Map_thumbnail_large_font

Limosa limosa 

Scope: Global
Language: English
Status_ne_offStatus_dd_offStatus_lc_offStatus_nt_onStatus_vu_offStatus_en_offStatus_cr_offStatus_ew_offStatus_ex_off

Translate page into:

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Aves Charadriiformes Scolopacidae

Scientific Name: Limosa limosa (Linnaeus, 1758)
Regional Assessments:
Common Name(s):
English Black-tailed Godwit
French Barge à queue noire
Taxonomic Source(s): Turbott, E.G. 1990. Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand. Ornithological Society of New Zealand, Wellington.
Identification information: 40-44cm. Large rather graceful wader, with long bill on a relatively small head, long neck and long legs. Colour of fore-body is dull pink-chestnut in summer, paler grey-brown in winter. In flight has a striking white wing-bar and rump. Similar spp. Unmistakeable in flight but sometimes difficult to separate from L. lapponica when on ground at distance. Told from the latter by its distinctive bill structure and much leggier and more erect appearance. Voice High-pitched, nasal, rather strident calls given during breeding season, most common of which is a weeka-weeka-weeka. Characteristic call of birds in flocks is a softer kip kip... or chut chut...

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Near Threatened ver 3.1
Year Published: 2017
Date Assessed: 2016-10-01
Assessor(s): BirdLife International
Reviewer(s): Butchart, S. & Symes, A.
Contributor(s): Belyalova, L., Burfield, I., Garnett, S., Gill, J., Hötker, H., Krüse, H., Mischenko, A.L., Nagy, S., van Dijk, A., Ibrahim, H., Oosterveld, E. & Dowsett, R.J.
Facilitator/Compiler(s): Butchart, S., Ekstrom, J., Khwaja, N., Mahood, S., Malpas, L., Temple, H., Ashpole, J, Martin, R, Westrip, J.
Justification:
Although this species is widespread and has a large global population, its numbers have declined rapidly in parts of its range owing to changes in agricultural practices. Overall, the global population is estimated to be declining at such a rate that the species qualifies as Near Threatened.

Previously published Red List assessments:

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:This species has a large discontinuous breeding range extending from Iceland to the Russian far east, with wintering populations in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Australasia (Van Gils et al. 2017). It occurs as three subspecies, L. l. islandica, L. l. limosa, and L. l. melanuroides. Subspecies islandica breeds predominantly in Iceland, with much smaller numbers in the Faeroe Islands, Shetland (United Kingdom) and the Lofoten Islands (Norway). This subspecies winters in roughly similar numbers in the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal, with small numbers in the Netherlands (J. Gill in litt. 2016). Subspecies limosa breeds across a wide area extending from Western Europe and central Europe to central Asia and Asiatic Russia, as far east as the River Yenisey. The west European population of this subspecies migrates south through France and Iberia to winter largely in West Africa, while eastern breeding birds winter in southeast Europe to the Middle East, and may also be the origin of wintering birds in Mali, Chad and northern Cameroon (Gill et al. 2007, Oomen 2008, Lourenço & Piersma 2008b). Subspecies melanuroides breeds in disjunct populations in Mongolia, northern China, Siberia (Russia) and the Russian Far East. These birds migrates across a broad front to winter from western South Asia to Australia, encompassing India, Indochina, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Melanesia (Dutson 2011, Van Gils et al. 2017). The global population is estimated at 614,000-809,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2016). 
Population trends vary across the range. There have been large and well-documented declines in the mainland European breeding population (of the nominate subspecies) of between 50-60% (BirdLife International 2015). For example, in the Netherlands the population decreased dramatically from 120,000-135,000 pairs in 1969 and 85,000-100,000 pairs in 1989-1991, to just 46,000-62,000 in 2009 (Tucker and Heath 1994,  BirdLife International 2004a, EU Technical Report 19 2007, Oomen 2008, Höglund et al. 2009), 35,200-59,800 pairs in 2008-2011 (BirdLife International 2015), and potentially to 33,000 pairs in 2015 (Kentie et al. 2016). In certain areas though, the breeding population has recently stabilised as a result of agri-environmental measures (Oosterveld et al. 2016). These declines are mirrored in the information from West African wintering areas, with notable declines in Senegal and Morocco, while further east (Mali, Chad and north Cameroon) wintering numbers appear stable, though data is sparser (Lourenço and Piersma 2008b). This is true also for the central Asian breeding population, which is thought to be stable of fluctuating (L. Belyalova in litt. 2005), but for which there is little recent data. In the eastern flyway, declines have been estimated at between 20-30% over three generations on the species Australian wintering grounds (Garnett et al. 2010), which hold c. 50% of the wintering population of L. l. melanuroides (Watkins 1993). The population of L. l. ilsandica, in contrast, has be increasing dramatically over the past few decades, although this increase may be levelling out and the subpopulation represents a relatively small part of the global population (Gill et al. 2007, Wetlands International in press). A recent analysis based on published literature, survey data and expert opinions from throughout the species range suggests that, overall, the global population may have declined at a mean rate of approximately 23% over 25 years leading up to 2015 (I. Burfield in litt. 2017).

