Lizard, 1976).

This lizard underwent "catastrophic declines" in the UK prior to the 1990s, resulting from housing and industrial developments, heathland conversion to conifer plantations, livestock and human disturbance, and fire (Woodfine et al. 2017). It remains threatened in areas where it is in decline by habitat loss through urbanization, conversion to intensive agricultural use (especially the loss of hedgerows and other suitable habitats), coastal and alpine tourism development and the loss of traditional forestry practices, and unsustainable management. Strong long-term declines in Germany have been attributed to land use changes resulting from varied factors, including intensification of agricultural intensification and clearance of hedgerows in the mid-20^th Century (Rote-Liste-Gremium Amphibien und Reptilien 2020). Drivers of ongoing habitat loss in this country include construction of settlements, roadbuilding and associated infrastructure, the creation of solar farms; and conversely from the filling of quarries and afforestation of previously degraded land (Rote-Liste-Gremium Amphibien und Reptilien 2020).

Many animals are killed on roads in parts of its range (e.g. Austria). Some subpopulations in Sweden are reported to be suffering from inbreeding depression due to a fragmented distribution (Olsson et al. 1996). There is some predation of animals by cats in urban areas. Open habitats, which this species requires, are being overgrown with vegetation. It is a threatened species in much of the northwest of its range, including the United Kingdom, Scandinavia and northern Germany. Germany. Locally, the competition with Podarcis muralis can result in decreasing or even the extinction of populations (Colucci, 2014).

There is unlikely to be significant use of or trade in this species.

The species is included in the Red Data Books of numerous countries in the western part of its range. It is listed in Appendix II of the Bern Convention and on Annex IV of the European Union Habitat and Species Directive. It is protected by national legislation in most of its range countries (all within the EU). Consistent application of these laws is required to protect it effectively in areas where it is at risk (Rote-Liste-Gremium Amphibien und Reptilien 2020).

This species is categorized as Vulnerable in Switzerland (Monney and Meyer 2005), Sweden (SLU Artdatabanken 2021) and Denmark (Aarhus Universitet 2022). A major threat in Germany exists from insufficient protection or "unsuitable protective measures" (Rote-Liste-Gremium Amphibien und Reptilien 2020). It is present in a number of protected areas over much of its range. Habitat restoration projects (e.g. Estonia) and reintroductions for the species (e.g.. UK, Switzerland) are taking place in parts of its range. The species has been subject to a UK species recovery plan since 1997, and captive breeding underway in this country since 1989 has provided stock for the country's reintroduction programme (Woodfine et al. 2017). The German Red List recommends the retention or restoration of habitat heterogeneity - including a "rather dense, but not completely closed" herb layer and adjacent or interspersed shrub or forest vegetation - and accounting for the needs of this species during road and rail-building activities, particularly as railway lines commonly act as the final refugia for subpopulations that have declined following land conversion (Rote-Liste-Gremium Amphibien und Reptilien 2020).


The Red Book of Russia includes two subspecies endemic to the Black Sea coast: Lacerta agilis grusinica with category and status 2, a subspecies declining in numbers and/or distribution; V – vulnerable (in Russia according to the IUCN scale; VU (A1ac+4abc, B2ab(ii)); Lacerta agilis mzymtensis with category and status 1 – endangered subspecies; I – endangered (in Russia according to the IUCN scale; EN (A2ac, C2a(i)b) (Tuniyev 2021). In Russia, it lives in at least 130 reserves, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

Relocation efforts have been carried out in parts of the range as part of an effort to reverse the decline of the species (Woodfine et al. 2017, Gardner 2021, Berglind 2004), and monitoring of reintroduced subpopulations in England suggests that this management has been "broadly successful" (Gardner 2021).