Download Vanellus gregarius, Sociable Lapwing

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T22694053A49817915
Vanellus gregarius, Sociable Lapwing
Assessment by: BirdLife International
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: BirdLife International. 2013. Vanellus gregarius. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2013: e.T22694053A49817915. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20132.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
Copyright: © 2015 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: BirdLife
International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Animalia
Chordata
Aves
Charadriiformes
Charadriidae
Taxon Name: Vanellus gregarius (Pallas, 1771)
Synonym(s):
• Chettusia gregaria gregaria Cramp and Simmons (1977-1994)
• Chettusia gregaria gregaria Collar and Andrew (1988)
Regional Assessments:
• Europe
Common Name(s):
• English:
• French:
Sociable Lapwing, Sociable Plover
Vanneau sociable
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.
Identification Information:
27-30 cm. Strikingly patterned plover. Adult greyish with black and chestnut belly. White supercilium
and black crown and eye-stripe. Winter adult brownish but retains supercilium and crown pattern.
Juvenile brown, slightly scalloped above, and streaked black below with large white supercilium. Similar
spp. White-tailed Lapwing V. leucurus lacks supercilium and crown patch, has longer legs and no black
subterminal tail-band. Voice Harsh kretsch kretsch and a rapid chattering.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Critically Endangered A3bcd+4bcd ver 3.1
Year Published:
2013
Date Assessed:
November 1, 2013
Justification:
This species is listed as Critically Endangered because its population has undergone a very rapid
reduction, for reasons that are poorly understood; this decline is projected to continue and increase in
the future. Fieldwork in Kazakhstan (and counts in Turkey and the Middle East) has shown the
population to be substantially larger than previously feared, but recent demographic studies have found
low adult survival, possibly largely driven by hunting pressure along the migration routes and wintering
grounds.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2012 – Critically Endangered (CR)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
1
2010 – Critically Endangered (CR)
2009 – Critically Endangered (CR)
2008 – Critically Endangered (CR)
2006 – Critically Endangered (CR)
2004 – Critically Endangered (CR)
2000 – Vulnerable (VU)
1996 – Vulnerable (VU)
1994 – Vulnerable (VU)
1988 – Threatened (T)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
Vanellus gregarius breeds in northern and central Kazakhstan and south-central Russia (and, at least
formerly, Xinjiang province, western China [Kamp et al. 2010]), dispersing through Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi
Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Egypt, to key wintering sites in Israel, Eritrea, Sudan (see below) and northwest India (e.g. 45 birds in the Little Rann of Kutch in November 2007 [Deomurari 2007] and 30 at Great
Rann of Kutch in November 2008 [J. Tiwari in litt. 2008]). Birds winter occasionally in Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
Oman and UAE. The species has suffered a very rapid decline and range contraction. In northern
Kazakhstan a decline of 40% during 1930-1960 was followed by a further halving of numbers during
1960-1987.
More recent fieldwork has shown the population to be larger than once feared. Surveys in 2006 in
Kazakhstan counted 376 breeding pairs in an area of 145,000 km2. Extrapolating this population density
across the breeding range yields a possible total population size of 5,600 breeding pairs (Sheldon et al.
2006), i.e. 11,200 mature individuals. A satellite-tagged bird from central Kazakhstan was located in
Turkey in October 2007 in a flock of 3,200 individuals (R. Sheldon in litt. 2007, 2008, Biricik 2009), even
larger than the total of simultaneous counts of over 1,500, maybe as high as 2,000, in northern Syria and
1,000 individuals in south-eastern Turkey in March 2007 (Anon. 2007, Bozdogan et al. 2007, Hofland and
Keijl 2008). Two tagged birds were then tracked to wintering quarters in Sudan in February 2008 (P.
Donald and R. Sheldon verbally 2008), indicating that the sites in the Middle East are used for stopping
over en route to Africa. Surveys in September 2009 confirmed the importance of the Manych depression
in south Russia as a stopover site with estimates of up to 2,000 individuals (Koshkin 2010). Estimates of
productivity and survival on core breeding grounds in central Kazakhstan between 2005-2012 suggest
that the population is in slight to severe decline, with a mean annual estimate of population growth rate
of 0.81 (95 % C.I. 0.64–0.98), while after five years of relative stability the number of nests in the same
area declined rapidly after 2010 (Sheldon et al. 2013). However, breeding site fidelity and natal
philopatry were low and colonies fluctuated greatly in size between years, making estimation of
population trends and survival difficult (Sheldon et al. 2013).