Countries occurrence:
Native:
Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; Armenia; Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Belarus; Belgium; Benin; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Botswana; Brunei Darussalam; Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cambodia; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; China; Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Côte d'Ivoire; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Djibouti; Egypt; Eritrea; Estonia; Ethiopia; Faroe Islands; Finland; France; Gambia; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Gibraltar; Greece; Guam; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Hong Kong; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Korea, Democratic People's Republic of; Korea, Republic of; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Lebanon; Liberia; Libya; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Malaysia; Mali; Malta; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Micronesia, Federated States of ; Moldova; Mongolia; Montenegro; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Nepal; Netherlands; New Caledonia; Niger; Nigeria; Northern Mariana Islands; Norway; Oman; Pakistan; Palau; Palestinian Territory, Occupied; Papua New Guinea; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Qatar; Romania; Russian Federation (Central Asian Russia, Eastern Asian Russia, European Russia); Rwanda; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Serbia; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Slovakia; Slovenia; Solomon Islands; Somalia; South Sudan; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sudan; 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; Vanuatu; Viet Nam; Western Sahara; Yemen; Zambia
Vagrant:
Canada; Cape Verde; Comoros; Gabon; Greenland; Madagascar; Malawi; Maldives; Namibia; New Zealand; Puerto Rico; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Pierre and Miquelon; Seychelles; South Africa; Svalbard and Jan Mayen; Trinidad and Tobago; United States; Virgin Islands, U.S.; Zimbabwe
Present - origin uncertain:
Andorra; Lao People's Democratic Republic
Additional data:
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO):Yes
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO):NoEstimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2:30300000
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO):UnknownExtreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO):No
Number of Locations:11-100Continuing 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 global population is estimated at 614,000-809,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2016). The population is estimated to number 102,000-149,000 pairs in Europe (including 25,000 pairs in Iceland) (BirdLife International 2015); 25,000-100,000 in west-central Asia; 150,000 in central Asia and Siberia (Asian Waterbird Census unpublished data); 160,000 in the rest of Asia and Australia.

Trend Justification:  There is still some degree of uncertainty about the size and trend of some of the sub-populations. Nevertheless, the available information suggests that the global population has probably declined by between 14% and 33% at a mean rate of approximately 23% over the 25 years leading up to 2015. This estimate is derived from a series of calculations based on best-worse case scenarios using population estimates from Wetlands International (2017), and trend data from the African-Eurasian Waterbird Census, Asian Waterbird Census, Wetlands International, Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme and forum contributors. Thus the species's trend is currently best placed in the 20-29% band. In Europe, the population size is estimated to be decreasing by 30-49% in 25.8 years (three generations) (BirdLife International 2015).
Current Population Trend:Decreasing
Additional data:
Continuing decline of mature individuals:Yes
Extreme fluctuations:NoPopulation severely fragmented:No
No. of subpopulations:2-100Continuing decline in subpopulations:Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations:NoAll individuals in one subpopulation:No

