6 thoughts on “Broad-billed Sandpiper (Calidris falcinellus)”
You refer to Hansen et al. (2022) for population estimates for the EAAF, but a more recent assessment is that of:
Mundkur, T. and Langendoen, T. 2022. Report on the Conservation Status of Migratory Waterbirds of the East Asian – Australasian Flyway. First Edition. Report to the East Asian – Australasian Flyway Partnership. Wetlands International, Ede, The Netherlands
Many of the population estimates are the same in both publications, but not all – this comment is applicable to all wader species in the EAAF assessments.
Thanks for putting up the species for review. I do not challenge the proposal, but would like to highlight some issues that could be looked at to improve the consistency of the justifications.
Rationale for proposed change: It is incorrectly stated that “… mostly passage/wintering…” data provides the evidence for rapid change. All the references mentioned (Keller et al. 2020 and Lindström et al 2019) concern the breeding population. The IWC trends in the AEWA region are very uncertain for the N European population.
Population size justification: Note that the wintering population size estimate attributed to Wetlands International is actually based on BirdLife International (2021): European Red List of Birds: 2nd edition, and that would be a better reference.
Unfortunately little has been published about the population size and trends of C.f sibirica. The population in the main wintering area in Myanmar is estimated at around 4,000, but this has recently between 2019-2023 reduced to max. 2100 in line with a decline of around 50% (Aung et al 2023). Numbers are very hard to estimate in the large and dynamic estuary, but the decline has been observed over the past 5 years even though slightly recovering in 2023. Numbers at other sites have also declined but are lower than 100 individuals. Uplisting to VU seems also justified from a EAAF perspective.
This species regularly occur at Point Calimere. But the numbers fluctuate between seasons. Some years the numbers between 10,000 and 30,000 but mostly during the southward passage . The decline is not that much steep in other species like Grey Plover, Ruddy Turnstone, as we are regularly capturing birds for ringing. The ringing totals during 1980-19 92 and 1998-2024 were respectively was 1438 and 1072. But they are not occurs in other wetlands, except Mumbai along the West coast. There it occurs in 3000-5000.
Considering its limited distribution in Indian sites this species can be considered to include under Near-threatened Category
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 3 May 2024. We will now analyse and interpret all information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 3 May 2024, when discussions will re-open.
We thank all contributors for their comments. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2024 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 13 May 2024, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2024 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2024, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
You refer to Hansen et al. (2022) for population estimates for the EAAF, but a more recent assessment is that of:
Mundkur, T. and Langendoen, T. 2022. Report on the Conservation Status of Migratory Waterbirds of the East Asian – Australasian Flyway. First Edition. Report to the East Asian – Australasian Flyway Partnership. Wetlands International, Ede, The Netherlands
Many of the population estimates are the same in both publications, but not all – this comment is applicable to all wader species in the EAAF assessments.
Hi,
Thanks for putting up the species for review. I do not challenge the proposal, but would like to highlight some issues that could be looked at to improve the consistency of the justifications.
Rationale for proposed change: It is incorrectly stated that “… mostly passage/wintering…” data provides the evidence for rapid change. All the references mentioned (Keller et al. 2020 and Lindström et al 2019) concern the breeding population. The IWC trends in the AEWA region are very uncertain for the N European population.
Population size justification: Note that the wintering population size estimate attributed to Wetlands International is actually based on BirdLife International (2021): European Red List of Birds: 2nd edition, and that would be a better reference.
I hope you will find these comments are helpful.
Best wishes,
Szabolcs
Unfortunately little has been published about the population size and trends of C.f sibirica. The population in the main wintering area in Myanmar is estimated at around 4,000, but this has recently between 2019-2023 reduced to max. 2100 in line with a decline of around 50% (Aung et al 2023). Numbers are very hard to estimate in the large and dynamic estuary, but the decline has been observed over the past 5 years even though slightly recovering in 2023. Numbers at other sites have also declined but are lower than 100 individuals. Uplisting to VU seems also justified from a EAAF perspective.
This species regularly occur at Point Calimere. But the numbers fluctuate between seasons. Some years the numbers between 10,000 and 30,000 but mostly during the southward passage . The decline is not that much steep in other species like Grey Plover, Ruddy Turnstone, as we are regularly capturing birds for ringing. The ringing totals during 1980-19 92 and 1998-2024 were respectively was 1438 and 1072. But they are not occurs in other wetlands, except Mumbai along the West coast. There it occurs in 3000-5000.
Considering its limited distribution in Indian sites this species can be considered to include under Near-threatened Category
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 3 May 2024. We will now analyse and interpret all information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 3 May 2024, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank all contributors for their comments. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2024 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 13 May 2024, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2024 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2024, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.