SocLap sap – working draft



Yüklə 433,38 Kb.
səhifə5/11
tarix17.11.2018
ölçüsü433,38 Kb.
#80469
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11




Iraq

N. a. orientalis

3,000-7,000

2010-2014

Moderate

No trend

-

-

No trend

-

-

Salim, M.A. et al. 2007

Ireland

N. a. arquata

27,830


2006-2011

Moderate

Decrease

1999-2011

Good

Decrease

1987-2011

Moderate

EU Article 12 Reporting; Crowe & Holt 2013;

Italy*

N. a. arquata

6,207-7,218

2007-2009

Good

Increase

2000-2009

Good

Increase

1991-2009

Good

Birds in Europe 3 in prep.

Kuwait*

N. a. orientalis

490-860

1988-1990

Moderate

-

-

-

-

-

-

BirdLife International 2014

Mauritania

N. a. arquata

N. a. orientalis

4,000

2010s

Unknown

Decrease

1990s-2010s

Tbc

Decrease

1980s-2010s

tbc

Unpublished data, AEWA conservation status review

Morocco

N. a. arquata


308

2010s

Unknown

Decrease

1990s-2010s

Tbc

Decrease

1980s-2010s

tbc

Unpublished data, AEWA conservation status review

Netherlands

N. a. arquata


143,390-219,237

2006-2010

Good

Increase

2000-2011

Good

Increase

1981-2011

Good

EU Article 12 Reporting

Norway

N. a. arquata


100-500

2006

Moderate

Stable/

Fluctuating



1995-2005

Moderate

Stable/

Fluctuating



1980-2011

Moderate

Svorkmo-Lundberg et al. 2006; Ranke et al. 2011, Wold et al. 2012.

Oman

N. a. orientalis

8,250-8,500

2008-2014

Poor

Decline

2008/09-2013/14

Poor

Stable

1986-2013

Moderate

De Fouw. J. et al in prep; Eriksen & Victor 2013.

Portugal

N. a. arquata


1,218

2008-2012

Good

Fluctuating

2001-2012

Good

Stable

1988-2012

Moderate

EU Article 12 Reporting

Romania*

N. a. arquata

40-60

1990-2002

Unknown

Unknown

-

-

Fluctuating

1990-2002

Unknown

BirdLife International 2004

Saudi Arabia*

N. a. orientalis

2,000-2,700

1990-1992

Moderate

-

-

-

-

-

-

BirdLife International 2014

Senegal

N. a. arquata

N. a. orientalis

417

2010s

Unknown

Decrease

1990s-2010s

Unknown

Stable

1980s-2010s

Unknown

Unpublished data, AEWA conservation status review

Slovenia

N. a. arquata


35-70

2001-2012

Moderate


Stable

2001-2012

Moderate

Unknown

1980-2012

Poor

EU Article 12 Reporting

Spain

N. a. arquata


4,233-5,063

2008-2010

Good

Stable

2000-2010

Good

Increase

1980-2010

Good

EU Article 12 Reporting

Turkey

N. a. orientalis

1,200-2,000

-

Moderate

Decline

1991-2001

Poor

-

-

-

Kılıç & Eken 2004.

Tunisia

N. a. arquata


4,000-7,500

2006-2013

Moderate

Decline

2006-2013

Moderate

Decline

1976-2011

Moderate

Czajkowski 1984; Van Dijk et al. 1984; AAO database 2013

Ukraine*

N. a. arquata

N. a. orientalis

1,400-3,700

(passage only)



Unknown

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Delany et al. 2009

United Arab Emirates*

N. a. orientalis

1,440-1,650

1990-1992

Moderate

-

-

-

-

-

-

Critical Site Network Tool

United Kingdom

N. a. arquata


150,000

2004-2008

Good

Decline

1999-2010

Good

Increase

1980-2010

Good

Holt et al. 2012

Uzbekistan

N. a. orientalis

180-1,5001

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Elena Kreuzberg, pers. comm. 2014.

Yemen

N. a. orientalis

<1,000

-

Poor

-

-

-

-

-

-

Richard Porter, pers. comm. 2014.


