European Red List Status VU -- Vulnerable, (IUCN version 3.1)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "European Red List Status VU -- Vulnerable, (IUCN version 3.1)"

Ambrose Tate
6 years ago
Views:

1 Haematopus ostralegus -- Linnaeus, 1758 ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- CHARADRIIFORMES -- HAEMATOPODIDAE Common names: Eurasian Oystercatcher; Pied Oystercatcher Assessment Information European Red List Status VU -- Vulnerable, (IUCN version 3.1) European Red List Assessment Year published: 2015 Date assessed: Assessor(s): BirdLife International Reviewer(s): Symes, A. Compiler(s): Ashpole, J., Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Van den Bossche, W., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L. Assessment Rationale European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU) EU27 regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU) This widespread shorebird is undergoing rapid population declines across the European part of its extremely large global range. It is therefore classified as Vulnerable (A2abc+3bc+4abc) in both Europe and the EU27. Occurrence Countries/Territories of Occurrence Native: Albania; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Faroe Islands (to DK); Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland, Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Malta; Moldova; Montenegro; Netherlands; Norway; Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO); Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; Gibraltar (to UK) Vagrant: Greenland (to DK); Luxembourg; Slovenia Population The European population is estimated at 284, ,000 pairs, which equates to 568, ,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 226, ,000 pairs, which equates to 453, ,000 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. In Europe and the EU27 the population size is estimated to be decreasing by 30-49% in 41.1 years (three generations) both in the breeding season and in winter. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Trend Habitats and Ecology Most populations of this species are fully migratory, inland breeders moving to the coast for the winter (Hockey et al. 2013). The species breeds from April to July (Hayman et al. 1986) in solitary pairs or small groups (Flint et al. 1984), during the winter foraging singly or in small groups of up to 10 individuals (Snow and Perrins 1998) and with larger flocks often forming in major bays and estuaries and at roosting sites (Hayman et al. 1986, Snow and Perrins 1998, Hockey et al. 2013). The species breeds on coastal saltmarshes, sand and shingle beaches (Hockey et al. 2013), dunes, cliff-tops with short grass (Hayman et al. 1986) and occasionally rocky shores (Hockey et al. 2013), as well as inland along the shores of lakes, reservoirs and rivers (Hayman et al. 1986) or on agricultural (Hockey et al. 2013) grass and cereal fields, often some distance from water (Hayman et al. 1986). Outside of the breeding season the species is chiefly coastal, frequenting estuarine mudflats, saltmarshes and sandy and rocky shores (Hockey et al. 2013). When foraging on soft intertidal substrates bivalves and gastropods are the most important food items for this species

2 (Hockey et al. 2013). Polychaetes and crustaceans are more important in estuaries however, and molluscs (e.g. mussels, limpets and whelks) are most important on rocky shores. When inland, prey such as earthworms and insect larvae (e.g. caterpillars and cranefly larvae) are also taken. The nest is a shallow scrape on the ground (Hockey et al. 2013) often on raised surfaces (e.g. earth banks) (Hayman et al. 1986) in the open or in short vegetation (Snow and Perrins 1998) on cultivated or uncultivated land, cliff-tops, rocky outcrops or clearings in taller vegetation including woods and moorland (Snow and Perrins 1998). Habitats & Altitude Habitat (level 1 - level 2) Importance Occurrence Artificial/Aquatic - Water Storage Areas (over ha) suitable breeding Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land suitable breeding Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Brackish/Saline Lagoons/Marine Lakes suitable non-breeding Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Freshwater Lakes suitable non-breeding Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Sand Dunes suitable breeding Marine Intertidal - Mud Flats and Salt Flats suitable non-breeding Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline suitable breeding Marine Intertidal - Salt Marshes (Emergent Grasses) major breeding Marine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc major breeding Marine Intertidal - Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches major breeding Marine Intertidal - Tidepools suitable breeding Marine Intertidal - Tidepools suitable non-breeding Marine Neritic - Estuaries suitable non-breeding Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over ha) suitable breeding Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls) suitable breeding Altitude Occasional altitudinal limits The main threat to the species is the over-fishing of benthic shellfish and the resulting disappearance of intertidal mussel and cockle beds (Atkinson et al. 2003, Verhulst et al. 2004, Ens 2006). The species is also threatened by habitat degradation on its wintering grounds due to land reclamation, pollution, human disturbance (Kelin and Qiang 2006) (e.g. from construction work) (Burton et al. 2002), coastal barrage construction (Burton 2006) and reduced river flows (Kelin and Qiang 2006). The species is susceptible to avian influenza so may be threatened by future outbreaks of the virus (Melville and Shortridge 2006). Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Agriculture & Agro-industry aquaculture farming Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Unknown Unknown Biological resource use Biological resource use Human intrusions & disturbance Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources (unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]) Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals (intentional use - species is the target) Recreational activities Avian Influenza Virus (H subtype) Threats Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant Ongoing Minority (<50%) Unknown Unknown Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant Species disturbance Future Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant Low Impact

