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

Taxonomic source(s)
del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A. and Fishpool, L.D.C. 2014. HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Volume 1: Non-passerines. Lynx Edicions BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.

Red List criteria met

Critically Endangered	Endangered	Vulnerable
-	A1bc	A1bc; D1

Red List history

Year	Category	Criteria
2021	Vulnerable	A1bc; D1
2016	Vulnerable	C2a(i);D1
2012	Vulnerable	C2a(i);D1
2009	Vulnerable	C2a(i)
2008	Vulnerable
2004	Vulnerable
2000	Vulnerable
1996	Vulnerable
1994	Vulnerable
1988	Threatened

Migratory status	not a migrant	Forest dependency	high
Land-mass type		Average mass	-

	Estimate	Data quality
Extent of Occurrence (breeding/resident)	8,700 km2	medium
Number of locations	11-100	-
Severely fragmented?	no	-

	Estimate	Data quality	Derivation	Year of estimate
Population size	750-1500 mature individuals	medium	estimated	2011
Population trend	stable	medium	suspected	-
Rate of change over the past 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	66-75,66%	-	-	-
Generation length	6.8 years	-	-	-
Number of subpopulations	2-6	-	-	-
Percentage of mature individuals in largest subpopulation	1-89%	-	-	-

Population justification: Prior to the 2003 tsunami, a survey in 1994 estimated that the population totalled 2,322–4,065 pairs, rounded to 4,500-8,000 mature individuals (Sankaran 1995). This was based on an average of 2.0-3.5 pairs per mound using an estimated total of 1,161 active mounds extrapolated from transects placed in coastal areas. Mounds further than 100 m from the shore were excluded, and no inland areas were surveyed. The species does however create mounds in inland areas, and there may be a significant number of additional breeding pairs especially on Great Nicobar Island.

The 2004 tsunami dramatically reduced the population. Sivakumar (2010) estimated 394 active mounds in 2006 based on the same methodology as Sankaran (1995). Using the mean minimum of 2 pairs using a mound, 788 breeding pairs, the population had been reduced by 66%. But post-tsunami the mounds themselves were smaller, suggesting that the overall reduction may have been even greater, up to 81% if comparing 3.5 pairs per mound before the tsumani and 2 pairs per mound afterwards. Sivakumar estimated that the bounds of the population should be set by using just one pair per mound as the minimum and two as the maximum, giving an estimate of 788-1,566 mature individuals. A follow-up between 2009-2011 (A. P. Zaibin in litt. 2012) estimated a similar number, 376-788 pairs, again suggesting a population that can be rounded to 750-1,500 mature individuals. This suggests that the population was likely stable for the few years after the tsunami, and while it is suspected that the habitat will return to a more favourable state and allow recovery over time an updated estimate is now needed.

The impact of the tsunami was similar across both subspecies, with an estimated reduction in the number of active mounds of 69% for M. n. nicobariensis and 65% for M. n. abbotti. subspecies, with the nominate (north of the Sombrero channel) estimated to number 97–194 breeding pairs (194-388 mature individuals) and M. n. abbotti 297–594 breeding pairs (594-1088 mature individuals) (Sivakumar 2010).

An important caveat is that none of the surveys have accounted for the proportion breeding in inland areas. While these may be at much lower density, they are also unlikely to have been impacted as severely by the tsunami and may be expected to mildly buffer the severity of the population reduction. Overall, the 2003 tsunami is inferred to have caused a population reduction of between 66% and 75%, with the best value considered 66%. While it is not an event that is expected to recur, and the reduction can be viewed as reversible, this single incident increased the species risk of extinction through a significant one-off population reduction from which the species requires secure habitat and a time to recover.

Trend justification: Although survey results from 2006, following the 2004 tsunami, suggest that its numbers had declined by 66-75% on the 1994 population estimate (Sivakumar 2007, 2010), preliminary reports suggested that a natural recovery was underway (R. Sankaran in litt. 2008), despite the worsening of some threats (Sivakumar 2010), and surveys carried out in 2009-2011 suggest that the population has remained stable (A. P. Zaibin in litt. 2012).

Country/Territory	Presence	Origin	Resident	Breeding visitor	Non-breeding visitor	Passage migrant
India	extant	native	yes
Myanmar	presence uncertain	uncertain

Country/Territory	IBA Name
India	Great Nicobar, Little Nicobar
India	Tillangchong, Camorta, Katchal, Nancowry and Trinkat

Habitat (level 1)	Habitat (level 2)	Importance	Occurrence
Forest	Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland	major	resident
Altitude	0 - 600 m	Occasional altitudinal limits

Threat (level 1)	Threat (level 2)	Impact and Stresses
Agriculture & aquaculture	Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Agro-industry farming	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Low Impact: 5
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion
Biological resource use	Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals - Intentional use (species is the target)	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Negligible declines		Low Impact: 4
		Stresses Reduced reproductive success, Species mortality
Climate change & severe weather	Habitat shifting & alteration	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Future		Majority (50-90%)		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Species disturbance, Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion, Reduced reproductive success
Climate change & severe weather	Storms & flooding	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Past, Likely to Return		Majority (50-90%)		Very Rapid Declines		Past Impact
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Reduced reproductive success, Species mortality
Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases	Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases - Canis familiaris	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Species mortality
Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases	Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases - Felis catus	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Species mortality
Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases	Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases - Named species	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Competition
Residential & commercial development	Housing & urban areas	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Low Impact: 5
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion
Transportation & service corridors	Roads & railroads	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Low Impact: 5
		Stresses Ecosystem conversion

Purpose	Scale
Food - human	subsistence, national

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: Nicobar Scrubfowl Megapodius nicobariensis. Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/nicobar-scrubfowl-megapodius-nicobariensis on 23/11/2024.
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 23/11/2024.