2. THREATS
2.1. General Overview of Threats

This chapter discusses threats that are known or suspected to be having a negative impact on Eurasian Curlew populations. They include factors that are directly affecting population size through increased mortality of adults and chicks as well as factors that are indirectly affecting population size through loss of habitat, disturbance, etc. Threats have been assessed for each subspecies and have been made on the basis of severity (the impact on the population) and scale (the proportion of the population affected by the threat).



Several scientific studies have investigated threats acting upon Eurasian Curlew populations in Europe, both on their breeding grounds and on their wintering grounds. In such cases, the impact that threats have on the population is relatively well understood, supported by published scientific papers (i.e. experimental or correlative studies). Several studies have recorded productivity levels below those required for population stability, and there is consensus that breeding population declines are being caused by low productivity alongside the loss, degradation and fragmentation of breeding habitats. In the near future, there are concerns that senescence (an ageing population as a consequence of poor breeding success) may begin to exacerbate the trend of reproductive failure, and also lead to decreasing adult survival (Taylor and Dodd 2013). A summary overview of threats is provided in Table 4, followed by a description of each threat and an explanation of its rank, as set out below.

Key to threat assessment ranks4:

Critical: a factor causing or likely to cause very rapid declines (>30% over 10 years)

High: a factor causing or likely to cause rapid declines (20-30% over 10 years)

Medium: a factor causing or likely to cause relatively slow, but significant, declines (10-20% over 10 years)

Low: a factor causing or likely to cause fluctuations

Local: a factor causing or likely to cause significant impacts at specific sites

Unknown: A factor likely to affect the subspecies but it is unknown to what extent

Table 4: Overview of threats acting upon the three subspecies of Eurasian Curlew.




Stress

Threat

N. a. arquata

N. a. orientalis

N. a. suschkini

BREEDING SEASON

Mortality on breeding grounds

A. Nest and chick predation

Critical

Unknown

Unknown

B. Nest destruction and increased chick mortality due to agricultural operations (including mowing, trampling and burning)

Medium-high

Unknown/local

Unknown

C. Mortality caused by hunting on breeding grounds

Absent-low

Medium-high

Medium-high

D. Mortality caused by illegal killing on breeding grounds

Absent

Unknown

Unknown

Loss, degradation and fragmentation of breeding habitats


E. Impacts of agricultural on breeding habitats (including intensification, specialisation and disturbance)

Critical

Low

Low

F. Land abandonment on breeding grounds

Unknown/medium

Unknown/low

Absent

G. Loss and degradation of peat bog habitats used for breeding

Unknown/medium

Unknown

Unknown

H. Pollution on breeding grounds

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

I. Afforestation on breeding grounds

Medium

Low

Low

J. Residential and commercial developments on breeding grounds

Local

Local-medium

Low

K. Oil and gas drilling and associated infrastructure on breeding grounds

Local

Local-medium

Local

L. Human disturbance on breeding grounds (excluding disturbance from agricultural activities)

Local

Local-medium

Local-medium

M. Expansion of wind turbines on breeding grounds

Medium

Low

Low

N. Impact of climate change on breeding grounds

Local-medium

Local-medium

Local-medium

NON-BREEDING SEASON

Mortality on non-breeding grounds

O. Mortality caused by hunting during migration and on non-breeding grounds

Unknown/disputed

Unknown

Unknown

P. Mortality caused by illegal killing during migration and on non-breeding grounds

Unknown/low

Unknown

Unknown


Loss, degradation & fragmentation of non-breeding habitats

Q. Pollution on non-breeding grounds

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

R. Human disturbance on non-breeding grounds

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

S. Shellfisheries on non-breeding grounds

Low

Unknown

Unknown

T. Impact of climate change (incl. sea level rise) on non-breeding grounds

Local-medium

Local-medium

Unknown

U. Residential and commercial developments on non-breeding grounds

Local

Unknown/ medium

Unknown

V. Drainage on non-breeding grounds

Local

Unknown

Unknown

Threats on breeding grounds

A. Nest and chick predation

arquata: critical

orientalis: unknown

suschkini: unknown


Yüklə 433,38 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2022
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə