• Summary
• Text account
• Data table and detailed info
• Map
• Reference and further resources

The site was identified as important in 2004 because it was regularly supporting significant populations of the species listed below, meeting ('triggering') IBA criteria.

Populations meeting IBA criteria ('trigger species') at the site:

Species	Red List1	Season	Year(s)	Size	IBA criteria
Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons	LC	winter	1989-1990	7,568-15,900 individuals	A4i, B1i
Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina	LC	breeding	-	420-500 individuals	B1i
Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia	LC	breeding	1989-1996	15 breeding pairs	B2
Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus	LC	passage	1988-1994	680-1,536 individuals	A4i, B1i
Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus	LC	breeding	1989-1996	50 breeding pairs	B2
Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax	LC	breeding	-	100 breeding pairs	B2
Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides	LC	breeding	1989-1996	70 breeding pairs	B2
Purple Heron Ardea purpurea	LC	breeding	1989-1996	50 breeding pairs	B2
Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus	LC	passage	-	150-2,000 individuals	A4i, B1i
Pygmy Cormorant Microcarbo pygmaeus	LC	breeding	1989-1996	50 breeding pairs	A1
Common Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica	LC	breeding	1989-1996	20 breeding pairs	B2

1. The current IUCN Red List category. The category at the time of the IBA criteria assessment (2004) may differ.

Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2004. The most recent assessment (2016) is shown below.

State (condition of the trigger species' habitats)
Habitat	Quantity (% remaining)	Quality (% carrying capacity)	Result
Wetlands (inland)	poor (40-69%)	poor (40-69%)	very unfavourable

Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats)
Threat	Timing	Scope	Severity	Result
Agricultural expansion and intensification	happening now	majority/most of area/population (50-90%)	moderate to rapid deterioration	high

Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats)
Protected areas	Management plan	Other action	Result
Whole area of site (>90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation	A management plan exists but it is out of date or not comprehensive	Some limited conservation initiatives are in place	medium

Year	Protected Area	Designation	% overlap with IBA
2007	Akşehir Eber Lakes International Wetland Area	Other Area	100

Habitat1	Habitat detail	% of IBA
Wetlands (inland)	Standing freshwater, Water fringe vegetation	100

1. IUCN Habitat classification.

Land use	% of IBA
fisheries/aquaculture	50
not utilised	35
agriculture	10
hunting	5

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Akşehir and Eber Lakes (Türkiye). Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/akşehir-and-eber-lakes-iba-türkiye on 23/11/2024.