Country Occurrence:
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
2
Native: Afghanistan; Armenia (Armenia); Azerbaijan; Georgia; India; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Israel;
Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Lebanon; Oman; Pakistan; Palestinian Territory, Occupied; Qatar;
Russian Federation; Saudi Arabia; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Turkey;
Turkmenistan; United Arab Emirates; Uzbekistan
Possibly extinct: Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Eritrea; Ethiopia
Vagrant: Austria; Bahrain; Belarus; Belgium; Bulgaria; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Egypt; Finland;
France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Kuwait; Luxembourg; Maldives; Malta; Mongolia;
Morocco; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Seychelles; Slovakia; Slovenia; Somalia; Spain;
Sweden; Switzerland; United Kingdom; Yemen
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
3
Distribution Map
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
4
Population
Surveys in 2006 in Kazakhstan estimated 376 breeding pairs in an area of 145,000 km2. Extrapolating this
population density across the breeding range yields a possible total population size of 5,600 breeding
pairs, i.e. 11,200 mature individuals, roughly equivalent to 16,000-17,000 individuals in total; but work is
continuing in order to refine this estimate. This total is consistent with record counts of 3,200 individuals
in Turkey in October 2007.
Trend Justification
It has suffered a very rapid decline and range contraction. In northern Kazakhstan, a decline of 40%
during 1930-1960, was followed by a further halving of numbers during 1960-1987. However, recent
fieldwork in central Kazakhstan (centred on Korgalzhyn), suggests that the population trend is now
stable and possibly starting to increase (e.g. the number of nests in a constant survey area around
Korgalzhyn increased from 85 in 2005 to 107 in 2006 and 113 in 2007 (Sheldon et al. 2005, M. A.
Koshkin, J. Kamp and R. D. Sheldon in litt. 2007); similarly numbers of nests in a constant area of 10,000
km2 around Pavlodar, north-east Kazakhstan were 67 in 1985, 55 in 1991, and 140 in 2007 (J. Kamp in
litt. 2007). It is not known if this is a consistent trend across the species's range however, and a global
decline of >50% is still precautionarily inferred for the past 27 years (three generations), with an even
steeper decline projected for the next three generations owing to potentially severe threats. Further
fieldwork may provide data that leads to revision of these estimates.
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
Behaviour This species is migratory (del Hoyo et al. 1996). It breeds semi-colonially in small groups of 320 pairs (del Hoyo et al. 1996) from mid-April until July, and begins the migration south in August or
September (del Hoyo et al. 1996) (occasionally as late as October [R. Sheldon in litt. 2007, 2008]). Flocks
of several thousand birds have been known to gather before migration in Siberia and Kazakhstan
(Johnsgard 1981, R. Sheldon in litt. 2007, 2008), but migration itself usually occurs in small groups of 1520 birds (Johnsgard 1981, del Hoyo et al. 1996). In Syria, it arrives yearly around mid-February to late
March, and again in Autumn (Hofland and Keijl 2008). It arrives on its wintering grounds in India and
Pakistan by September-October, and in Sudan by late October (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Small flocks of
similar size to those observed on migration are usual on the wintering grounds (strong style="fontweight: normal;">Johnsgard 1981), although very occasionally larger flocks of over 100 birds have been
recorded (strong style="font-weight: normal;">Johnsgard 1981). It departs the wintering grounds in
March or early April, arriving on its breeding range from mid April (del Hoyo et al. 1996).