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:Behaviour This species is highly gregarious and migrates on a broad front, making long-distance flights often overland between relatively few staging and wintering areas (del Hoyo et al. 1996). It breeds from April to mid-June in loose, semi-colonial groups of up to 3 pairs per ha (Gunnarsson et al. 2006). Non-breeding birds remain in flocks, often near to the breeding colonies. As soon as the young fledge, breeding birds begin to congregate in loose flocks which can be many thousands strong (Cramp et al. 1983, J. Gill in litt. 2016). The species migrates southwards between late-June and October. During the autumn migration it may roost in flocks of tens of thousands at favoured sites (del Hoyo et al. 1996), and this is the main moulting period for adult birds. The islandica subspecies moults in northwest Europe, while western populations of the nominate subspecies often moult in north Morrocco (J. Gill in litt. 2016), and many adults pause in north Morocco in July to moult. Huge flocks occur at some wintering sites, particularly in the floodplains of Lake Chad. The return passage occurs between February and April (del Hoyo et al. 1996), and birds arrive at the breeding grounds in groups of 5-30 individuals (Johnsgard 1981). Many one-year-old birds remain in the wintering range during the summer. During the winter and migration the species usually forages gregariously (del Hoyo et al. 1996). 
Habitat Breeding In its breeding range it mostly inhabits areas with high but not dense grass and soft soil (del Hoyo et al. 1996, Johnsgard 1981, Schekkerman and Beintema 2007, Tomkovich and Lebedeva 1998), occasionally using sandy areas; although other information suggests it may prefer short vegetation (Laursen and Hald 2012). Its preferred habitats include cattle pastures, hayfields (Johnsgard 1981), lowland wet grasslands, grassy marshland, raised bogs and moorland, lake margins and damp grassy depressions in steppes (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Subspecies islandica shows a distinct preference for large patches of dwarf-birch bog and marsh, particularly with abundant sedge-pools (del Hoyo et al. 1996, Gunnarsson et al. 2006). Extensive farmland habitats are of critical importance for breeding Western European populations (del Hoyo et al. 1996), with young, that grow up in herb-rich meadows recruiting to the breeding population 2.5 times better than young that grow up in monocultures (Kentie et al. 2013). In intensively managed grasslands small shallow pools attract breeding godwits and, in combination with herb rich meadows, may improve breeding succes (Weterings et al. 2015). After the young have fledged, adults and fledglings often move to secondary habitat which more closely resembles that of their non-breeding range, including wet damp areas around fish-ponds and sewage farms, tidal marshes, mud flats and salt-water lagoons (Cramp et al. 1983, Tucker and Heath 1994). Non-breeding Subspecies limosa tends to winter in freshwater habitats, including swampy lake shores, pools, flooded grassland and irrigated rice fields. Subspecies islandica and melanuroides, however, often winter in saline habitats (del Hoyo et al. 1996) such as sheltered estuaries and lagoons with large intertidal mudflats (Johnsgard 1981), sandy beaches, salt-marshes and salt-flats (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Despite these general differences there is considerable overlap in wintering habitat between sympatric populations of subspecies limosa and islandica (Alves et al. 2010, Lopes et al. 2013).  Seasonally-flooded grassland is a critical habitat for the birds wintering in Ireland (Hayhow 2008). Birds on passage in Iberia make much use of rice fields (Lourenço et al. 2010). 
Diet Its diet consists of adult and larval insects (especially beetles), annelid and polychaete worms, molluscs, ragworms, crustaceans, spiders, fish eggs, and the spawn and tadpoles of frogs (Johnsgard 1981, del Hoyo et al. 1996). On the breeding grounds grasshoppers and other orthopterans are often prevalent in the diet (Johnsgard 1981). Particularly during the winter and on migration it will also take plant material including berries, seeds and rice grains (Cramp et al. 1983, Lourenço et al. 2010). On its wintering grounds in Portugal, the bivalve Scrobicularia plana has been found to represent its primary food source (Moreira 1994), while in the salinas of Spain, it mainly feeds on chironomid larvae (Estrella and Masero 2010). Breeding site The nest is placed on the ground in short, often luxurious vegetation (Johnsgard 1981, Cramp et al. 1983, del Hoyo et al. 1996). It consists of a shallow scrape 12-15cm in diameter, lined with a thick mat of stem grass, leaves and other available vegetation (Cramp et al. 1983). Breeding birds show a high degree of nest site fidelity (del Hoyo et al. 1996) and some degree of natal philopatry (Kruk et al. 1998) which is more pronounced among males (Gunnarsson et al. 2011).

