Data Zone
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 | 2003 | present | A4i |
| Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula | LC | winter | 2003 | present | A4i |
| Greater Scaup Aythya marila | LC | winter | 2003 | present | A4i |
| A4iii Species group - waterbirds | n/a | winter | 2003 | min 20,000 individuals | A4iii |
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 (2015) is shown below.
| IBA conservation assessment | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
| 2015 | favourable | medium | medium |
| Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
| yes | habitat | - | |
| State (condition of the trigger species' habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat | Quantity (% remaining) | Quality (% carrying capacity) | Result |
| Marine Coastal/Supratidal | good (> 90%) | good (> 90%) | favourable |
| Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
| Climate change and severe weather | likely in long term (beyond 4 years) | whole area/population (>90%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
| Invasive and other problematic species and genes | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
| Natural system modifications | past (and unlikely to return) and no longer limiting | whole area/population (>90%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
| Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Protected areas | Management plan | Other action | Result |
| Most of site (50-90%) covered (including the most critical parts for important bird species) | A comprehensive and appropriate management plan exists that aims to maintain or improve the populations of qualifying bird species | Substantive conservation measures are being implemented but these are not comprehensive and are limited by resources and capacity | medium |
| Year | Protected Area | Designation | % overlap with IBA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1964 | Shinji ko kitayama | 都道府県立自然公園 | 81 |
| 1972 | Shinjiko | 都道府県指定鳥獣保護区 | 91 |
| 1975 | Hiikawa | 都道府県指定鳥獣保護区 | 5 |
| 2003 | Furue | 都道府県指定鳥獣保護区 | 1 |
| 2005 | Shinjiko | 国指定鳥獣保護区 | 91 |
| 2005 | Shinji-ko | Ramsar Site, Wetland of International Importance | 79 |
| Habitat1 | Habitat detail | % of IBA |
|---|---|---|
| Marine Coastal/Supratidal | major (>10) |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Lake Shinjiko (Japan). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/lake-shinjiko-iba-japan on 22/11/2024.