Habitat Breeding It breeds mainly in the transition zones between Stipa and Artemisia grassland steppes
where bare saline areas occur near water-bodies. It uses dry wasteland, cultivated, ploughed and
stubble fields (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Nests are preferentially placed in areas of Artemisia where there is
a high dung abundance and vegetation is short (Watson et al. 2006). Steppes that are densely vegetated
may be avoided (strong style="font-weight: normal;">Johnsgard 1981), however areas with a low
percentage of bare ground and high percentage of tall vegetation are preferred by chicks, and may be
important for providing cover from predators (Watson et al. 2006). It has been postulated that it evolved
to nest in habitats created by migratory Saiga Saiga tatarica (e.g. Watson et al. 2006), but this is unlikely
given the timing of Saiga movements relative to Sociable Lapwing breeding, the speed with which they
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
5
pass through areas, and the very short swards favoured by the birds; nevertheless Saiga grazing
combined with fires may have promoted optimal habitat (Kamp 2007). Suitable habitat probably
occurred naturally in sparsely vegetated solonchaks and areas recently burnt by steppe fires, but are
now most abundant in the periphery of villages, at least in central Kazakhstan (M. A. Koshkin, J. Kamp
and R. D. Sheldon in litt. 2007). Around such villages, there is a strong positive correlation between
grazing intensity and the density of nests (Kamp et al. 2009). Non-breeding On migration it uses mainly
sandy plains with short grass, dry meadows, fallow land and cultivated fields (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The
wintering grounds are burnt steppe and savannah, dry plains, sandy wastes, harvested millet fields,
damp pastures and short grass areas, often adjacent to water (del Hoyo et al. 1996). In Arabia it often
occurs in the desert near the coast (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Nest survival in central Kazakhstan between
2005 and 2012 was higher closer to human settlements, despite higher trampling rates, and when there
were more neighbouring nests, but distance to settlements and colony density both varied
systematically between years (Sheldon et al. 2013).
Diet It feeds chiefly on insects including Orthoptera, Coleoptera, and moth larvae (del Hoyo et al. 1996).
It also takes arachnids and frequently small amounts of plant matter including grains, leaves and flowers
(del Hoyo et al. 1996). Small stones are often found in the stomach, occasionally along with the remains
of small vertebrate bones and mollusc shells (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The diet is more varied during the
breeding season, being limited mainly to orthopterans and other insects during the non-breeding
season (del Hoyo et al. 1996).
Breeding site The nest is a scrape that is unlined or lined with plant material, pebbles and debris (del
Hoyo et al. 1996). It is usually found on bare saline patches or in short vegetation near to water (del
Hoyo et al. 1996). Nest survival during the egg stage varies between years, owing to varying levels of
predation by fox Vulpes vulpes, polecat, long-eared hedgehog and souslik species, and trampling by
cattle, and in particular, sheep and goats (M. A. Koshkin, J. Kamp and R. D. Sheldon in litt. 2007).
Systems: Terrestrial
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
Key factors explaining the magnitude of declines remain poorly understood, despite much recent
research. On the breeding grounds, it was probably formerly threatened by the conversion of steppe to
arable cultivation, plus, perhaps less likely, the reduction in grazing by large herds of native ungulates
and, latterly, by the loss of the enormous herds of domestic grazing animals from state-sponsored
collective farms (Eichhorn and Khrokov 2002, Watson et al. 2006). However, since the collapse of the
Soviet Union, large areas of arable cultivation have been abandoned and are reverting to natural steppe
habitat, herds of domestic livestock have become concentrated around villages (where their permanent
presence leads to shorter swards than were created by the vast herds that grazed semi-nomadically
under the Soviet system), while an increase in fires (owing to reduced control of fires) may also have
contributed to an increase in suitable habitat. These factors may be behind the possible increase in
numbers (at least in parts of Kazakhstan) in recent years (Watson et al. 2006, M. A. Koshkin, J. Kamp and
R. D. Sheldon in litt. 2007).
Concentration of nests in heavily grazed areas in the vicinity of villages may have increased threats from
human disturbance and trampling by sheep, goats and possibly other livestock (Watson et al. 2006, M.
A. Koshkin, J. Kamp and R. D. Sheldon in litt. 2007). Low egg survival due to nesting in areas of high
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
6
grazer density has been suggested as one of the causes for the species' decline (Watson et al. 2006).
Nest predation by Rooks Corvus frugilegus - which have expanded widely into the breeding range with
the plantation of networks of shelter-belts (Belik 2005) - was previously suggested as a cause of
declines, but data from central Kazakhstan indicate this is unlikely (Watson et al. 2006, M. A. Koshkin, J.
Kamp and R. D. Sheldon in litt. 2007). The species may be affected by the increasingly dry climate in its
breeding and wintering range, but it is not clear if this benefits or threatens this semi-desert species
(Watson et al. 2006).
Illegal hunting during migration and on the wintering grounds may now be the primary threat (M. A.
