Tachybaptus ruficollis 


Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Aves Podicipediformes Podicipedidae

Scientific Name: Tachybaptus ruficollis
Species Authority: (Pallas, 1764)
Regional Assessments:
Common Name(s):
English Little Grebe
French Grèbe castagneux
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:

Tachybaptus ruficollis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) was split into T. ruficollis and T. tricolor by Mlikovsky (2010) on the basis of tricolor's larger bill and darker underparts. Examination of material in Tring shows a very much darker belly than in other taxa, and bill size overall seems larger, but differences are otherwise unapparent. We do not accept the split.

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published: 2012
Date Assessed: 2012-05-01
Assessor(s): BirdLife International
Reviewer(s): Butchart, S. & Symes, A.
Facilitator/Compiler(s): Ekstrom, J., Butchart, S., Malpas, L.
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 very 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.
Previously published Red List assessments:
2009 Least Concern (LC)
2008 Least Concern (LC)
2004 Least Concern (LC)
2000 Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
1994 Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
1988 Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)

Geographic Range [top]

Countries occurrence:
Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; Angola (Angola); Armenia (Armenia); Austria; Azerbaijan; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Belarus; Belgium; Bhutan; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Botswana; Brunei Darussalam; Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cambodia; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; China; Comoros; Congo; Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Côte d'Ivoire; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Djibouti; Egypt; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Estonia; Ethiopia; Finland; France; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Greece; Guinea; Hong Kong; Hungary; India; Indonesia; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Korea, Democratic People's Republic of; Korea, Republic of; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Latvia; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Libya; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macao; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Mali; Malta; Mauritania; Mayotte; Moldova; Monaco; Montenegro; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nepal; Netherlands; Niger; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Pakistan; Palestinian Territory, Occupied; Papua New Guinea; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Qatar; Romania; Russian Federation; Rwanda; San Marino; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Serbia (Serbia); Sierra Leone; Singapore; Slovakia; Slovenia; Somalia; South Africa; South Sudan; Spain (Canary Is. - Vagrant); Sri Lanka; Sudan; Swaziland; Sweden; Switzerland; Syrian Arab Republic; Taiwan, Province of China; Tajikistan; Tanzania, United Republic of; Thailand; Timor-Leste; Togo; Tunisia; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Uganda; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; Uzbekistan; Viet Nam; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe
Possibly extinct:
Western Sahara
Australia; Faroe Islands; Gibraltar; Mongolia
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2: 31500000
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Continuing decline in number of locations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No
Upper elevation limit (metres): 1000
Range Map: Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population: The global population is estimated to number c.610,000-3,500,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2006), while national population estimates include: c.100-10,000 breeding pairs and c.1,000-10,000 individuals on migration in China; c.100-10,000 breeding pairs in Taiwan; c.100-10,000 breeding pairs and c.1,000-10,000 individuals on migration in Korea; c.100-10,000 breeding pairs and c.1,000-10,000 individuals on migration in Japan and c.100-10,000 breeding pairs and c.1,000-10,000 individuals on migration in Russia (Brazil 2009).

Trend Justification:  The overall population trend is decreasing, although some populations may be stable and others have unknown trends (Wetlands International 2006).
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Additional data:
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations: No Population severely fragmented: No
Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No All individuals in one subpopulation: No

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology: Behaviour This species is sedentary, locally dispersive or fully migratory depending on the winter temperatures of its breeding grounds (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Some dispersive movements in Africa are also related to seasonal rains and the appearance of temporary wetlands (Brown et al. 1982). The species breeds in solitary pairs, the timing of breeding varying geographically and depending on the growth of emergent vegetation and water-levels (del Hoyo et al. 1992). After breeding the species undergoes a flightless wing-moulting period during which it may assemble in loose groups (Fjeldsa 2004) (up to 700 individuals) (Snow and Perrins 1998) in rich feeding areas (Fjeldsa 2004). During the winter the species is largely solitary or occurs in small groups of 5-30 individuals (Brown et al. 1982, Snow and Perrins 1998). Habitat The species inhabits a wide range of small and shallow wetlands (del Hoyo et al. 1992) usually less than 1 m deep (Fjeldsa 2004) with rich vegetation (floating, submerged and emergent) and high densities of aquatic invertebrates, generally avoiding waters with large predatory fish (Konter 2001). Suitable habitats include small lakes, ponds, the sheltered bays and vegetated shores (del Hoyo et al. 1992) of larger freshwater, alkaline or saline lakes (Brown et al. 1982) and reservoirs (del Hoyo et al. 1992), slow-flowing rivers (Konter 2001), canals (del Hoyo et al. 1992), flood-plain oxbows, coastal brackish lagoons (Brown et al. 1982), seasonally inundated areas, swamps (Fjeldsa 2004), gravel pits (Santoul and Mastrorillo 2004), sewage lagoons (Fjeldsa 2004) and rice-fields (Brown et al. 1982). Outside of breeding season it is common on more open waters and is occasionally observed along the coast in estuaries or sheltered bays protected from strong wave action (del Hoyo et al. 1992). When moulting the species requires rich feeding areas (Fjeldsa 2004). Diet Its diet consists predominantly of adult and larval insects, especially mayflies, stoneflies, water bugs, beetles, flies, caddisflies and dragon flies, as well as molluscs (del Hoyo et al. 1992) (e.g. freshwater snails) (Fjeldsa 2004), crustaceans, adult and juvenile amphibians (e.g. small frogs and newts) and occasionally small fish (up to 11 cm) (del Hoyo et al. 1992) during the winter (Konter 2001). Breeding site The nest is a floating platform of aquatic plant matter (del Hoyo et al. 1992) anchored to emergent vegetation (Fjeldsa 2004), submerged branches or bushes close to the edge of shallow wetlands (Brown et al. 1982). Management information In France it was found that the presence of aquatic macrophytes was the most important factor in attracting the species to new artificial habitats (such as gravel pits) (Santoul and Mastrorillo 2004).
Systems: Terrestrial; Freshwater; Marine
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Unknown
Generation Length (years): 5.4
Movement patterns: Full Migrant
Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive)

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): The species is susceptible to avian influenza so may be threatened by future outbreaks of this viurs (Melville and Shortridge 2006). Utilisation The species is hunted for commercial (sold as food) and recreational purposes Iran (Balmaki and Barati 2006).

Citation: BirdLife International. 2012. Tachybaptus ruficollis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T22696545A40207755. . Downloaded on 01 May 2016.
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