Systems:Terrestrial; Freshwater; Marine
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat:Yes
Generation Length (years):8.6
Movement patterns:Full Migrant
Congregatory:Congregatory (and dispersive)

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): Loss of nesting habitat owing to wetland drainage and agricultural intensification, and conversely abandonment in some parts of the range, are the most significant threats (Mischenko 2008, Kentie et al. 2013). Detrimental activities include the conversion of wet meadows to arable land and loss of habitat to development (Tucker and Heath 1994), increased fertilisation and drainage of grassland (Roodbergen and Teunissen 2014), earlier and more frequent cutting as farmers adapt to climate change (Kleijn et al. 2010), spring burning and scrub encroachment (A. Mischenko in litt. 2007) and possibly disturbance by walkers (Holm and Laursen 2009). Increasing populations of predators to possibly unnatural levels is a significant cause of egg and chick mortality in the Netherlands, exacerbated by intensive farming reducing available cover for the species (Schekkerman et al. 2009, Kentie et al. 2015). On intensively grazed pastures, trampling is a major cause of nest loss, and a switch to monoculture on arable land reduces the supply of insects on which the species feeds (Kentie et al. 2013). In some areas, grassland turnover from 'natural, flower-rich, diverse and wet' to silage monoculture leads to a loss of nests with eggs and chicks due to mowing and starvation of chicks due to a lack of food (Schekkerman and Beintema 2007). A study in the central regions of European Russia suggests that significant decline in spring flood levels during two last decades, as a result climate change, has strengthened the negative impact of agricultural abandonment (A. Mischenko in litt. 2016). 
Habitat fragmentation may cause problems for this species, which nests in dispersed colonies and sub-colonies as protection against predators hence productivity may be low in such areas. Indeed, sink locations have been documented for the species, where birds recruited from good quality habitat disperse to low quality habitats (often suffering high predation) effectively losing these individuals to the population. This has repercussions for the effectiveness of agri-environment measures (Kentie et al. 2015, Leigh et al. 2016). There is a marked decrease in the density of breeding birds near to roads, particularly those with heavy traffic (van der Zande et al. 1980, Reijnen et al. 1996). Natal philopatry means that a decrease in local recruitment could prove catastrophic for individual breeding sites (Kruk et al. 1998). The Icelandic population is potentially at risk from the policy of the Icelandic government to encourage afforestion of the lowland habitats where they breed and from ongoing agricultural expansion (Gunnarsson et al. 2006, Gill et al. 2007), although this population has been increasing strongly over recent decades (BirdLife International 2015).
Threats on migration include pollution, human disturbance, habitat reclamation for tidal energy plants, aquaculture ponds, land conversion for agriculture, urban expansion and agricultural intensification at rice paddies. The proposed development of a new airport near Lisbon is likely to have negative implications on an important site for migratory birds (Gill et al. 2007, Masero et al. 2011). Hunting has been another significant threat, although France has now followed the rest of the European Union (EU) in implementing a five-year ban on hunting of the species, beginning in 2008 (I. Burfield in litt. 2008), which was extended in 2013 for a further five years. Outside the EU, for example on the African wintering grounds, hunting is known to occur but its scale and impact is unknown. Water pollution is probably an issue in parts of the species range (H. Hötker in litt. 2005), although the effects of the release of some pollutants, like untreated sewage, on this species may be minor as long as there are several alternative prey present at a site (Alves et al. 2012). In Egypt there are plans to increase the depth of the sailing channel of the Nile, impacting upon this species's habitat there (H. Ibrahim in litt. 2016). Drought in the West African wintering quarters may have had negative impacts on the mainland European population (Tucker and Heath 1994) in conjunction with the extensive drainage of wetlands in this area, for energy production, water storage and agriculture (Gill et al. 2007). Invasive plants may also degrade wintering habitat in Australia (Garnett et al. 2011). Studies of islandica godwits have shown that individuals breeding in the habitats where productivity is higher also winter in the areas where survival is higher (Gunnarsson et al. 2005), therefore maintaining high quality wintering sites is crucial to raising productivity on breeding grounds. 

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions: Conservation Actions Underway
EU Birds Directive Annex II. An EU management plan for 2007-2009 was adopted, and an AEWA action plan replaced it at the end of 2008 (Anon. 2008). Intensive management of breeding habitat has been carried out in some Western European countries (H. Hötker in litt. 2005), and a number of agri-environment schemes focus on this species, although results have been mixed (Musters et al. 2001, S. Nagy in litt. 2005, A. Mischenko in litt. 2007, Verhulst et al. 2007). A number of significant wintering areas are protected areas, as are several breeding sites in the UK and the Netherlands. 

Conservation Actions Proposed
Obtain more quantitative data on status, population trends and conservation requirements outside Europe. Carry out research on survival, recruitment, breeding and migration (Gill et al. 2007). Critically evaluate the effectiveness of current conservation action. In the EU, use a mixture of agri-environment schemes, direct payments to wader-friendly farmers (Musters et al. 2001) and large reserves to secure protection and appropriate management of breeding habitat. The coverage of agri-environment schemes in Europe should be increased (Kleijn et al. 2010) and increases in groundwater depth should be prioritised as an outcome (Verhulst et al. 2007). New nature reserves should be established on important sites throughout the species range, and there should be attempts to get greater coverage of key areas for this species within in the Special Protection Areas network (van der Vliet et al. 2015). Manage existing reserves appropriately: prescriptions include avoiding drainage of existing wet meadows, raising water tables where necessary, low-level use of organic fertiliser, low intensity grazing, late mowing, and prevention of succession to bushy vegetation. Winter flooding is sometimes recommended but may reduce numbers of invertebrate prey (Gunnarsson et al. 2005). On intensively farmed land, maintenance of unfertilised field margins has been shown to have positive effects (Oosterveld et al. 2009). Investigate the potential for using a 'headstarting' approach to increase survival to fledging (J. Gill in litt. 2016). Prevent afforestation of lowland breeding habitat in Iceland. Prevent a loss of key breeding areas due to abandonment of grasslands and meadows in east Europe and Russian Far East. Monitor human disturbance as a threat. 
Ensure that migratory staging posts and winter feeding habitats and roosts are conserved and monitored, and knowledge of them is improved (Estrella and Masero 2010). Designate a special protection area at Extremadura's rice fields, which is a key stopover site (Masero et al. 2011). Manage artificial habitats appropriately, e.g. maintain low water levels in salinas such that they are available to foraging godwits (Estrella and Masero 2010), and block drainage to retain water in Iberian rice fields (Lourenço and Piersma 2008a). Protect important Yellow Sea tidal flats in China and South Korea. Engage with governments and local people throughout its migration routes. Effectively enforce the EU-wide ban on hunting until there is clear evidence that the population has returned to a favourable conservation status. Safeguard habitats in West Africa and Iberia, perhaps by offering support to rice producers (Gill et al. 2007). Collaborate with farmers and hunters, carrying out environmental education and outreach work where appropriate. Restore wetland sites in Australia (Garnett et al. 2011). Ensure recognition as a protected animal throughout range (Hancock 2008).

Amended [top]

Amended reason: Added information into the Geographic range, Habitats and ecology, Threats, Conservation Actions and Population Trend text fields, and updated the global references. Also edited Threats Information text, and added an extra threat. Edited seasonality of occurrence for some countries, and altered the Actions Needed. Added new Contributors and new Facilitators/Compilers.

Classifications [top]

4. Grassland -> 4.4. Grassland - Temperate
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:Yes
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.4. Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands
suitability:Suitable season:non-breeding major importance:Yes
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.4. Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:No
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.6. Wetlands (inland) - Seasonal/Intermittent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha)
suitability:Suitable season:non-breeding major importance:No
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.8. Wetlands (inland) - Seasonal/Intermittent Freshwater Marshes/Pools (under 8ha)
season:non-breeding 
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.10. Marine Neritic - Estuaries
suitability:Suitable season:non-breeding major importance:Yes
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.4. Marine Intertidal - Mud Flats and Salt Flats
suitability:Suitable season:non-breeding major importance:Yes
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.5. Marine Intertidal - Salt Marshes (Emergent Grasses)
suitability:Suitable season:non-breeding major importance:No
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
suitability:Suitable season:non-breeding major importance:No
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:No
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.5. Artificial/Terrestrial - Urban Areas
season:breeding 
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
3. Species management -> 3.4. Ex-situ conservation -> 3.4.1. Captive breeding/artificial propagation
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.1. International level
6. Livelihood, economic & other incentives -> 6.1. Linked enterprises & livelihood alternatives
6. Livelihood, economic & other incentives -> 6.4. Conservation payments

