Data Zone
Justification of Red List category
This species has been classified as Near Threatened owing to a population reduction that it is suspected will become moderately rapid in the near future. An increasing impact of habitat degradation is anticipated due to rapidly changing agricultural practices and fragmentation due to development, especially linked to new roads, but also due to projected impacts of climate change on the extent of suitable habitat over the next few decades. In addition, illegal hunting in countries that still hold large numbers is suspected to be amplifying rates of population reduction overall.
Population justification
The overall population size is estimated at between 28,300 and 57,700 mature individuals (Habibzadeh and Ludwig 2019, BirdLife International 2021), rounded to 28,000-58,000 mature individuals. Almost all of the species' range is in Europe, with a breeding population estimated at 14,100-28,800 calling or lekking males, approximately equivalent to 28,200-57,600 mature individuals and 42,700-87,300 individuals (BirdLife International 2021). In addition there is a very small population in north-west Iran most recently estimated as between 98-196 individuals (Habibzadeh and Ludwig 2019), rounded to 100-200 individuals or 60-130 mature individuals.
Georgia holds the largest proportion of these with 7,500-15,800 calling or lekking males, however this estimate dates from 2009 and lacks data on the method of survey (BirdLife International 2021). Improving this estimate is a priority for the species, given that this represents more than 50% of the global population.
Trend justification
Declines are reported from Armenia (at a rate of 10% to 20% over the period 2003-2018) and Turkey (between 2000-2019 based on expert opinion). The rate is considered stable in Azerbaijan, however is unknown for Russia and Georgia, which hold the majority of the global population. In north-west Iran the population is thought to have increased in size from 215 individuals in 2001 to 350 individuals in 2009 (Khaleghizadeh et al. 2011) however it is now suggested that the population may have declined to 98–196 individuals (Habibzadeh and Ludwig 2019).
The population is therefore suspected to have been declining over the past three generations, but at an unknown rate.
However, an increasing impact of habitat degradation is anticipated due to rapidly changing agricultural practices and fragmentation due to development, in particular that linked to new roads (BirdLife International 2021). Its habitat in Azerbaijan is reported to be decreasing and under heavy grazing pressure (E. Sultanov in litt. 2015), while the construction of tourist infrastructure has been cited as an issue elsewhere (BaÞkaya 2003, G. Welch in litt. 2005, Isfendiyaroglu et al. 2007, Ýsfendiyaroðlu et al. 2007).
These changes are connected, but additional, to a projected 44% reduction in the extent of suitable habitat due to climate change by 2050 (Hof and Allen 2019). If this occurs, and climate fluctuation is documented as a driver of past distributional change in the species (Vitovich 1986), it is equivalent to around a 20% range reduction over three generations. This would likely result in a population reduction at a rate exceeding this value. In addition the species is subject to illegal hunting in countries, although estimates are that the level of take approximates around 1% of the total population (Brochet et al. 2019).
Overall, future rates of population decline are suspected to be moderately rapid and are placed in a band of 20-29% over three generations.
This species is endemic to the Greater and Lesser Caucasus mountains, where there are thought to be some 28,000-58,000 mature individuals spread between Russia (3,500-6,500 calling males), Georgia (7,500-15,800 calling males), Türkiye (1,400-2,700 calling males), Armenia (200-330 calling males), Azerbaijan (1,500-3,500 calling males) (BirdLife International 2021) and Iran (98-196 individuals) (Habibzadeh and Ludwig 2019).
It is found in subalpine and alpine meadows, on north-facing slopes with Rhododendron and juniper Juniperus, and on the edge of birch forest in spring and winter, at elevations of 1,300-3,000 m (Gavashelishvili and Javakhishvili 2010). Meadows used for hay production are important for breeding birds (Klaus et al. 2003). Lek sites are found above the timber line not far from winter food resources such as birch Betula litwinowii, oak Quercus macranthera, beech Fagus orientalis, juniper Juniperus and rose Rosa spp (Klaus and Vitovich 2006). A recent study found that landscapes with diverse land cover types around lekking sites provided greater foraging opportunities (Habibzadeh et al. 2013). There are habitat differences between core and peripheral subpopulations: core populations largely occur in a single vegetation formation, whereas rear-edge populations use a wider range of vegetation formations (Habibzadeh et al. 2021).
