Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Aves Passeriformes Sylviidae

Scientific Name: Acrocephalus rodericanus
Species Authority: (Newton, 1865)
Common Name(s):
English Rodrigues Warbler, Rodriguez Brush-Warbler
French Fauvette de l'Ile de Rodrigues
Bebrornis rodericanus rodericanus Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993)
Identification information: 13.5 cm. Medium-sized, drab warbler. Uniformly olive-brown upperparts with paler, yellowish-buff underparts. Long bill with pink lower mandible. Erect crown feathers impart crested appearance. Voice Harsh, chattering alarm call, soft, melodic song. Hints Tail habitually jerked up and down.

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Near Threatened ver 3.1
Year Published: 2013
Date Assessed: 2013-11-01
Assessor(s): BirdLife International
Reviewer(s): Butchart, S.
Contributor(s): Cristinacce, A., Jones, C., Tatayah, V. & Steward, P.
Facilitator/Compiler(s): Ekstrom, J., McClellan, R., Pilgrim, J., Shutes, S., Symes, A., Taylor, J. & Warren, B.
This species has been downlisted from Endangered following evidence that its population is increasing and is now much larger than previously estimated. It is listed as Near Threatened on the basis that it occupies a tiny range and remains susceptible to stochastic events and the impacts of introduced species, such that it could qualify as threatened within one or two generations.

Previously published Red List assessments:
2012 Endangered (EN)
2008 Endangered (EN)
2006 Endangered (EN)
2004 Endangered (EN)
2000 Endangered (EN)
1996 Critically Endangered (CR)
1994 Critically Endangered (CR)
1988 Threatened (T)

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description: Acrocephalus rodericanus, having once been very common on Rodrigues, Mauritius, declined steadily until 1979, when eight pairs and a singleton were counted (but others probably overlooked). Since 1982, there has been a steady increase in its range (C. Jones in litt. 2000). In 1999, the population was estimated to number at least 150 individuals (Showler 1999, Showler et al. 2002), and surveys up until 2004 suggested there was no change since then (A. Cristinacce and C. Jones in litt. 2005); however, the population has since risen extremely rapidly to number over 3,000 individuals (3,100-3,900) by 2010 (Steward 2010, C. Jones in litt. 2010, V. Tatayah in litt. 2011, 2012).

Countries occurrence:
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2: 21
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Number of Locations: 6-10
Continuing decline in number of locations: No
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No
Lower elevation limit (metres): 200
Upper elevation limit (metres): 390
Range Map: Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population: In 1999, the population was estimated to be no fewer than 150 individuals, and it remained at this level until 2004 at least (A. Cristinacce and C. Jones in litt. 2005). The population has since risen rapidly to number over 3,000 (3,100-3,900) individuals by 2010 (Steward 2010, C. Jones in litt. 2010, V. Tatayah in litt. 2011) and close to 4,000 by 2012 (V. Tatayah in litt. 2012). The population is therefore estimated at 3,000-4,000 individuals, assumed to include c.2,000-2,700 mature individuals. It has been noted that the current methodology for censusing this species (Showler 2002, Steward 2010) was designed for low population densities and could now over-estimate numbers (P. Steward in litt. 2013).

Trend Justification:  Surveys suggest that the population was stable between 1999 and 2004 (A. Cristinacce and C. Jones in litt. 2005), but has since risen rapidly to number over 3,000 (3,100-3,900) individuals by 2010 (Steward 2010, C. Jones in litt. 2010, V. Tatayah in litt. 2011) and close to 4,000 by 2012 (V. Tatayah in litt. 2012).
Current Population Trend: Increasing
Additional data:
Number of mature individuals: 2000-2700 Continuing decline of mature individuals: No
Extreme fluctuations: No Population severely fragmented: No
No. of subpopulations: 1 Continuing decline in subpopulations: No
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No All individuals in one subpopulation: Yes
No. of individuals in largest subpopulation: 100

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology: It is a territorial insectivore adapted to dense thickets in remaining, largely exotic, vegetation. The low intensity of vegetation cutting by humans appears to promote such dense growth. In 1999, a survey found 78% of the population in habitat dominated by introduced jamrosa Syzygium jambos where the highest densities (2.3 individuals/ha) are found (Showler 1999). The species is also known at lower densities (0.5/ha) in plantations of Swietenia, Tabebuia and Araucaria sp. However other factors, incompletely understood, greatly influence its distribution as demonstrated by the areas of apparently suitable habitat as yet uncolonised (Showler et al. 2002). Restored native forests were found to support the highest densities of the species (Steward 2010).

Systems: Terrestrial
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: No
Generation Length (years): 4.4
Movement patterns: Not a Migrant

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): Timber harvesting, subsistence farming and feral livestock have reduced the native habitat to savanna with scattered trees. Currently, the main threat is predation and/or competition from introduced animals such as rats and feral cats (Showler et al. 2002). Sustained periods of drought (reducing invertebrate levels), cyclones, and the destruction and further degradation of remaining suitable habitat are additional problems (Showler et al. 2002). It has survived alongside the Black Rat Rattus rattus for a long time (C. Jones in litt. 2000), but nest predation by this species was believed to be a major factor suppressing its population recovery (Showler et al. 2002). In addition, the fledging success of undisturbed nests appears low, possibly due to food availability (Showler et al. 2002). Human disturbance may be an additional problem at some localities (Showler 1999).

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions: Conservation Actions Underway
Habitat protection and reforestation, spurred by the need for watershed protection, have been key to the recovery of this species, aided by the recent absence of catastrophic cyclones. Much reforestation has involved exotic trees, although native ecosystem rehabilitation has been started at some sites, including nearby islands and the two Conservation Management Areas: Grande Montagne and Anse Quitor (both 0.1 km2). Sites are fenced to exclude grazing animals and woodcutters, exotic plants removed and native species replanted. There has been an accompanying public awareness campaign (Safford 2001). A probable decline in agriculture may have also contributed to habitat availability and the recovery of the species (P. Steward in litt. 2013).

Conservation Actions Proposed
Continue a consistent long-term monitoring programme. Initiate further research into habitat use and breeding success (Showler 1999). Assess the effects of nest predation by introduced species (Showler 1999). Continue rehabilitation of the near-shore island reserves of Ile aux Cocos and Ile aux Sables, plus Anse Quitor (WWF/IUCN 1994, Showler 1999) and Grande Montagne (V. Tatayah in litt. 2012). Investigate the potential of Ile aux Cocos, Ile aux Sables and Anse Quitor to support this species (WWF/IUCN 1994, Showler 1999) and consider translocations if appropriate.

Citation: BirdLife International. 2013. Acrocephalus rodericanus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T22714874A49175357. . Downloaded on 04 October 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