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

The site was identified as internationally important for bird conservation in 2000 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
Mute Swan Cygnus olor	LC	winter (1994)	7,155 birds	A4i, B1i, C3
Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus	LC	winter (1994)	306 birds	B1i, C2
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus	LC	passage (1993)	300 birds	A4i, B1i, C2
Goosander Mergus merganser	LC	winter (1994)	3,700 birds	A4i, B1i, C3
Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula	LC	winter (1995)	57,000 birds	A4i, B1i, C3
Eurasian Coot Fulica atra	LC	winter (1994)	19,271 birds	B1i, C3
Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta	LC	breeding (1994)	109 pairs	B3
Mew Gull Larus canus	LC	breeding (1996)	1,731–2,277 pairs	B2
Common Tern Sterna hirundo	LC	breeding (1994)	363 pairs	C6
Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea	LC	breeding (1994)	301 pairs	C6
A4iii Species group - waterbirds	n/a	winter (1994)	50,000-99,999 birds	A4iii, C4

Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2000. The most recent assessment (2019) is shown below.

Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats)
Threat	Timing	Scope	Severity	Result
Human intrusions and disturbance	happe­ning now	whole of popul­ation/area (>90%)	rapid decline (>30% over 3 gener­ations)	very high
Biological resource use	happe­ning now	most of popul­ation/area (50–90%)	moderate decline (10–30% over 3 gener­ations)	high
Natural system modifications	happe­ning now	some of popul­ation/area (10–49%)	moderate decline (10–30% over 3 gener­ations)	high
Invasive and other problematic species and genes	happe­ning now	some of popul­ation/area (10–49%)	moderate decline (10–30% over 3 gener­ations)	high
Pollution	likely in long term (>4 years)	most of popul­ation/area (50–90%)	moderate decline (10–30% over 3 gener­ations)	medium

Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats)
Designation	Planning	Action	Result
Whole area (>90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation	No management plan exists, but the management planning process has begun	Substantive conservation measures are being implemented, but these are not compre­hensive and are limited by resources and capacity	not assessed

Year	Protected Area	Designation (management category)	% coverage of IBA
-	Roskilde Fjord	Game Reserve (-)	-
1980	Boserup Skov, Kattinge Vig	Fredet ved afgørelse, exl. Kirkeomgivelser (IV)	2
1985	Øer i Roskilde Fjord	Fredet ved afgørelse, exl. Kirkeomgivelser (Ia)	1
1988	Jægerspris Nordskov	Fredet ved afgørelse, exl. Kirkeomgivelser (IV)	1
1992	Roskilde Kommune	§3 beskyttet natur (alle søer, moser, vandløb, heder, enge mv) (IV)	1
1992	Frederikssund Kommune	§3 beskyttet natur (alle søer, moser, vandløb, heder, enge mv) (IV)	<1
1992	Lejre Kommune	§3 beskyttet natur (alle søer, moser, vandløb, heder, enge mv) (IV)	<1

Habitat	% of IBA	Habitat detail
Marine Neritic	80
Artificial/Terrestrial	10	Arable land
Forest	5
Marine Intertidal	5

Land use	% of IBA
unknown	-

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Roskilde Fjord, Selsø and Kattinge Søerne (Denmark). Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/roskilde-fjord-selsø-and-kattinge-søerne-iba-denmark on 23/12/2024.