Ongoing road building for the construction of holiday homes in the mountains is currently the major threat and is likely to significantly increase the rate of decline by fragmenting habitat, causing disturbance and allowing increased access for hunters and herdsmen (Baskaya 2003, G. Welch in litt. 2005, Isfendiyaroglu et al. 2007). Construction of summer homes and wood-cutting for fuel reduces the availability of winter foraging habitat. Habitat loss and deterioration are also likely to be major threats with 40% of subalpine meadows within its range suffering from intensive grazing (WWF/IUCN 1994). The density of birds in grazed areas is low. Grazing livestock disturb and trample nests and birds are killed by herders' dogs (S. Klaus in litt. 2007). Illegal hunting is an increasing threat, particularly in the Lesser Caucasus and in Turkey, both by local residents and occasionally by tourists, with the Caucasian Grouse having a high aesthetic value (E. Ménoni in litt. 2007, Hof and Allen 2018). Brochet et al. (2019) estimates 1% of the population is hunted, with the majority taken in Georgia. Dam building and subsequent re-settlement of displaced people is likely to cause significant declines in Turkey (Baskaya 2003). In Iran, hunting, habitat loss and degradation due to livestock grazing, mine excavation and tourism, are considered as the most threatening factors (Masoud and Mehdizadeh-Fanid 2006, Mostajeran et al. 2019).
The range of the Caucasian Grouse is strongly divided (Habibzadeh 2017), consisting of two known sub-populations: one exists in the Greater Caucasus, and another in the Lesser Caucasus and adjacent mountain ranges in Turkey and Iran (Habibzadeh et al. 2021). Iranian populations represent the southernmost population of this species and is probably isolated from populations further northward (Mostajeran et al. 2019). The population size in Iran is much less than that required to maintain a viable population; due to its suspected isolation, this sub-population is at risk of local extinction (Habibzadeh and Ludwing 2019).
Conservation and Research Actions Underway
Large scale research and conservation projects are underway in Georgia and Turkey to improve understanding of the species' biology, develop monitoring and management activities and promote public awareness, and a project to survey the species in Azerbaijan has been carried out (IUCN/SSC/BirdLife/WPA Grouse Specialist Group 2002, R. Gokhelashvili in litt. 2005, E. Sultanov in litt. 2005, Azniashvili 2004, Sultanov 2006, Hof and Allen 2019). Future work to develop a conservation strategy and create a potential distribution map for all range countries is planned. A captive breeding program is being developed in Armenia. Arasbaran Protected Area (APA) has been established and legally protected since 1976 for the conservation of the species.
Conservation and Research Actions Proposed
Continue research into its population status, ecological requirements and interactions with different farming and forestry methods. Silviculture management should increase the density of fruit-bearing species as food sources for this species, and coarse woody debris should be removed from grouse habitat (Ghanbari et al. 2021). Encourage the development and implementation of national species action plans; as the range of the grouse is on the frontier of several countries, transboundary collaborative conservation is especially required (Hof and Allen 2019). Develop a framework for grouse-friendly farming practice, including control of dogs and regulation of hunting. Develop public awareness campaigns. Prevent road construction and inappropriate development in key areas for the species. Review the adequacy of the existing protected area network: a large portion of the species' distribution in the Kalibar Mountains has remained unprotected, and parts of the Iranian population are located outside of the APA, thus the APA should be extended (Mostajeran et al. 2019).
Monitor populations at a number of sites throughout its range, especially close to sites which are being developed. Monitor responses to future climate change (Hof and Allen 2019). Preventing the loss of rear-edge populations should be a priority for conservation planning, as niche differences between core and peripheral populations suggest peripheral populations harbour adaptive capacity to cope with warmer climates; conservation should focus on establishing connectivity between the highly fragmented rear-edge and core populations, via transboundary corridors, assisted colonisations, or reintroductions with captive-bred individuals from peripheral populations, especially as this species has a low dispersal ability (Habibzadeh et al. 2021). Threats to rear-edge populations, such as habitat degradation and poaching, should be lowered to avoid future synergistic impacts with climate change (Habibzadeh et al. 2021). Due to the suspected significance of intraspecific variation, Habibzadeh and Ludwig (2019) recommend treating this species as geographically distinct populations that may each require different management. Further research into genetic and adaptive differences between sub-populations is recommended.
Text account compilers
McGonigle, K., Martin, R.
Contributors
Ananian, V., Ashpole, J, Balkiz, Ö., Baskaya, S., Benstead, P., Derhé, M., Etzold, J., Gavashelishvili, A., Ghasabyan, M., Gokhelashvili, R., Harding, M., Isfendiyaroglu, S., Keane, A., Khosravifard, S., Klaus, S., Klaus, S., Mahood, S., Mezhnev, A., Ménoni, E., Patrikeev, M., Pople, R., Rutherford, C.A., Staneva, A., Storch, I., Sultanov, E., Sviridova, T. & Welch, G.
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: Caucasian Grouse Lyrurus mlokosiewiczi. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/caucasian-grouse-lyrurus-mlokosiewiczi on 24/11/2024.
Recommended citation for factsheets for more than one species: BirdLife International (2024) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/search on 24/11/2024.