3 Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Invasive and other Unspecified species problematic Ongoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant Low Impact species, genes & diseases Natural system Abstraction of modifications surface water Ongoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant (unknown use) Low Impact Residential & Commercial & commercial industrial areas Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant development Ecosystem conversion Conservation Actions Underway The species is listed on Annex II (B) of the EU Birds Directive. Conservation Conservation Actions Proposed The breeding numbers of this species may decline if cattle grazing regimes are implemented on coastal grassland, possibly as a result of changes in food availability and increased predation risks (Olsen and Schmidt 2004). Removing large numbers of gulls (e.g. Larus argentatus and Larus fuscus) from islands may attract higher breeding numbers of the species but may not improve the overall breeding conditions (Harris and Wanless 1997). There is also evidence that the creation of large marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect this species from the threat of anthropogenic shellfish over-fishing may not be an effective management or conservation technique on a global scale, especially if over-fishing continues to occur in adjacent areas (Verhulst et al. 2004). Shellfish fishing at wintering and stop-over habitats needs to be sustainably managed. Bibliography Atkinson, P. W.; Clark, N. A.; Bell, M. C.; Dare, P. J.; Clark, J. A.; Ireland, P. L Changes in commercially fished shellfish stocks and shorebird populations in the Wash, England. Biological Conservation 114: Burton, N. H. K The impact of the Cardiff Bay barrage on wintering waterbirds. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), aterbirds around the world, pp The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Burton, N. H. K.; Rehfisch, M. M.; Clark, N. A Impacts of Disturbance from Construction Work on the Densities and Feeding Behavior of Waterbirds using the Intertidal Mudflats of Cardiff Bay, UK. Environmental Management 30(6): Crick, H. Q. P.; Dudley, C.; Glue, D.E.; Thomson, D.L UK birds are laying earlier. Nature 388: 526. Crick, H. Q. P.; Sparks, T.H Climate change related to egg-laying trends. Nature 399: Hagemeijer, W.J.M. & Blair, M.J The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds: Their Distribution and Abundance. T & A D Poyser, London. Hockey, P., Kirwan, G.M. & Boesman, P. (2013). Eurasian Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E. (eds.) (2013). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. (retrieved from on 15 April 2015). Ens, B. J The conflict between shellfisheries and migratory waterbirds in the Dutch Wadden Sea. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Flint, V. E.; Boehme, R. L.; Kostin, Y. V.; Kuznetsov, A. A A field guide to birds of the USSR. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Harris, M. P.; Wanless, S The effect of removing large numbers of gull Larus spp. on an island population of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus: implications for management. Biological Conservation 82:

4 Bibliography Hayman, P.; Marchant, J.; Prater, A. J Shorebirds. Croom Helm, London. Kelin, C.; Qiang, X Conserving migratory shorebirds in the Yellow Sea region. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. Melville, D. S.; Shortridge, K. F Migratory waterbirds and avian influenza in the East Asian- Australasian Flyway with particular reference to the H5N1 outbreak. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Olsen, H.; Schmidt, N. M Impacts of wet grassland management and winter severity on wader breeding numbers in eastern Denmark. Basic and Applied Ecology 5: Snow, D. W.; Perrins, C. M The Birds of the Western Palearctic vol. 1: Non-Passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Vahatalo, A. V.; Rainio, K.; Lehikoinen, A.; Lehikoinen, E Spring arrival of birds depends on the North Atlantic Oscillation. Journal of Avian Biology 35: Verhulst, S.; Oosterbeek, K.; Rutten, A. L.; Ens, B. J Shellfish fishery severely reduces condition and survival of oystercatchers despite creation of large marine protected areas. Ecology and Society 9(1): unpaginated. Map (see overleaf)

Larus canus -- Linnaeus, 1758 ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- CHARADRIIFORMES -- LARIDAE Common names: Mew Gull; Common Gull; Goéland cendré

Larus canus -- Linnaeus, 1758 ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- CHARADRIIFORMES -- LARIDAE Common names: Mew Gull; Common Gull; Goéland cendré Assessment Information European Red List Status LC -- Least