22697360-1

Phoenicopterus roseus 

Scope: Europe
Language: English
Status_ne_offStatus_dd_offStatus_lc_onStatus_nt_offStatus_vu_offStatus_en_offStatus_cr_offStatus_ew_offStatus_ex_off

Translate page into:

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Aves Phoenicopteriformes Phoenicopteridae

Scientific Name: Phoenicopterus roseus Pallas, 1811
Regional Assessments:
Common Name(s):
English Greater Flamingo
Taxonomic Source(s): Knox, A.G., Collinson, M., Helbig, A.J., Parkin, D.T. and Sangster,G. 2002. Taxonomic recommendations for British birds. Ibis 144: 707-710.
Taxonomic Notes: Phoenicopterus ruber (Sibley and Monroe, 1990, 1993) has been split into P. roseus and P. ruber following Knox et al. (2002), contra SACC (2005).

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern (Regional assessment) ver 3.1
Year Published: 2015
Date Assessed: 2015-03-31
Assessor(s): BirdLife International
Reviewer(s): Symes, A.
Facilitator/Compiler(s): Ashpole, J, Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L
Justification:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

In Europe this species has a very large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). The population trend appears to be increasing, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern in Europe.

Within the EU27, although this species may have a restricted range, it is not believed to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). The population trend appears to be increasing, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern in the EU27.

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:This species is regularly seen from West Africa eastward throughout the Mediterranean to southwestern and southern Asia, and throughout sub-Saharan Africa. The Palearctic population (including West Africa, Iran and Kazakhstan) is estimated to number between 205,000 and 320,000, the southwest and south Asian populations combined at 240,000, and the sub-Saharan African populations between 100,000 and 120,000 (Delany and Scott 2006).

The Palearctic population appears to be increasing, while the Asian and sub-Saharan African populations appear to be stable (Delany and Scott 2006).
Countries occurrence:
Native:
Armenia; Azerbaijan; Cyprus; France; Gibraltar; Greece; Italy; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Portugal; Russian Federation (European Russia); Slovenia; Spain (Canary Is. - Vagrant); Turkey
Vagrant:
Austria; Belarus; Belgium; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Finland; Germany; Hungary; Latvia; Malta; Montenegro; Norway; Poland; Romania; Serbia; Slovakia; Sweden; Switzerland
Additional data:
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO):Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO):NoEstimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2:79900
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO):UnknownExtreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO):No
Continuing decline in number of locations:Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations:No
Range Map:22697360-1

Population [top]

Population:The European population is estimated at 45,000-62,400 pairs, which equates to 89,900-125,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 31,900-36,900 pairs, which equates to 63,900-73,900 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see the Supplementary Material.

Trend Justification:  In Europe and the EU27 the population size is estimated to be increasing. For details of national estimates, see attached PDF.
For further information about this species, see 22697360_phoenicopterus_roseus.pdf.
A PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader is required.
Current Population Trend:Increasing
Additional data:
Number of mature individuals:89900-125000,105000Continuing decline of mature individuals:Unknown
Extreme fluctuations:NoPopulation severely fragmented:No
Continuing decline in subpopulations:Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations:NoAll individuals in one subpopulation:No

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:The species inhabits shallow (Snow and Perrins 1998) eutrophic waterbodies (Hockey et al. 2005) such as saline lagoons, saltpans and large saline or alkaline lakes (Brown et al. 1982, del Hoyo et al. 2014). It will also frequent sewage treatment pans, inland dams (Hockey et al. 2005), estuaries (Brown et al. 1982) and coastal waters (Diawara et al. 2007), seldom alighting on freshwater but commonly bathing and drinking from freshwater inlets entering alkaline or saline lakes (Brown et al. 1982). It nests and roosts on sandbanks, mudflats, islands (Brown et al. 1982, del Hoyo et al. 2014) or boggy, open shores (Flint et al. 1984). It breeds regularly from March to June in large dense single-species colonies of up to 20,000 pairs (occasionally up to 200,000 pairs).

The species nests in large dense colonies on mudflats or islands of large waterbodies, occasionally also on bare rocky islands (del Hoyo et al. 2014). The nest is usually an inverted cone of hardened mud (Flint et al. 1984) with a shallow depression on the top (alternatively it may be a small pile of stones and debris when mud is not available). Its diet consists of crustaceans, molluscs, annelid worms, larval aquatic insects, small fish, adult terrestrial insects, the seeds or stolons of marsh grasses, algae, diatoms and decaying leaves. It may also ingest mud in order to extract organic matter (e.g., bacteria) (del Hoyo et al. 2014). Juveniles, and to a lesser extent adults (Mateo et al. 1998), are prone to irregular nomadic or partially migratory movements throughout the species's range in response to water-level changes (Snow and Perrins 1998, Hockey et al. 2005).
Systems:Terrestrial; Freshwater; Marine
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat:Unknown
Generation Length (years):16.3
Movement patterns:Full Migrant
Congregatory:Congregatory (and dispersive)

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): The species suffers from low reproductive success if exposed to disturbance at breeding colonies (Ogilvie and Ogilvie 1986, Yosef 2000) (e.g., from tourists, low-flying aircraft (Ogilvie and Ogilvie 1986) and especially all-terrain vehicles (Yosef 2000)), or if water-levels surrounding nest-sites lower (resulting in increased access to and therefore predation from ground predators such as foxes and feral dogs) (Miltiadou 2005). The species also suffers mortality from lead poisoning (lead shot ingestion) (Mateo et al. 1998, Miltiadou 2005), collisions with fences and powerlines (Hockey et al. 2005), and from diseases such as tuberculosis, septicemia (Nasirwa 2000) and avian botulism (van Heerden 1974).

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions: Conservation Actions Underway
CMS Appendix II. CITES Appendix II. EU Birds Directive Annex I. Bern Convention Appendix II. The removal of sand polluted with lead shot from a salt-lake in Cyprus was successful in significantly reducing the numbers of deaths due to lead poisoning (Miltiadou 2005). At two colonies (one in France and one in Spain) management techniques to counteract erosion and the lack of suitable nesting islands were successfully applied in order to encourage breeding by the species (Martos and Johnson 1996). The species is also kept and does well in captivity (del Hoyo et al. 2014). The Flamingo Specialist Group was established in 1978 to actively promote flamingo research, conservation and education worldwide.

Conservation Actions Proposed
The conservation of all wetlands used by this species for feeding and breeding is important and breeding sites should be monitored to ensure the continuation of appropriate habitat management techniques (Tucker and Heath 1994). Measures suggested and implemented at the Ebre Delta in Spain include regular surveys and monitoring, raising public awareness, mitigation of damage to rice fields, control of salt pan levels and wardening against disturbance (Curcó et al. 2009).

Citation: BirdLife International. 2015. Phoenicopterus roseus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22697360A60161888. . Downloaded on 24 September 2018.
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