Data Zone
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Shag Gulosus aristotelis | LC | breeding (1996) | 150 pairs | B1i |
| European Shag Gulosus aristotelis | LC | non-breeding (1996) | 500 birds | B1i |
| Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni | LC | breeding (1996) | 2 pairs | B2 |
| Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus | LC | breeding (1996) | 120 pairs | B2 |
| Saker Falcon Falco cherrug | EN | breeding (1996) | 3 pairs | B2 |
Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2000. The most recent assessment (2013) is shown below.
| IBA conservation assessment | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
| 2013 | very poor | high | low |
| Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
| no | population | medium | |
| State (condition of the trigger species' populations) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Actual vs Reference (units) | % remaining | Result | ||
| White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala | 30 / 100 (birds) | 30 | very poor | ||
| Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus | 10 / 10 (birds) | 100 | good | ||
| Demoiselle Crane Anthropoides virgo | 500 / 500 (birds) | 100 | good | ||
| Great Bustard Otis tarda | 6 / 15 (pairs) | 40 | poor | ||
| Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus | 50 / 120 (birds) | 42 | poor | ||
| European Shag Gulosus aristotelis | 150 / 150 (pairs) | 100 | good | ||
| Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus | 50 / 100 (pairs) | 50 | poor | ||
| Saker Falcon Falco cherrug | 4 / 4 (pairs) | 100 | good | ||
| State (condition of the trigger species' habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat | Quantity (% remaining) | Quality (% carrying capacity) | Result |
| Artificial/Terrestrial | - | very poor (<40%) | very poor |
| Shrubland | - | very poor (<40%) | very poor |
| Marine Coastal/Supratidal | - | very poor (<40%) | very poor |
| Grassland | - | poor (40–69%) | poor |
| Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
| Biological resource use | likely in long term (>4 years) | most of population/area (50–90%) | rapid decline (>30% over 3 generations) | high |
| Human intrusions and disturbance | likely in long term (>4 years) | some of population/area (10–49%) | rapid decline (>30% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Natural system modifications | likely in long term (>4 years) | some of population/area (10–49%) | rapid decline (>30% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Agricultural expansion and intensification | likely in long term (>4 years) | some of population/area (10–49%) | moderate decline (10–30% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Pollution | likely in long term (>4 years) | some of population/area (10–49%) | moderate decline (10–30% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Residential and commercial development | likely in long term (>4 years) | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Climate change and severe weather | likely in long term (>4 years) | whole of population/area (>90%) | no or slight decline (<1% over 3 generations) | low |
| Energy production and mining | likely in long term (>4 years) | few individuals/small area (<10%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | low |
| Transportation and service corridors | likely in long term (>4 years) | few individuals/small area (<10%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | low |
| Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Designation | Planning | Action | Result |
| Little/none of area covered (<10%) | 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 | low |
| Year | Protected Area | Designation (management category) | % coverage of IBA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1980 | Dzhangul's'kiy | Regional Zakaznik (IV) | 2 |
| 1980 | Chastina stepu na Tarkhankuts'komu pivostrovi | Regional Zakaznik (IV) | 2 |
| 1980 | Balka Velikiy Kastel' | Zapovedne Urotchische (III) | - |
| Habitat | % of IBA | Habitat detail |
|---|---|---|
| Grassland | 60 | Steppes and dry calcareous grassland |
| Artificial/Terrestrial | 20 | Arable land; Forestry plantations |
| Marine Neritic | 10 | |
| Shrubland | 10 | Scrub |
| Marine Coastal/Supratidal | minor (<10) |
| Land use | % of IBA |
|---|---|
| agriculture | 90 |
| fisheries/aquaculture | 3 |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Tarkhankuts'kyj peninsula (Ukraine). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/tarkhankutskyj-peninsula-iba-ukraine on 25/12/2024.