Koshkin, J. Kamp and R. D. Sheldon in litt. 2007, Biricik et al. 2008). Data from 2005-2012 suggest that
low adult survival, perhaps resulting from known hunting pressure along the migration routes, appears
to be the most critical demographic rate (Sheldon et al. 2013).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
Conservation Actions Underway
CMS Appendix I and II. An international species action plan was published in 2004. It is legally protected
in Armenia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, but this is generally not enforced
(Belik 2005). An intensive research project at the breeding sites in central Kazakhstan has been running
since 2004 (Cresswell et al. 2005, Watson et al. 2006). In 2005 the Sociable Lapwing research project
was initiated in Kazakhstan by a team from the RSPB and the Association for the Biodiversity Protection
in Kazakhstan (ACBK) in order to understand the causes of the species's decline. In 2006 the team
secured funding through the UK Government's Darwin Initiative programme that will allow work to
continue until 2009. A survey of historical breeding sites in the South Urals was conducted in 2005
(Morozov and Kornev 2005) and another at passage sites in south-west Russia was carried out in 2006
(Field et al. 2006). Coordinated counts were undertaken at key passage/wintering sites in Syria and
Turkey in March 2007 (Anon. 2007). A project was initiated in Turkey in 2008 to gain a better
understanding of stopover sites used by the species in Turkey during migration (Biricik et al. 2008). A
satellite-tagging project began in central Kazahstan aims to provide information on the species’s
migration. Hunting in Syria has been identified as a major threat with measures being implemented to
control it. The inaugural meeting of the International Sociable Lapwing Working Group was held in
Palmyra, Syria in March 2011. The group agreed on conservation measures required by each country,
and planned cross-border actions to protect the species across its extensive range.
Conservation Actions Proposed
Continue research in Kazakhstan (and initiate in Russia) on breeding biology, habitat requirements and
migration, including colour-ringing and satellite tracking to determine movements. Continue surveys of
breeding range in Kazakhstan, potential breeding range in Russia and western China, and
wintering/passage sites in Middle East and Africa (including determining periods when birds are
present). Continue to monitor trends on breeding grounds and at key passage/winter sites. Identify and
evaluate key threats on breeding, passage and wintering grounds. Investigate the importance of hunting
on passage/wintering grounds. Review International Species Action Plan in the light of recent research
on the breeding grounds and identification of key passage/wintering sites. Develop national species
action plans, at least for Kazakhstan and key passage/wintering countries. At breeding colonies sensitive
to trampling by sheep during nesting period, work with local shepherds to minimise disturbance.
Control hunting on wintering/passage sites.
Credits
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
7
Assessor(s):
BirdLife International
Reviewer(s):
Butchart, S.
Contributor(s):
Al-Jbour, S., Balkiz, O., Donald, P., Hofland, R., Kamp, J., Khrokov, V., Koshkin, M.,
Morozov, V., Sheldon, R. & Tavares, J.
Facilitators(s) and
Compiler(s):
Benstead, P., Butchart, S., Calvert, R., Ekstrom, J., Pilgrim, J., Pople, R. & Symes, A.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
8
Bibliography
Anon. 2007. Sociable Lapwing "jackpot". World Birdwatch 29(2): 4.
Belik, V. P. 2005. The Sociable Lapwing in Eurasia: what does the future hold? British Birds 98: 476-485.
Biricik, M. 2009. Unexpectedly large number of Sociable Lapwings Vanellus gregarius on autumn
migration in Turkey and some remarks on the stopover site. Sandgrouse 31(1): 15-17.
Biricik, M.; Deniz, H.; Mungan, R.; Akarsu, F.; Ataol, M.; Balkiz, O. 2008. Sociable Lapwing (Vanellus
gregarius) 2008 field report.
Bozdogan, M.; Balkiz, O.; Tavares, J. 2007. Survey of Social Lapwing (Vanellus gregarius) in southeastern
Anatolia during early Spring 2007.
Collar, N. J.; Crosby, M. J.; Stattersfield, A. J. 1994. Birds to watch 2: the world list of threatened birds.
BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K.
Cresswell, W.; Donald. P; Khrokov, V. 2005. Ongoing research on Sociable Lapwings - an update. British
Birds 98: 496-497.
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.
Deomurari, A. 2007. Western India: Gujarat Kutch Birding and Wildlife Tour, November 2007..
Eichhorn, G.; Khrokov, V. V. 2002. Decline in breeding Sociable Plover Chettusia gregaria in the steppes
of Naurzum and Korgalzhyn, Kazakhstan. Sandgrouse 24: 22-27.
Field, R.; Gordon, J.; Kushkin, M.; Field, K.; Gordon, O.; Kucheryavaya, N.; Fedosov, V.; Malovichko, L.
