Data Zone
Justification of Red List category
This species has a very large geographic range size (extent of occurrence >20 million km2 in both the breeding and non-breeding seasons), and so does not approach Criterion B thresholds. It also has a very large estimated population size (9,000,000-12,000,000 mature individuals), and so does not approach Criteria C or D thresholds. Considering its population trend over three generations (c. 10 years), there are no representative data for either of the two flyway populations, which breed in Canada/Greenland and Alaska/Siberia, respectively (Wetlands International 2023). This species is poorly covered by population monitoring schemes, reflecting the challenges of surveying it, both on its Arctic breeding grounds and on its entirely pelagic non-breeding grounds and passage routes. While noting that there are data from repeated Arctic surveys that show negative changes at a number of sites, Partners in Flight (2023) concludes that the overall trend is uncertain. Consequently, the species' trend is currently best described as unknown. In the absence of evidence that it is declining at a rate approaching Criterion A thresholds, the species continues to warrant listing as Least Concern.
Population justification
It has a very large estimated population size, with almost 7,000,000 mature individuals in Arctic Canada alone (Smith et al. in prep.), and a broadly estimated Russian population of c.10,000-1 million breeding pairs (Brazil 2009), but probably towards the higher end of this. The European population is estimated at 570-1,700 males, which equates to 1,100-3,400 mature individuals (BirdLife International 2015). The population in Alaska likely numbers more than 1,000,000 mature individuals based on the area of suitable habitat, densities reported, and the numbers in Arctic Canada. Accordingly, the global population size is estimated at 9,000,000-12,000,000 mature individuals.
Trend justification
Considering its population trend over three generations (c. 10 years), there are no representative data for either of the two flyway populations, which breed in Canada/Greenland and Alaska/Siberia, respectively (Wetlands International 2023). This species is poorly covered by population monitoring schemes, reflecting the challenges of surveying it, both on its Arctic breeding grounds and on its entirely pelagic non-breeding grounds and passage routes. While noting that there are data from repeated Arctic surveys that show negative changes at a number of sites, Partners in Flight (2023) concludes that the overall trend is uncertain. Consequently, the species' trend is currently best described as unknown.
This species breeds in the Arctic regions of North America and Eurasia, generally wintering pelagically off western South America and western and south-western Africa (Snow and Perrins 1998).
Behaviour This species is a full migrant that travels via marine routes and has been observed migrating 80-160 km offshore. Adult females depart from the breeding grounds in early-June, followed by the adult males and juveniles in late-July and August, most arriving in the non-breeding quarters by the end of November. The species departs Chilean and South African seas in March, and West African and south-west African seas in April, migrating along the Arctic coasts and reoccupying breeding grounds from late-May to early-June. It may also rest 2-3 weeks at the edge of sea ice in the High Arctic, waiting for the land to thaw before nesting (Snow and Perrins 1998). Once in the breeding grounds, the species breeds between June and July (from mid-June to mid-July in Iceland, and from early-June to early-July in Russia). The species is gregarious at all times of the year (Snow and Perrins 1998), and will even breed in loose groups where the habitat is favourable.
Habitat Breeding This species breeds close to the coast on marshy tundra with small pools, on boggy meadows with moss and grass, in marshy river valleys, or on islets in fjords. Non-breeding Outside of the breeding season this species is pelagic and frequents upwelling zones in the tropics and subtropics where plankton occurs in high concentrations (e.g. over 50,000 organisms/litre).
Diet Breeding During the breeding season the diet of this species consists chiefly of invertebrates, such as adult and larval insects (e.g. beetles, caddisflies, dipteran flies, bugs), molluscs, crustaceans, annelid worms, spiders, mites, jellyfish (Johnsgard 1981) and occasionally plant material (seeds) when animal matter is scarce. Non-breeding During this season the species feeds at sea on plankton, including amphipods less than 2 mm long, Hydrozoa and small fish from the water surface or just below.
Breeding site The nest is a shallow cup or scrape on the ground in short vegetation (e.g. sedges or grasses) and is usually close to or surrounded by water (Johnsgard 1981, Snow and Perrins 1998).
Climate change poses a potential future risk to the species. By 2100, it is projected that suitable breeding habitat in the north-east Atlantic will decline by 93%, leaving only 6% remaining suitable and 1% potentially becoming more suitable (Häkkinen et al. 2023). The species inhabits high-latitude wet tundra areas, which are anticipated to diminish over the next century, a trend that is already underway. Given their tendency to aggregate in large groups within relatively confined areas, the species is exposed to mass mortality events triggered by extreme weather events. Even localised impacts of climate change could have profound effects on population dynamics. While demonstrated to be better able to adjust nest initiation time to earlier snowmelt than other shorebird species studied in a limited area in Alaska (Saalfield and Lanctot 2017), this still remains a significant threat, causing the species to be assessed as moderately vulnerable in Alaska (Liebezeit et al. 2012). The species relies on predator alarm warning from breeding Arctic Terns Sterna paradisaea, and localised populations have decreased rapidly from some breeding colonies in Greenland in the absence of Arctic Terns (Jørgensen et al. 2007). Further to this, it is believed that this association may be due to Red Phalaropes being vulnerable to Arctic Fox Vulpes lagopus predation (Egevang et al. 2009).
The species is also particularly vulnerable to plastics as surface feeders who diet typically consists of zooplankton found offshore in upwelling areas, and of adult and larval insects on their breeding ground (Teboul et al. 2021). Consequently, they may mistake floating plastic pieces for prey, and this can lead to mortality events (Drever et al. 2018). Concerningly, P. fulicarius have also been found to have often stopped within the North Pacific Current, which is at the northern boundary of the plastic-laden ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ (Lebreton et al. 2018) which could lead to high mortality rates due to the extreme volume of plastic in this region.
Other threats include disturbance from forestry activities, ship traffic, bycatch, wind farms, and high volume tourism (Häkkinen et al. 2023).
Overall, however, it is currently wholly unknown whether these threats are driving population declines.
Conservation Actions Underway
Listed in Appendix II of CMS since 1979.
Conservation Actions Proposed
This species is currently among the shorebirds that are most poorly covered by current monitoring efforts. Implementing effective monitoring and understanding potential and enacting threats should therefore be seen as the two key priorities for research.
Text account compilers
Chad, E., Martin, R.
Contributors
Stuart, A.
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/red-phalarope-phalaropus-fulicarius on 24/11/2024.
Recommended citation for factsheets for more than one species: BirdLife International (2024) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/search on 24/11/2024.