In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
  Action Recovery plan:Yes
  Systematic monitoring scheme:Yes
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
  Conservation sites identified:Yes, over entire range
  Occur in at least one PA:Yes
  Invasive species control or prevention:No
In-Place Species Management
  Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly:No
  Subject to ex-situ conservation:No
In-Place Education
  Subject to recent education and awareness programmes:No
  Included in international legislation:Yes
  Subject to any international management/trade controls:No
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1. Housing & urban areas
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.2. Commercial & industrial areas
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.3. Tourism & recreation areas
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.1. Habitat shifting & alteration
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry farming
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 6 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming & ranching -> 2.3.3. Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 6 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming & ranching -> 2.3.4. Scale Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.4. Marine & freshwater aquaculture -> 2.4.2. Industrial aquaculture
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

3. Energy production & mining -> 3.3. Renewable energy
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

4. Transportation & service corridors -> 4.1. Roads & railroads
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

4. Transportation & service corridors -> 4.4. Flight paths
♦ timing:Future ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Rapid Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is the target)
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Rapid Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 6 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1. Recreational activities
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.3. Work & other activities
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire suppression -> 7.1.1. Increase in fire frequency/intensity
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water management/use -> 7.2.4. Abstraction of surface water (unknown use)
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water management/use -> 7.2.8. Abstraction of ground water (unknown use)
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.1. Unspecified species
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.2. Problematic native species/diseases -> 8.2.2. Named species [ Mustela nivalis_old ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.2. Problematic native species/diseases -> 8.2.2. Named species [ Mustela erminea ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

9. Pollution -> 9.2. Industrial & military effluents -> 9.2.3. Type Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends

Bibliography [top]

Alves, J. A.; Lourenço, P. M.; Piersma, T.; Sutherland, W. J.; Gill, J. A. 2010. Population overlap and habitat segregation in wintering Black-tailed Godwits Limosa limosa. Bird Study 57(3): 381-391.

Alves, J. A.; Sutherland, W. J.; Gill, J. A. 2012. Will improving wastewater treatment impact shorebirds? Effects of sewage discharges on estuarine invertebrates and birds. Anim. Conserv. 15: 44-52.

Anon. 2008. New action plans for the Black-tailed Godwit and the Eurasian Spoonbill. AEWA Newsletter: 11.

Bamford, M.J.; Watkins, D. G.; Bancroft, W.; Tischler, G.; Wahl. J. 2008. Migratory shorebirds of the East Asian-Australasian flyway: population estimates and important sites. Wetlands International.

BirdLife International. 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K.

BirdLife International. 2015. European Red List of Birds. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Cramp, S.; Simmons, K. E. L. 1983. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The birds of the western Palearctic vol. III: waders to gulls. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., and Sargatal, J. 1996. Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 3: Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.

Dutson, G. 2011. Birds of Melanesia: Bismarcks, Solomons, Vanuatu and New Caledonia. Christopher Helm, London.

Estrella, S. M.; Masero, J. A. 2010. Prey and prey size selection by the Near-threatened Black-tailed Godwit foraging in non-tidal areas during migration. Waterbirds 33(3): 293-299.

Garnett, S. T.; Szabo, J. K.; Dutson, G. 2011. The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Gill, J. A.; Langston, R. H. W.; Alves, J. A.; Atkinson, P. W.; Bocher, P.; Vieria, N. C.; Crockford, N. J.; Gélinaud, G.; Groen, N.; Gunnarsson, T. G.; Hayhow, B.; Hooijmeijer, J.; Kentie, R.; Kleijn, D.; Lourenco, P. M.; Masero, J. A.; Meunier, F. 2007. Contrasting trends in two Black-tailed Godwit populations: a review of causes and recommendations. Wader Study Group Bulletin: 43-50.

Gunnarsson, T. G.; Gill, J. A.; Appleton, G. F.; Gíslason, H.; Gardarsson, A.; Watkinson, A. R.; W.J. Sutherland, W. J. 2006. Large-scale habitat associations of birds in lowland Iceland: Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 128: 265-275.

Gunnarsson, T. G.; Gill, J. A.; Newton, J.; Potts, P.M.; Sutherland, W.J. 2005. Seasonal matching of habitat quality and fitness in migratory birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 272: 2319-2323.

Gunnarsson, T. P.; Sutherland, W. J.; Alves, J. A.; Potts, P. M.; Gill, J. A. 2011. Rapid changes in phenotype distribution during range expansion in a migratory bird. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 279: doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0939.

Hancock, P. 2008. Black-tailed Godwit. In: Hancock, P. (ed.), The status of globally and nationally threatened birds in Botswana, 2008., pp. 25. BirdLife Botswana.