2006. Preliminary surveys of Chagraiskoje reservoir, south-west Russian Federation, for Sociable Lapwing
Vanellus gregarius.
Hofland, R.; Keijl, G. 2008. Syrian Sociable Lapwing survey. Foundation Working Group International
Waterbird and Wetland Research, Beek-Ubbergen, The Netherlands.
IUCN. 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2013.2). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 13 November 2013).
Johnsgard, P. A. 1981. The plovers, sandpipers and snipes of the world. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln, U.S.A. and London.
Kamp, J. 2007. Habitat selection of the Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarius in Central Kazakhstan - a
modelling approach. Diploma, Carl von Ossietzky Universität.
Kamp, J.; Sheldon, R. D.; Koshkin, M. A.; Donald, P. F.; Biedermann, R. 2009. Post-Soviet steppe
management causes pronounced synanthropy in the globally threatened Sociable Lapwing Vanellus
gregarius. Ibis 151: 452-463.
Morozov, V.V.; Kornev, S.V. 2005. Survey of the Sociable Plover Vanellus gregarius in the South Urals, May
2005. Wader Study Group Bulletin 108: 27.
Murdoch, D. and Blair, M. 2007. Photospot: sociable lapwing (Vanellus gregarious) in Syria. Sandgrouse
29(1): 97-98.
Sheldon, R. D.; Grishina, K. V.; Kamp, J.; Khrokov, V. V.; Knight, A.; Kushkin, M. A. 2006. Revising the
breeding population estimate and distribution of the Critically Endangered Sociable Lapwing Vanellus
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
9
gregarius.
Sheldon, R. D.; Kamp, J.; Koshkin, M. A.; Urazaliev, R. S.; Iskakov, T. K.; Field, R. H.; Salemgareev, A. R.;
Khrokov, V. V.; Zhuly, V. A.; Sklyarenko, S. L.; Donald, P. F. 2013. Breeding ecology of the globally
threatened Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarius and the demographic drivers of recent declines. Journal
of Ornithology 154(2): 501-516.
Sheldon, R.; Koshkin, M.; Kamp, J.; Khrokov, V.; Donald, P. 2005. Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarius preliminary fieldwork report 2005.
Tomkovich, P. S.; Lebedeva, E. 2002. International Action Plan for social lapwing.
Tucker, G.M. and Heath, M.F. 1994. Birds in Europe: their conservation status. BirdLife International,
Cambridge, U.K.
Watson, M.; Wilson, J. M.; Koshkin, M.; Sherbakov, B.; Karpov, F.; Gavrilov, A.; Schielzeth, H.;
Brombacher, M.; Collar, N.J.; Cresswell, W. 2006. Nest survival and productivity of the critically
endangered Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarius. Ibis 148: 489-502.
Citation
BirdLife International. 2013. Vanellus gregarius. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013:
e.T22694053A49817915. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
10
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat
Season
Suitability
Major
Importance?
4. Grassland -> 4.4. Grassland - Temperate
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.5. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.14. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Saline, Brackish
or Alkaline Lakes
Breeding
Suitable
No
8. Desert -> 8.2. Desert - Temperate
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
Breeding
Suitable
No
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
Nonbreeding
Suitable
No
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat
Timing
Scope
Severity
Impact Score
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry
farming
Past,
unlikely to
return
Majority (5090%)
Rapid declines
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming
& ranching -> 2.3.1. Nomadic grazing
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming
& ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching or
farming
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is
the target)
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.2. Unintentional effects
(species is not the target)
9. Pollution -> 9.3. Agricultural & forestry effluents ->
9.3.4. Type Unknown/Unrecorded
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Rapid declines
Slow, significant
declines
Negligible declines
-
-
-
-
-
11
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.2.
Droughts
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Unknown
-
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions in Place
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
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
12
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
2. Conservation Planning -> 2.1. Species Action/Recovery Plan
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Yes
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 1500000
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Yes
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
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
Upper elevation limit (m): 300
Population
Number of mature individuals: 11200
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: No
Population severely fragmented: No
No. of subpopulations: 1
Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No
All individuals in one subpopulation: Yes
No. of individuals in largest subpopulation: 100
Habitats and Ecology
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes
Generation Length (years): 9
Movement patterns: Full Migrant
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
13
Habitats and Ecology
Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Vanellus gregarius – published in 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22694053A49817915.en
14
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International;
Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of
Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™