Data Zone
The site was identified as internationally important for bird conservation in 2007 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 List | Season (year/s of estimate) | Size | IBA criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarius | CR | passage (1985) | 17–100 birds | A1, A4i, B1i |
| Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia | LC | passage (1997) | 54–200 birds | B1i |
| Common Nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos | LC | breeding (1989) | 500–1,500 pairs | B3 |
Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2007. The most recent assessment (2006) is shown below.
| IBA conservation assessment | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
| 2006 | very poor | high | very low |
| Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
| yes | population | good | |
| State (condition of the trigger species' populations) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Actual vs Reference (units) | % remaining | Result | ||
| Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca | 12 / 100 (birds) | 12 | very poor | ||
| Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus | 100 / 150 (birds) | 67 | poor | ||
| Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
| Natural system modifications | happening now | most of population/area (50–90%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | high |
| Biological resource use | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Agricultural expansion and intensification | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Human intrusions and disturbance | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Residential and commercial development | likely in short term (<4 years) | most of population/area (50–90%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Designation | Planning | Action | Result |
| Little/none of area covered (<10%) | No management planning has taken place | Some limited conservation initiatives are in place | very low |
| Year | Protected Area | Designation (management category) | % coverage of IBA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1982 | Samursky | Zakaznik (Federal) (IV) | 100 |
| Habitat | % of IBA | Habitat detail |
|---|---|---|
| Forest | 90 | Broadleaved deciduous woodland |
| Artificial/Terrestrial | 5 | Arable land; Forestry plantations; Urban parks and gardens; Ruderal land |
| Wetlands (inland) | - | Standing freshwater; Rivers and streams; Standing brackish and salt water |
| Land use | % of IBA |
|---|---|
| nature conservation and research | 100 |
| forestry | 95 |
| fisheries/aquaculture | 2 |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Mouth of Samur river (Russia (European)). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/mouth-of-samur-river-iba-russia-(european) on 27/12/2024.