Hayhow, B. 2008. Food for the gods. I-Webs News: 2.

Höglund, J.; Johansson, T.; Beintema, A.; Schekkerman, H. 2009. Phylogeography of the Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa: substructuring revealed by mtDNA control region sequences. Journal of Ornithology 150(1): 45-53.

Holm, T. E.; Laursen, K. 2009. Experimental disturbance by walkers affects behaviour and territory density of nesting Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa. Ibis 151(1): 77-87.

IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 07 December 2016).

IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 27 April 2017).

Johnsgard, P. A. 1981. The plovers, sandpipers and snipes of the world. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, U.S.A. and London.

Kentie, R., Duijns, S., Seijger, C., Booij, P., Sjollema, S., van Loon, J., Saraiva, S. and van Klink, R. 2015. Spatial demography of black-tailed godwits: metapopulation dynamics in a fragmented agricultural landscape. University of Groningen.

Kentie, R., Hooijmeijer, J. C., Trimbos, K. B., Groen, N. M. and Piersma, T. 2013. Intensified agricultural use of grasslands reduces growth and survival of precocial shorebird chicks. Journal of Applied Ecology 50(1): 243-251.

Kentie, R.; Senner, N. R.; Hooijmeijer, J. C. E. W.; Márquez- Ferrando, R.; Figuerola, J.; Masero, J. A.; Verhoeven, M. A.; Piersma, T. 2016. Estimating the size of the Dutch breeding population of Continental Black-tailed Godwits from 2007–2015 using resighting data from spring staging sites. Ardea 114: 213-225.

Kleijn, D.; Schekkerman, H.; Dimmers, W. J.; Van Kats, R. J.. M.; Melman, D.; Teunissen, W. A. 2010. Adverse effects of agricultural intensification and climate change on breeding habitat quality of Black-tailed Godwits Limosa l. limosa in the Netherlands. Ibis 152: 475-486.

Kruk, M., Noordervliet, M.A.W. and Ter Keurs, W.J. 1998. Natal philopatry in the black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa l. and its possible implications for conservation. Ringing and Migration 19(1): 13-16.

Laursen, K.; Hald, A. B. 2012. Identification of Black-tailed Godwit’s Limosa limosa breeding habitat by botanical and environmental indicators. J. Ornithol. 153: 1141-1152.

Leigh, S.G., Smart, J., and Gill, J.A. 2017. Impacts of grassland management on wader nest predation rates in adjacent nature reserves. Animal Conservation 20(1): 61-71.

Li, Z.W.D, A. Bloem, S. Delany, G. Martakis & J.O. Quintero. 2009. Status of Waterbirds in Asia - Results of the Asian Waterbird Census: 1987-2007. Wetlands International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Lopes, R. J., Alves, J. A., Gill, J. A., Gunnarsson, T. G., Hooijmeijer, J. C. E. W., Lourenço, P. M., Masero, J. A., Piersma, T., Potts, P. M., Rabaçal, B., Reis, S., Sánchez-Guzman, J. M., Santiago-Quesada, F. & Villegas, A. 2013. Do different subspecies of Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa overlap in Iberian wintering and staging areas? Validation with genetic markers. J. Ornithol. 154(1): 35-40.

Lourenço, P. M.; Mandema, F. S.; Hooijmeijer, J. C. E. W.; Granadeiro, J. P.; Piersma, T. 2010. Site selection and resource depletion in black-tailed godwits Limosa l. limosa eating rice during northward migration. J. Anim. Ecol. 79(3): 522-528.

Lourenço, P. M.; Piersma, T. 2008. Changes in the non-breeding distribution of continental Black-tailed Godwits Limosa limosa limosa over 50 years: a synthesis of surveys. Wader Study Group Bulletin 115(2): 91-97.

Lourenço, P. M.; Piersma, T. 2008. Stopover ecology of Black-tailed Godwits Limosa limosa limosa in Portugese rice fields: a guide on where to feed in winter. Bird Study 55(2): 194-202.

Masero, J. A.; Santiago-Queseda, F.; Sámchez-Guzmán, J. M.; Villegas, A.; Abad-Gómez, J. M.; Lopes, R. J.; Encarnação, V.; Corbacho, C.; Morán, R. 2011. Long lengths of stay, large numbers, and trends of the Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa in rice fields during spring migration. Bird Conservation International 21(1): 12-24.

Moreira, F. 1994. Diet, prey-size selection and intake rates of black-tailed godwits. Ibis 136: 349-355.

Musters, C.J.M., Kruk, M., De Graaf, H.J. and Ter Keurs, W.J. 2001. Breeding birds as a farm product. Conservation Biology 15(2): 363-369.

Oomen, P. 2008. Save the king! Alula 14(1): 22-29.

Oosterveld, E. B.; de Hoop, P.; de Jong, R. 2016. Resultaten agrarisch weidevogelbeheer Fryslân. Jaarrapport 2015. A&W-rapport 2169. Altenburg & Wymenga ecologisch onderzoek, Feanwâlden.

Oosterveld, E. B.; Van Lierop, S.; Sikkema, M. 2009. Use of unfertilised margins on intensively managed grassland by Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa and Redshank Tringa totanus chicks. Wader Study Group Bulletin 116(2): 69-74.

Perennou, C. P.; Mundkur, T.; Scott, D. A. 1994. The Asian Waterfowl Census 1987-1991: distribution and status of Asian waterfowl. IWRB and AWB, Slimbridge and Kuala Lumpur.

Reijnen, R., Foppen, R., Meeuwsen, H. 1996. The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural grasslands . Biological Conservation 75(3): 255-260.

Roodbergen, M. and Teunissen, W. 2014. Meadow bird conservation in The Netherlands – lessons from the past and future developments. Vogelwelt 135: 29-34.

Schekkerman, H.; Beintema, A. J. 2007. Abundance of invertebrates and foraging success of Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa chicks in relation to agricultural grassland management. Ardea 95(1): 39-54.

Schekkerman, H.; Teunissen, W.; Oosterveld, E. 2009. Mortality of Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa and Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus chicks in wet grasslands: influence of predation and agriculture. Journal of Ornithology 150(1): 133-145.

Stroud, D. A.; Davidson, N. C.; West, R.; Scott, D. A.; Haanstra, L.; Thorup, O.; Ganter, B.; Delany, S. 2004. Status of migratory wader populations in African and Western Eurasia in the 1990s. International Wader Studies 15: 1-259.

Tomkovich P. S.; Lebedeva E. A. 1998. Breeding waders in Eastern Europe – 2000. Vol. 1. RBCU, Moscow.

Triplet, P.; Mahéo, R.; Le Dréan-Quénec'dhu, S. 2007. La Barge à Queue Noire Limosa limosa islandica hivernant en France - Littoral Manche-Atlantique, 1977-2006. Alauda 75(4): 389-398.

Tucker, G.M. and Heath, M.F. 1994. Birds in Europe: their conservation status. BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K.

van der Vliet, R. E.; Valluerca, I. O.; van Dijk, J.; Wassen, J. 2015. EU protection is inadequate for a declining flyway population of Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa: mismatch between future core breeding areas and existing Special Protection Areas. Bird Conservation International 25: 111-125.

Van der Zande, A. N., Ter Keurs, J. & Van der Weijden, W. J. 1980. The impact of roads on the densities of four bird species in an open field habitat -- evidence of a long distance effect. Biol. Conserv. 18: 299-321.

Van Gils, J., Wiersma, P., Christie, D.A. & Garcia, E.F.J. 2017. Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E (ed.), Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. (retrieved from http://www.hbw.com/node/53888 on 17 February 2017)..

Verhulst, J., Kleijn, D., Berendse, F. 2007. Direct and indirect effects of the most widely implemented Dutch agri-environment schemes on breeding waders. J. Appl. Ecol. 44: 70–80.

Watkins, D. 1993. A national plan for shorebird conservation in Australia. Australasian Wader Studies Group, Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union and World Wide Fund for Nature, Canberra.

Weterings, S.; Oosterveld, E.; Oud. H. 2015. Effecten van plas-dras op weidevogels in Noordoost-Fryslân en de rol in netwerkpopulaties. De Levende Natuur 116(2): 59-64.

Wetlands International. 2012. Waterbird Population Estimates: Fifth Edition. Summary Report. Edited by Taej Mundkur and Szabolcs Nagy. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Wetlands International. 2016. Waterbird Population Estimates. Available at: wpe.wetlands.org.

Wetlands International. 2017. Waterbird Population Estimates. Available at: wpe.wetlands.org.


Citation: BirdLife International. 2017. Limosa limosa (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22693150A111611637. . Downloaded on 21 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