Justification This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern.

Family/Sub-family Scolopacidae

Species name author (Linnaeus, 1758)

Taxonomic source(s) Cramp and Simmons (1977-1994), Dowsett and Forbes-Watson (1993), Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993), Stotz et al. (1996)

Taxonomic note Gallinago gallinago (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) was split into G. gallinago and G. delicata by Banks et al. (2002), on the basis of 'differences in the winnowing display sounds and morphology', and recognised as separate by AOU (2002) and SACC (2005), but this treatment is not followed by the BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group because the morphological differences are limited to the number and width of tail feathers and, as Mueller (1999) makes clear, there is overlap between the two forms in these characters. Although the differences between gallinago and delicata drumming have been described as 'strong', it is not clear that these do not come from the two ends of a Holarctic 'ring' (eastern USA and western Europe). The BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group therefore favours non-recognition of delicata as a species, pending playback experiments and more information from areas of reported breeding in areas of local sympatry.

Population estimate

Population trend

Range estimate (breeding/resident)

Country endemic?

6,300,000 - 8,100,000

unset

32,300,000 km²

No

Range & population This species has a large global population estimated to be >5,400,000-7,500,000 individuals¹.

Important Bird Areas Click here to view map showing IBAs where species is recorded and triggers any of the IBA criteria.

Ecology: Behaviour This species is fully migratory although some populations only migrate short distances². It breeds from April to August³ in solitary territorial pairs and after breeding it moves to moulting areas before migrating south to the wintering grounds². It is not a truly gregarious species⁶ although it usually forages in small groups², occasionally also gathering in larger flocks of several hundred during migration or in the winter³. The species is also generally crepuscular in its activities². Habitat Breeding The species breeds on fresh or brackish marshland with rich or tussocky vegetation^{2, 3} including grassy or marshy edges of lakes and rivers², marshy bogs and moors⁴, marshy tundra, wet meadows², peat bogs, fens, swamps (North America)⁴ and swampy forest⁵. Non-breeding In its wintering range the species frequents similar habitats to those it breeds in^{2, 3} including permanent and temporary swamps, the marshy edges of lakes and dams, flooded sedge and grassland⁷, also utilising more artificial habitats such as damp farmland³ (e.g. cattle pastures, sugar-cane fields⁴, rice-fields²), sewage farms² and drainage ditches⁴. The species may also move to more coastal areas such as the upper reaches of estuaries and coastal meadows² during periods of frost⁶. Diet Its diet consists of adult and larval insects, earthworms, small crustaceans² (e.g. isopods and amphipods)⁴, small gastropods, spiders², small amphibians (Africa)⁷ and occasionally plant fibres, seeds and grit⁴. Breeding site The nest is a shallow scrape⁶ positioned on dry ground in marshes, fens, swamps and bogs⁴ (e.g. on a mound or sedge tuft)⁵ in the cover of grass, rushes, sedge or sphagnum moss². The species nests in solitary territorial pairs at densities of between 10 and 38 or up to 110 pairs per kilometre². Management information Studies in Danish coastal wetlands found that the spatial restriction of shore-based shooting was more successful at maintaining waterfowl population sizes than was the temporal restriction of shooting, and therefore that wildfowl reserves should incorporate shooting-free refuges that include adjacent marshland in order to ensure high waterbird species diversity¹³. The species is known to show increased hatching successes when ground predators have been excluded by erecting protective fences around nesting areas¹⁵. At a reserve in the UK management strategies such as reseeding grasslands to be dominated by rushes Juncus spp. and purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea, mechanical cutting and grazing, digging small scrapes and maintaining high water-levels succeeded in attracting an increased number of breeding pairs to the area¹⁶. The annual success of reproduction is estimated every year by wing surveys in Denmark since the 1970s and in France since the mid-1990s¹⁸. Hunting bags are estimated every year in Denmark¹⁸.

Threats The species is threatened by habitat changes such as wetland drainage² and grassland improvement² (e.g. through drainage, inorganic fertilising and reseeding)¹⁴. Important migratory stop-over habitats in the Kaliningrad region of Russia are also threatened by petroleum pollution, wetland and flood-plain drainage (for irrigation and water management), peat-extraction, reedbed mowing and burning, and abandonment and changing land management practices leading to scrub and reed overgrowth⁷. The species suffers from lead poisoning as a result of ingesting lead shot deposited on wetlands^{10, 11, 12}, suffers nest predation by introduced mammals (e.g. European hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus) on islands¹⁵, and is susceptible to avian influenza so may be threatened by future outbreaks of the viurs⁸. Utilisation The species is hunted for sport (e.g. in Denmark)⁹.

References 1. Wetlands International (2002). 2. del Hoyo et al. (1996). 3. Hayman et al. (1986). 4. Johnsgard (1981). 5. Flint et al. (1984). 6. Snow and Perrins (1998). 7. Grishanov (2006). 8. Melville and Shortridge (2006). 9. Bregnballe et al. (2006). 10. Mateo et al. (1998). 11. Mondain-Monval et al. (2002). 12. Olivier (2006). 13. Bregnballe et al. (2004). 14. Baines (1988). 15. Jackson (2001). 16. Holton and Allcorn (2006). 17. Yarovikova (2006). 18. Clausager (2006).

Further web sources of information

Detailed species account from Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status (BirdLife International 2004)

Text account compilers Stuart Butchart (BirdLife International), Sally Fisher (BirdLife International), Lucy Malpas (BirdLife International)

Contributors Yves Ferrand

IUCN Red List evaluators Jeremy Bird (BirdLife International), Stuart Butchart (BirdLife International)

Recommended citation BirdLife International (2010) Species factsheet: Gallinago gallinago. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 30/7/2010

This information is based upon, and updates, the information published in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004 CD-ROM and BirdLife International (2008) Threatened birds of the world 2008 CD-ROM. These sources provide the information for species accounts for the birds on the IUCN Red List.

To provide new information to update this factsheet or to correct any errors, please email BirdLife

To contribute to discussions on the evaluation of the IUCN Red List status of Globally Threatened Birds, please visit BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums