







| Kingdom | Phylum | Class | Order | Family |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANIMALIA | CHORDATA | AVES | CHARADRIIFORMES | HAEMATOPODIDAE |
| Scientific Name: | Haematopus ostralegus | ||||||
| Species Authority: | Linnaeus, 1758 | ||||||
Common Name/s:
|
|||||||
| Red List Category & Criteria: | Least Concern ver 3.1 | ||||||
| Year Published: | 2009 | ||||||
| Assessor/s: | BirdLife International | ||||||
| Reviewer/s: | Bird, J., Butchart, S. | ||||||
|
Justification: This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern. |
|||||||
| History: |
|
||||||
| Countries: |
Native:
Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; Austria; Azerbaijan; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Cape Verde; China; Côte d'Ivoire; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Djibouti; Egypt; Eritrea; Estonia; Faroe Islands; Finland; France; Gambia; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Gibraltar; Greece; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Hungary; Iceland; India; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Korea, Democratic People's Republic of; Korea, Republic of; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; Lithuania; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Malta; Mauritania; Moldova; Montenegro; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nepal; Netherlands; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Pakistan; Palestinian Territory, Occupied; Poland; Portugal; Qatar; Romania; Russian Federation; Russian Federation; Russian Federation; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Serbia; Sierra Leone; Slovakia; Somalia; South Africa; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Svalbard and Jan Mayen; Sweden; Switzerland; Syrian Arab Republic; Taiwan, Province of China; Tajikistan; Tanzania, United Republic of; Tunisia; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; Uzbekistan; Western Sahara; Yemen
Vagrant:
Angola; Canada; Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Ethiopia; Gabon; Greenland; Guam; Lebanon; Liberia; Luxembourg; Maldives; Mali; Philippines; Seychelles; Slovenia; Togo; Uganda; United States
|
| Range Map: | Click here to open the map viewer and explore range. |
| Habitat and Ecology: | Behaviour Most populations of this species are fully migratory, inland breeders moving to the coast for the winter1. The species breeds from April to July2 in solitary pairs or small groups3, during the winter foraging singly or in small groups of up to 10 individuals4 and with larger flocks often forming in major bays and estuaries and at roosting sites1, 2, 4. Habitat Breeding The species breeds on coastal saltmarshes, sand and shingle beaches1, dunes, cliff-tops with short grass2 and occasionally rocky shores1, as well as inland along the shores of lakes, reservoirs and rivers2 or on agricultural1 grass and cereal fields, often some distance from water2. Non-breeding Outside of the breeding season the species is chiefly coastal, frequenting estuarine mudflats, saltmarshes and sandy and rocky shores1. Diet When foraging on soft intertidal substrates bivalves and gastropods are the most important food items for this species1. Polychaetes and crustaceans are more important in estuaries however, and molluscs (e.g. mussels, limpets and whelks) are most important on rocky shores1. When inland, prey such as earthworms and insect larvae (e.g. caterpillars and cranefly larvae) are also taken1. Breeding site The nest is a shallow scrape on the ground1 often on raised surfaces (e.g. earth banks)2 in the open or in short vegetation4 on cultivated or uncultivated land, cliff-tops, rocky outcrops or clearings in taller vegetation including woods and moorland4. Management information 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 risks11. 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 conditions12. 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 areas13. |
| Systems: | Terrestrial; Freshwater; Marine |
| Major Threat(s): | The main threat to the species is the over-fishing of benthic shellfish and the resulting disappearance of intertidal mussel and cockle beds8, 9, 13. The species is also threatened by habitat degradation on its wintering grounds due to land reclamation, pollution, human disturbance6 (e.g. from construction work)10, coastal barrage construction7 and reduced river flows6. The species is susceptible to avian influenza so may be threatened by future outbreaks of the virus5. |
|
Atkinson, P. W.; Clark, N. A.; Bell, M. C.; Dare, P. J.; Clark, J. A.; Ireland, P. L. 2003. Changes in commercially fished shellfish stocks and shorebird populations in the Wash, England. Biological Conservation 114: 127-141. Burton, N. H. K. 2006. The impact of the Cardiff Bay barrage on wintering waterbirds. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), aterbirds around the world, pp. 805. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Burton, N. H. K.; Rehfisch, M. M.; Clark, N. A. 2002. 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): 865-871. del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Sargatal, J. 1996. Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 3: Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Ens, B. J. 2006. 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. 806-811. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Flint, V. E.; Boehme, R. L.; Kostin, Y. V.; Kuznetsov, A. A. 1984. A field guide to birds of the USSR. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Harris, M. P.; Wanless, S. 1997. The effect of removing large numbers of gull Larus spp. on an island population of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus: implications for management. Biological Conservation 82: 167-171. Hayman, P.; Marchant, J.; Prater, A. J. 1986. Shorebirds. Croom Helm, London. Kelin, C.; Qiang, X. 2006. Conserving migratory shorebirds in the Yellow Sea region. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 319. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. Melville, D. S.; Shortridge, K. F. 2006. Migratory waterbirds and avian influenza in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway with particular reference to the 2003-2004 H5N1 outbreak. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 432-438. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Olsen, H.; Schmidt, N. M. 2004. Impacts of wet grassland management and winter severity on wader breeding numbers in eastern Denmark. Basic and Applied Ecology 5: 203-210. Snow, D. W.; Perrins, C. M. 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic vol. 1: Non-Passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Verhulst, S.; Oosterbeek, K.; Rutten, A. L.; Ens, B. J. 2004. Shellfish fishery severely reduces condition and survival of oystercatchers despite creation of large marine protected areas. Ecology and Society 9(1): unpaginated. |
| Citation: | BirdLife International 2009. Haematopus ostralegus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 21 May 2012. |
| Disclaimer: | To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>. |
| Feedback: | If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided |