Calidris pygmaea 


Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Aves Charadriiformes Scolopacidae

Scientific Name: Calidris pygmaea
Species Authority: (Linnaeus, 1758)
Common Name(s):
English Spoon-billed Sandpiper, Spoonbill Sandpiper
Eurynorhynchus pygmeus (Linnaeus, 1758)
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. Lynx Edicions BirdLife International.
Taxonomic Notes: Calidris pygmaea (del Hoyo and Collar 2014) was previously placed in the genus Eurynorhynchus as E. pygmeus.
Identification information: 14-16 cm. Small stint with spatulate bill. Breeding adult has red-brown head, neck and breast with dark brown streaks. Blackish upperparts with buff and pale rufous fringing. Non-breeding adult lacks reddish coloration, but has pale brownish-grey upperparts with whitish fringing to wing-coverts. White underparts. Similar spp. Red-necked Stint C. ruficollis and Little Stint C. minuta lack spatulate bill. Non-breeders of both species have less white on forehead, appear smaller-headed and have narrower supercilia. Breeding C. ruficollis has less uniformly fringed rufous/brick-red fringes to scapulars. Voice Quiet, rolling preep and shrill wheet, usually in flight.

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Critically Endangered A2abcd+3bcd+4abcd; C2a(i) ver 3.1
Year Published: 2015
Date Assessed: 2015-10-01
Assessor(s): BirdLife International
Reviewer(s): Symes, A.
Contributor(s): Chan, S., Li, Z., Moores, N., Stroud, D., Syroechkovskiy, E., Tomkovich, P., Tong, M., Zöckler, C. & Hughes, B.
Facilitator/Compiler(s): Benstead, P., Calvert, R., Chan, S., Crosby, M., Gilroy, J., Mahood, S., Morris, P., Peet, N., Symes, A., Taylor, J. & Ashpole, J
This charismatic species is listed as Critically Endangered because it has an extremely small population that is undergoing an extremely rapid population reduction. This is because of a number of factors, including habitat loss in its breeding, passage and wintering grounds, that are compounded by disturbance, hunting and the effects of climate change. Fledging success and juvenile recruitment are very low, leading to fears that the population is ageing rapidly; action is now urgently required to prevent the extinction of this species.

Previously published Red List assessments:
2013 Critically Endangered (CR)
2012 Critically Endangered (CR)
2011 Critically Endangered (CR)
2010 Critically Endangered (CR)
2009 Critically Endangered (CR)
2008 Critically Endangered (CR)
2004 Endangered (EN)
2000 Vulnerable (VU)
1996 Vulnerable (VU)
1994 Vulnerable (VU)
1988 Threatened (T)

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description: This species has a naturally limited breeding range on the Chukotsk peninsula and southwards up to the isthmus of the Kamchatka peninsula, in north-eastern Russia (BirdLife International 2001). It migrates down the western Pacific coast through Russia, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, mainland China, Hong Kong (China), Taiwan (China) and Viet Nam, to its main wintering grounds in Bangladesh and Myanmar. Wintering birds have also been recorded from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Viet Nam, the Philippines, in the Fujian (the Min Jiang estuary in Fujian has recently been identified as an important wintering site for the species [Bai et al. 2015]) (F. Cheung in litt. 2010), Guangdong and Guangxi provinces of China (Fu 2015), peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. It occurs regularly at only a few sites within this wintering range, with important countries including Bangladesh, Thailand, Myanmar and China. Sonadia Island (Bangladesh), the Gulf of Martaban and Nan Thar (Myanmar) are believed to support over half of the wintering population (Clark et al. 2014).

Records of wintering birds in Myanmar are of 84 individuals in 2007-2008, 73 in January 2009 (Clark 2009), and 89 in 2010 (Zöckler et al. 2010b); 150-220 were estimated in the Bay of Martaban in 2010 (Zöckler et al. 2010a,b) and approximately 155 in the upper bay of Martaban in January 2015 (Clark 2015). In March-April 2010, a minimum total of 49 individuals were recorded during targeted surveys along the coast of Bangladesh (Bird et al. 2010). It is likely that a large proportion of the adult population of the species spends time at Rudong, China in both autumn and spring (Menxiu et al. 2012, Clark et al. 2014). It is currently the only known moulting site for the species (Bai et al. 2015). Counts of up to 103 individuals at Rudong, in October 2011, 106 in October 2012, 140 in October 2013 (Zöckler and Li 2013), a minimum of 226 in September 2014 and 177-190 in October 2014 (Zöckler et al. 2015) are likely to have accounted for a substantial proportion of the global population (Menxiu Tong in litt. 2011). A maximum of 100 birds were recorded on the Tiaozini mudflats (part of the Rudong mudflats), Dongtai County in October 2014 (Zöckler et al. 2015). A survey in May 2015 on the Rudong mudflats recorded at least 62 individuals, including a number of head-started birds (Phillips 2015). Modelling work has shown Rudong to be too far for the species to reach in a single flight from its breeding grounds and work is underway to identify another stopover site in the Russian Far East (Clark et al. 2014). China Coastal Waterbird Surveys conducted between 2005 and 2013 (Bai et al. 2015) identified the following sites as of international importance for the species: Yalu Jliang estuarine wetland (Liaoning), Rudong coast (Jiangsu), Dongtai coast (Jiangsu), Dongling coast (Jiangsu), Minjiang Estuary National Nature Reserve (Fujian), Dadeng Island and Weitou Bay (Fujian) and Xitou coast (Guangdong).

Due to its specialised breeding habitat requirements it was probably always a scarce species, but numbers have dropped in recent years and surveys on the breeding grounds have revealed a dramatic decline from 2,000-2,800 pairs in the 1970s to fewer than 1,000 pairs in 2000, 402-572 pairs in 2003, 350-380 pairs in 2005 (Zöckler and Bunting 2006) and not more than 150-320 pairs in 2008. The breeding population in 2009-2010 was optimistically estimated at 120-200 pairs (Bird et al. 2010, Zöckler et al. 2010a) in an estimated total population of 500-800 individuals, perhaps indicating an 88% decline since 2002, equating to an annual rate of decline of 26% (Zöckler et al. 2010a). These declines have taken place across all known breeding sites, and it is unlikely that significant colonies remain undiscovered (Zöckler 2005, Zöckler and Bunting 2006). Declines are also being observed at wintering grounds. For example, no birds were sighted wintering in Vietnam in 2009 at a site that supported at least 27 birds in the mid 1990s (E. Syroechkovskiy et al. in litt. 2009).

Breeding success is very low: average productivity was 0.66 young fledged per nest in 2005, and much lower in 2007, and this is compounded by a very low rate of juveniles and adults returning to the breeding grounds. The species now has an ageing and rapidly declining population with little recruitment. For example, data collected on birds at one breeding area from 2003 to 2009 suggest that recruitment into the adult breeding population was effectively zero in all years apart from 2005 and 2007 (Zöckler et al. 2010a). In 2013 for the first time there was no decline detected at the core breeding area of Meinypylgino, where the population was stable at c.10 pairs (Zöckler 2013). And in June 2014, an expedition to Russkaya Koshka recorded an increase in the number of breeding territories to five (Nitschke et al. 2015).

Countries occurrence:
Bangladesh; China; Hong Kong; India; Japan; Korea, Democratic People's Republic of; Korea, Republic of; Malaysia; Myanmar; Philippines; Russian Federation; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Taiwan, Province of China; Thailand; Viet Nam
Canada; United States
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2: 61900
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Number of Locations: 11-100
Continuing decline in number of locations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No
Range Map: Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population: The breeding population in 2009/2010 was estimated at 120-200 pairs, roughly equivalent to 240-400 mature individuals and 360-600 individuals in total, although this is thought to be an optimistic estimate.

Trend Justification:  The breeding population in 2009/2010 was optimistically estimated at 120-200 pairs (Bird et al. 2010, Zöckler et al. 2010a). An estimate of 120-200 pairs indicates an 88% decline since 2002, equating to an annual rate of decline of 26% (Zöckler et al. 2010a).

Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Additional data:
Number of mature individuals: 240-400 Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: No Population severely fragmented: No
No. of subpopulations: 2-100 Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No All individuals in one subpopulation: No
No. of individuals in largest subpopulation: 1-89

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology: It has a very specialised breeding habitat, using only lagoon spits with crowberry-lichen vegetation or dwarf birch and willow sedges, together with adjacent estuary or mudflat habitats that are used as feeding sites by adults during nesting. The species has never been recorded breeding further than 5 km (and exceptionally once, 7 km) from the sea shore. Breeding birds are very site faithful. It breeds either in single pairs or loose aggregations (Zöckler et al. 2008). It nests in June-July (Van Gils et al. 2015). During winter it prefers mixed sandy tidal mudflats with an uneven surface and very shallow water, mainly in the outermost parts of river deltas and outer islands, often with a higher sand content and thin mud layer on top. In the areas with total coastal conversion it favours certain stages in the management of saltpans (Zöckler et al. 2008). The species feeds by plover-style pecking and occasionally probing (Zöckler et al. 2008), also appearing to use its bill as a shovel (Bird et al. 2010).  Evidence to support suspicions that immature birds stay on their wintering grounds until their second year came from photographs of a second calendar-year bird in Thailand in July 2010 (G. Chutima in litt. 2010).

Systems: Terrestrial; Freshwater; Marine
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Unknown
Generation Length (years): 6.3
Movement patterns: Full Migrant
Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive)

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): Throughout its migratory and wintering ranges, tidal flats are being reclaimed for industry, infrastructure and aquaculture and are becoming increasingly polluted. The important staging area at Saemangeum and Geum estuary, South Korea, including the Mangyeung and Tongjin estuaries, has already been reclaimed, and remaining wetlands are under serious threat of reclamation in the near future (Zöckler and Bunting 2006). The Rudong mudflats, China have been negatively affected by an introduced grass (Spartina alterniflora [Menxiu et al. 2012]) and are ear-marked for reclamation in the near future (P. Morris in litt. 2010, Zöckler 2015) as well as being the site for development of the largest wind farm in Asia (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, 2010). Plans for a large-scale reclamation project on the Tiaozini Sandbanks, (part of the Rudong mudflats) could lead to the loss of 26,680 ha of tidal flat whilst two connected projects could lead to additional losses of 40,000 ha by 2020 (Moores 2015).  Plans for a deep-water port at Sonadia and cross-dams along the coast of Bangladesh continue to pose threats (Bird et al. 2010, Zöckler 2015).

Although not specifically targeted, it is regularly caught in nets set to catch other waders for food in the key wintering areas of Bangladesh and Myanmar (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, 2010, Zöckler and Htin Hla 2009, Bird et al. 2010, Zöckler et al. 2010b), and this may be a particularly serious threat to birds wintering on Nan Thar Island and in the Gulf of Martaban, Myanmar (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, 2010, Zöckler et al. 2010b). A survey of hunting activities in five villages around Sonadia Island, Bangladesh, in September 2010, found that of the 53 hunters interviewed, eight of them claimed to have caught a total of 22 Spoon-billed Sandpipers between October 2009 and April 2010 (Chowdhury 2010). Hunting in the species's non-breeding range could be a crucial factor in the poor rate of recruitment into the breeding population, as immature birds do not return to the breeding areas until they are two years old and thus are more exposed to capture (Zöckler et al. 2010a). Large-scale wader trapping was observed at Fucheng, south-west Guangdong province, China, where four Spoon-billed Sandpiper were observed in December 2012 (BirdLife Asia 2013). Hunting with nets has also been reported from Viet Nam (Long 2015). Between August and October 2014 more than a thousand dead wading birds, including two Spoon-billed Sandpipers, were found on the Tiaozini Sandbanks (Zöckler et al. 2015). Tests are ongoing to understand the cause of mortality, however poisoned bait was discovered in the area.

There are no immediate threats to the breeding grounds, but nests in the vicinity of villages are sometimes destroyed by dogs (E. Syroechkovskiy in litt. 2007). Poor breeding productivity in recent years has been attributed to heavy nest predation and bad weather (Syroechkovskiy et al. 2009). Significant habitat degradation has been observed in 5 of 30 visited breeding locations (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, 2010). Human disturbance, both by residents and researchers, may cause increased levels of nest desertion and predation by foxes and skuas (Zöckler and Bunting 2006). Shorebirds, including this species, are also occasionally killed by children with slingshots (Zöckler and Bunting 2006); one male was also shot by a Russian hunter near the Chinese border in 2008 (Zöckler and Syroechkovskiy 2008). Small but significant numbers of birds and their eggs have been collected for scientific purposes in the last 20 years, with one small colony completely wiped out due to this activity (Zöckler and Bunting 2006). Climate change and associated habitat shifts are expected to impact negatively on this species and others dependent on tundra habitat for breeding. Modelling indicates that 57% of the breeding habitat for this species could be lost by 2070 (Zöckler and Lysenko 2000).

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions: Conservation Actions Underway
CMS Appendix I and II. Protected areas in its breeding, staging and wintering areas include Moroshechnaya and several local wildlife refuges on the Chukotsk peninsula (Russia), Yancheng and Chongming Dongtan (China), Mai Po (Hong Kong), Lanyang estuary (Taiwan), Point Calimere and Chilka lake (India), and Xuan Thuy Nature Reserve (Vietnam). The Bird Conservation Society of Thailand have lobbied the Government of Thailand to request that Khok Kham be designated a Ramsar site (Fowlie 2011). The Gulf of Mottama, Myanmar has also been proposed as a Ramsar site and the area belonging to Mon State is soon to be designated (Clark et al. 2014, Zöckler 2015). Work by the group 'SBS in China' recently lead to the local government designating a 10,000 ha area for Spoon-billed Sandpipers in Rudong (Clark et al. 2014). Shellfish protected areas have also been designated which will provide suitable feeding habitat for birds and protect local livelihoods. Annual surveys of breeding sites on Chukotka are undertaken and over 450 adults and young have been ringed on the breeding grounds since 2000 (Zöckler et al. 2008). Annual searches of potential new breeding sites have taken place from 2011 to at least 2013 (Zöckler 2013).

Local support groups have been established in some breeding areas and negotiations have taken place to reduce short-term hunting pressure at one of the key wintering sites in Myanmar (Zöckler and Htin Hla 2009, Zöckler et al. 2010b). Researchers and a local environmentalist group convinced two villages on Nan Thar Island, Myanmar to agree to a hunting ban of the species, with a view to develop an ecologically and economically sound alternative in the future (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, 2010, Zöckler et al. 2010b). The development of wader-ecotourism at Nan Thar generated extra income for local people and encouraged them to protect the birds (Clark et al. 2014). In the Bay of Martaban, socio-economic surveys carried out in early 2010 indicated that bird-hunting is undesirable and that most hunters would readily switch to alternative livelihoods if assisted (BANCA 2010). These surveys were swiftly followed by mitigation activities in the same year, in which hunters agreed to stop their activities in exchange for equipment to provide them with an alternative income source and awareness-raising events and materials were provided for whole communities (BANCA in litt. 2010). On the eastern shore of the Gulf of Martaban, 9 out of 15 hunters targeted by the mitigation activities had increased their livelihood status, the remaining six had neither increased or decreased their livelihood status (BANCA 2012). Conservationists in Bangladesh successfully raised funds to provide hunters with loans so that they could establish new livelihoods, such as farming (Clark et al. 2014). The Bangladesh Spoon-billed Sandpiper Conservation Project conducted a one year awareness-raising project on Sonadia Island, an important wintering site for the species (Clark et al. 2014). Activities involved former hunters visiting schools to talk about conservation work, film showings and photography exhibitions. In 2011, awareness-raising and advocacy activities including two training workshops took place in schools in China. Schoolchildren living close to the species's breeding grounds in Russia have also been taught about the species and sent letters to other schoolchildren living along the flyway asking them to protect the species (Clark et al. 2014). 

A Species Action Plan was produced in 2006 (Zöckler and Bunting 2006), and updated in 2008 (Zöckler et al. 2008) and 2010 (Zöckler et al. 2010c). At the fifth meeting of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership in Cambodia in December 2010, the partners agreed to establish a Task Force for this species, charged with implementing the action plan (Fowlie 2011). In 2012 the 'Saving Spoony's Chinese Wetlands' project came top in a vote organised by the Disney Foundation, winning $100,000 to support conservation efforts for the species (Clark et al. 2014). 

A captive-rearing and breeding programme started in 2011, when eggs were collected in Chukotka and the young birds were subsequently transported to purpose-built conservation breeding facilities at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust headquarters at Slimbridge, U.K. (Pain 2010). In May 2014 the captive population numbered 25 birds (Clark et al. 2014). As of 2015, breeding had not yet been recorded in the captive population (B. Hughes in litt. 2015). Headstarting, or artificial incubation and captive rearing on the breeding grounds, increases breeding success and, by taking eggs within days of them being laid, the birds lay a second clutch that they incubate and raise themselves. Headstarting expeditions in 2012 and 2013 have resulted in the release of a total of 25 juveniles from 35 eggs collected (Zöckler 2013). In 2015, 37 eggs were collected for headstarting in Chukotka, of which 35 were fertile (B. Hughes in litt. 2015). 

Conservation Actions Proposed

Develop captive breeding programmes and continue to monitor numbers at known breeding sites and carry out searches of suitable habitat in North Kamchatka. Continue to search for stopover sites in the Russian Far East (Clark et al. 2014). Actively prevent collection of eggs and birds for scientific purposes, museums and private collections. Take measures to ensure that researcher activity does not increase mortality. Ensure effective legal protection of all known breeding sites. Survey existing and potential wintering sites in Myanmar and Bangladesh. Stop hunting and trapping at key sites in Myanmar, Bangladesh and Russia. Ensure awareness-raising activities are maintained in the long-term. Ensure protection of newly discovered sites and existing sites, especially in South Korea. Campaign against the continued reclamation of intertidal mudflats along the entire migration route. Restore reclaimed wetland sites. Legally protect it in all range states. Identify and mitigate pressures at breeding grounds. Lobby against plans for a deep-water port at Sonadia, Bangladesh (Bird et al. 2010). Pursue protected area status for the Bay of Martaban and other coastal sites in Myanmar (BANCA in litt. 2010).

Citation: BirdLife International. 2015. Calidris pygmaea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22693452A77507581. . Downloaded on 26 November 2015.
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 provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided