Data Zone
Justification of Red List category
This species is listed as Critically Endangered because it has an extremely small population, with a lower bound that is thought to now fall below 250 mature individuals in a single population, that is undergoing a rapid continuing decline in excess of 25% in one generation (with a current estimated 8% annual reduction), and has suffered an extremely rapid population reduction in the previous three generations. The current rate of decline is thought to represent a minor improvement on that over the past three generations but remains very rapid and it still qualifies at the level of Endangered based on the estimated/projected current and future three-generation rate of population reduction. A number of factors are driving the decline, including habitat loss in its breeding, passage and wintering grounds, compounded by disturbance, pollution, and the effects of climate change, however the impact of indiscriminate shorebird hunting appears to be the most immediate and severe threat. Juvenile recruitment has, until recently, been very low, leading to fears that the population is ageing rapidly. Extensive conservation work has likely driven the slowing rate of decline, but much more work is required to prevent the extinction of this species.
Population justification
A total of ten repeats of a Lincoln-Peterson method to estimate the global population have resulted in a weighted mean single global estimate of 490 mature individuals (95% confidence limits 360-620) for the six-year period between 2014-2019 (Green et al. 2021). However, the most recent winter counts suggest a total number of birds in the order of 330-340 individuals (Zöckler et al. 2021), indicating that the total of mature individuals may actually already have fallen below 250 if we assume fewer than three-quarters of these are mature individuals. As such the population is placed within a custom band of 240-620 mature individuals, with a best single value of 490 (Green et al. 2021) but noting that this figure may already be outdated.
The trend of these estimates, albeit over a short-time frame, was a mean rate of reduction of 8% (Green et al. 2021), similar to the 9% estimated from surveys of the most important wintering population in Myanmar (Zöckler et al. 2010a). However, the confidence interval of the more recent trend estimates overlapped zero, such that there is low confidence in the accuracy of the trend magnitude. In the absence of better information, and noting the congruence with the rate of reduction estimated from wintering surveys, this rate of decline is taken to be the best estimate for the population as a whole for the current timeframe. This rate of reduction is equivalent (using an exponential model of decline) to a three-generation reduction of 68% (over 13.4 years), estimated as a rate of continuing decline of 31.5% in one generation (4.5 years) and 52.7% in two generations (9 years). However, prior to 2009 the rate of population reduction, based on counts of breeding pairs at surveyed locations, was reported to be extremely rapid at an annual rate of 26% between 2002-2008 (Zöckler et al. 2010a). As such, the past rate of reduction for the most recent three-generation period (2007-2021) is suspected to have been at a higher rate, and, given the uncertainty, is placed in a band of 70-80%.
Trend justification
Observations from the breeding areas in the first decade of the 2000s indicated an extremely rapid population reduction was taking place, with the annual rate of decline reported as 26% between 2002-2008 (Zöckler et al. 2010a). The rate of decline has slowed and, based surveys of the most important wintering area in Myanmar, annual rates of decline between 2009-2016 have been estimated at 9% (Aung et al. 2020). The most recent estimate of the rate of reduction is an 8% annual reduction, based on the ten repeats of the methodology to estimate the global population size between 2014-2019 (Green et al. 2021). The reduction in the rate of reduction is thought likely due to the impact of intensive conservation efforts (C. Zöckler in litt. 2019, Green et al. 2021), however the population is still estimated to be declining at a very rapid rate, and over the past three generations the reduction is still suspected to have been 70-80%.
This species has a naturally limited breeding range on the Chukotsk peninsula and southwards to the isthmus of the Kamchatka peninsula, in north-eastern Russia (BirdLife International 2001, Zoeckler & Lappo 2008). It migrates down the western Pacific coast through Russia, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, mainland China, Hong Kong (China), Taiwan (China) and Viet Nam, to its main wintering grounds in southern China, Viet Nam, Thailand, Bangladesh and Myanmar (Zöckler et al. 2016). It is a vagrant visitor in Cambodia and Indonesia (during non-breeding seasons here particularly; C. Zöckler in litt. 2020). Wintering birds have also been recorded from India (with a recent sighting in 2018 possibly the first for 14 years [Roy 2018]), Sri Lanka, the Fujian province in China (the Min Jiang estuary in Fujian has recently been identified as an important wintering site for the species [F. Cheung in litt. 2010, Bai et al. 2015, Zöckler et al. 2016]), Guangdong and Guangxi provinces of China ((Martinez & Lewthwaite 2013, Fu 2015), and peninsular Malaysia. It occurs regularly at only a few sites within this wintering range, with important sites in Bangladesh, Thailand, Myanmar and China. Sonadia Island and Meghna Estuary (Bangladesh), the Gulf of Martaban and Nan Thar (Myanmar) were believed to support over half of the wintering population (Zöckler et al. 2010b, Zöckler et al. 2014, Zöckler et al. 2016, Chowdhury et al. 2018); over 80% of the entire population were considered to winter in Myanmar and Bangladesh (Zöckler et al. 2016). However, recent surveys show that the Southern China coast in Guandong and Guanxi Provinces also host significant numbers (Martinez & Allcock 2016) and that the numbers in Bangladesh and Myanmar are falling more rapidly than at sites further north along the migratory route (Zöckler et al. 2021). It seems likely that the bulk of the population now winters along the Chinese coast.
Records of wintering birds in Myanmar are of 84 individuals in 2008, 73 in January 2009, and 89 in 2010 (Zöckler et al. 2010b); 150-220 in the Bay of Martaban in 2010-2012 (Zöckler et al. 2010a, b, 2014) and approximately 155 in the upper bay of Martaban in January 2015 (Clark 2015). In 2016, an estimated 100-112 individuals were present in the upper Gulf of Mottama, Myanmar (Aung et al. 2016, 2020), a reduction from 244 individuals observed in 2009 (Aung et al. 2020). Recent counts reinforce this rapid reduction, with only 47 individuals counted in January 2021 despite high coverage (Zöckler et al. 2021).
In March-April 2010, a minimum total of 49 individuals were recorded during targeted surveys along the coast of Bangladesh (Bird et al. 2010, Chowdhury et al. 2011). A new site along the Meghna Estuary was discovered in 2015, which supported a minimum of 48 individuals in February 2016 (Chowdhury et al. 2018). Surveys along the Bangladesh coast from December 2015 to February 2016 found a record number of a minimum of 76 individuals from different sites along the coast, the highest numbers recorded since 1989 in Bangladesh (Chowdhury 2016). However since 2016 numbers located in Bangladesh in winter have fallen rapidly, with fewer than ten counted in January 2021 (Zöckler et al. 2021).
During the winter of 2015-2016, it was estimated that 10 adults used the Gulf of Thailand (K. Sutasha in litt. 2016).
China Coastal Waterbird Surveys conducted between 2005 and 2013 (Bai et al. 2015) identified the following sites as of international importance for the species: Yalu Jliang estuarine wetland (Liaoning), Rudong coast (Jiangsu), Dongtai coast (Jiangsu), Dongling coast (Jiangsu), Minjiang Estuary National Nature Reserve (Fujian), Dadeng Island and Weitou Bay (Fujian) and Xitou coast (Guangdong).
A total of 61 individuals was recorded wintering in southern China (present at ten of 36 surveyed sites) in the January 2021 coordinated surveys (Qing/Spoon-billed Sandpiper Alliance 2021). The Leizhou Peninsula has been identified as an important area, holding about 50 birds (Martinez & Allcock 2016, C. Zöckler in litt. 2016): 33 were counted in January 2021 (Qing/Spoon-billed Sandpiper Alliance 2021).
China is of primary importance during post-breeding and migration periods. It is likely that a large proportion of the adult population of the species spends time at Rudong, China, in both autumn and spring (Menxiu et al. 2012, Clark et al. 2014). It is currently the only known moulting site for the species (Bai et al. 2015, Peng et al. 2017). Counts of up to 103 individuals at Rudong in October 2011, 106 in October 2012, 140 in October 2013 (Zöckler and Li 2013), a minimum of 226 in September 2014 and 177-190 in October 2014 (Zöckler et al. 2015) are likely to have accounted for a substantial proportion of the global population (M. Tong in litt. 2011). A maximum of 100 birds were recorded on the Tiaozini mudflats (part of the Rudong mudflats), Dongtai County, in October 2014 (Zöckler et al. 2015), with more than 100 birds recorded at Tiaozini in October 2015 (Li and Chowdhury 2016). A survey in May 2015 on the Rudong mudflats recorded at least 62 individuals, including a number of head-started birds (Phillips 2015). Modelling work has shown Rudong to be too far for the species to reach in a single flight from its breeding grounds and work is underway to identify another stopover site in the Russian Far East (Clark et al. 2014).
Due to its specialised breeding habitat requirements, it was probably always a scarce species, but numbers dropped rapidly, at least between 2000 and 2010 (D. Pain in litt. 2016). Surveys on the breeding grounds revealed a dramatic decline from 2,000-2,800 pairs in the 1970s (which assumes equal distribution of the species and may have potentially excluded unknown sites; C. Zöckler in litt. 2019) to fewer than 1,000 pairs in 2000, 402-572 pairs in 2003, 350-380 pairs in 2005 (Zöckler & Bunting 2006) and not more than 150-320 pairs in 2008. The breeding population in 2009-2010 was optimistically estimated at 120-200 pairs (Bird et al. 2010, Zöckler et al. 2010a) in an estimated total population of 500-800 individuals, perhaps indicating an 88% decline since 2002, equating to an annual rate of decline of 26% (Zöckler et al. 2010a). These declines have taken place across all known breeding sites, and it is unlikely that significant colonies remain undiscovered (Zöckler 2005, Zöckler & Bunting 2006). Declines were also observed at wintering grounds. For example, no birds were sighted wintering in Viet Nam in 2009 at a site that supported at least 27 birds in the mid 1990s (E. Syroechkovskiy et al. in litt. 2009). However, over the last few years (2013-2015), there are signs that active conservation interventions may have stemmed this rapid population decline and the small remaining population appears decline at a slower pace of still 8-10% (Aung et al. 2018, Aung et al. 2020).
Breeding success is quite low: average productivity was 0.66 young fledged per nest in 2005, and much lower in 2007, and this is compounded by a very low rate of juveniles and adults returning to the breeding grounds. Until recently, the species has had an ageing and rapidly declining population with little recruitment (Zöckler et al. 2010). For example, data collected on birds at one breeding area from 2003 to 2009 suggest that recruitment into the adult breeding population was effectively zero in all years apart from 2005 and 2007 (Zöckler et al. 2010a). In 2013, for the first time there was no decline detected at the core breeding area of Meinypylgino, where the population was stable at c.10 pairs (Zöckler 2013). In June 2014, an expedition to Russkaya Koshka recorded an increase in the number of breeding territories recovering from a low of 1-2 pairs in previous years (Nitschke et al. 2015), but numbers are still not near levels known from the early 2000s (Tomkovich et al. 2002, C. Zöckler in litt. 2016). In July 2011 and 2016, an expedition in Kamchatka located each a previously unknown breeding area for the species (Heritage Expeditions 2016), with around 3 pairs each.
The species has a very specialised breeding habitat, using only lagoon spits with crowberry-lichen vegetation or dwarf birch and willow sedges near lakes and marshes, together with adjacent estuary and mudflat habitats that are used as feeding sites by adults during nesting. It may also use stream-deposited gravel pits (Van Gils et al. 2020). The species has never been recorded breeding further than 5 km (and exceptionally once 7 km) from the sea shore. Breeding birds are very site-faithful. It breeds either in single pairs or loose aggregations (Zöckler et al. 2008). It nests in June-July (Tomkovich 1992, 1995, Van Gils et al. 2020), with failed breeders potentially leaving on migration before others (Zhang Lin 2016). During winter, it prefers mixed sandy tidal mudflats with an uneven surface and very shallow water, mainly in the outermost parts of river deltas and outer islands, often with a higher sand content and thin mud layer on top. In the areas with total coastal conversion, it favours certain stages in the management of saltpans (Zöckler et al. 2008). The species uses a variety of feeding techniques that includes a larger variety of food items across the range, including terrestrial insects, small seeds, larvae of beetles and small aquatic amphipods (Kelly et al. 2018, Van Gils et al. 2020). Evidence to support suspicions that immature birds spend their first summer on the wintering grounds until their second year come from ringing recoveries (Tomkovich 1995, Zöckler et al. 2010a), photographs of a second calendar-year bird in Thailand in July 2010 (G. Chutima in litt. 2010) and another individual in Bangladesh in June 2015 (S. U. Chowdhury in litt. 2016), as well as oversummering and passage birds in the Rudong mudflats (Clark et al. 2018, Zhang et al. 2019).
Throughout its migratory and wintering ranges, tidal flats are being reclaimed for coastal development (industry, leisure, infrastructure, aquaculture and agriculture) and are becoming increasingly polluted. The important staging area at Saemangeum and Geum estuary, South Korea, including the Mangyeung and Tongjin estuaries, has already been reclaimed, and remaining wetlands are under serious threat of reclamation in the near future (Zöckler et al. 2008). Since the reclamation at Saemangeum in 2007, only an average of a single individual has been recorded, in contrast to 'hundreds' prior to the development (Lee et al. 2018). Plans for a large-scale reclamation project on the Tiaozini Sandbanks, (part of the Rudong mudflats) were feared to threatened over 60,000 ha of mudflats used by the species by 2020 (Moores 2015, J. Li and M. Tong to C. Zöckler in litt. 2016, Peng et al. 2017), and elsewhere at Rudong new seawalls were being built in 2015 (Zöckler 2015, Peng et al. 2017). However, the national announcement of an end to the reclamation of intertidal land in January 2018 (Anon. 2018, Lei 2018) appears to be a dramatic shift towards alleviating new impacts from this threat and these sites are included in the World Heritage Site nomination.
Smooth Cord-grass Spartina alterniflora is an invasive plant used to stabilise mudflats to assist in reclamation along the Chinese coast and rapidly leaves intertidal areas unsuitable for Spoon-billed Sandpipers, dramatically reducing habitat availability (Menxiu et al. 2012, Peng et al. 2017). At both Rudong and Dongling, Spartina alterniflora has formed dense stands with considerable spread noted between spring 2014 and autumn 2015 (Peng et al. 2017), and it has also been found on Leizhou mudflat (V. Fu in litt. 2017). The Rudong mudflats are also the site for development of the largest wind farm in Asia, which could prove to be another threat to this species (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, 2010, Li et al. undated). Plans for a deep-water port at Sonadia and cross-dams along the coast of Bangladesh continue to pose threats (Bird et al. 2010a, Chowdhury et al. 2011, Zöckler 2015); however, this plan is currently on hold and plans to protect the area have been developed (Zöckler 2015).
Although not specifically targeted, the species is regularly caught in nets set to catch large waders for food in the key wintering areas of Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, and Myanmar (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, Zöckler and Htin Hla 2009, Bird et al. 2010b, Chowdhury 2010, C. Zöckler in litt. 2010, Zöckler et al. 2010b, Martinez & Lewthaithe 2013), and this may be a particularly serious threat to birds wintering on Nan Thar Island and in the Gulf of Martaban, Myanmar (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, 2010, Zöckler et al. 2010b). A survey of hunting activities in five villages around Sonadia Island, Bangladesh, in September 2010 found that of the 53 hunters interviewed, eight of them claimed to have caught a total of 22 Spoon-billed Sandpipers between October 2009 and April 2010 (Chowdhury 2010). Hunting in the species's non-breeding range could be a crucial factor in the poor rate of recruitment into the breeding population, as immature birds do not return to the breeding areas until they are two years old and thus are more exposed to capture (Zöckler et al. 2010b). However, recent conservation action aimed at reducing trapping on the wintering grounds appears to have been successful (Clark et al. 2014) and may have reduced this significant source of mortality (D. Pain in litt. 2016, Aung et al. 2016/2017). Large-scale wader trapping was observed at Fucheng, south-west Guangdong province, China, where four Spoon-billed Sandpiper were observed in December 2012 (BirdLife Asia 2013), but surveys for the species in south China in January 2017 did not find any illegal mist nets (V. Fu in litt. 2017). Monofilament fishing nets set over high tides were found to be a serious problem on the central Chinese coast, with multiple parallel lines of nets set at Tiaozini in autumn 2015 were found to have captured scores of birds after just one nocturnal high tide, including one juvenile Spoon-billed Sandpiper (Peng et al. 2017). Hunting with nets has also been reported from Viet Nam (Long 2015). Recently the scale of hunting in the Russian far northeast has been found to be much greater than previously assumed, and may impact the species during the immediate post-breeding period particularly.
Between August and October 2014, more than a thousand dead wading birds, including two Spoon-billed Sandpipers, were found on the Tiaozini Sandbanks (Zöckler et al. 2015, Peng et al. 2017). Tests are ongoing to understand the cause of mortality; however, poisoned bait was discovered in the area.
There are no immediate threats to the breeding grounds, but nests in the vicinity of villages are sometimes destroyed by dogs (E. Syroechkovskiy in litt. 2007). Poor breeding productivity in recent years has been attributed to heavy nest predation and bad weather (Syroechkovskiy et al. 2009). Significant habitat degradation has been observed in 5 of 30 visited breeding locations (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, 2010). Human disturbance, both by residents and researchers, may cause increased levels of nest desertion and predation by foxes and skuas (Zöckler & Bunting 2006). Shorebirds, including this species, are also occasionally killed by children with slingshots (Zöckler & Bunting 2006); one male was also shot by a Russian hunter near the Chinese border in 2008 (Zöckler & Syroechkovskiy 2008). Small but significant numbers of birds and their eggs have been collected for scientific purposes in the last 20 years, with one small colony completely wiped out due to this activity (Syroechkovsky 2005). Climate change and associated habitat shifts are expected to impact negatively on this species and other species dependent on tundra habitat for breeding. Modelling indicates that 57% of the breeding habitat for this species could be lost by 2070 (Zöckler & Lysenko 2000). Recent observation on the breeding grounds unfortunately confirm a worrying trend of increasing bushes intruding on the coastal tundra habitats in the southern range, as well as drying of the tundra in the northern range with significant consequences on food access for breeding waders (C. Zöckler in litt. 2020)
Conservation Actions Underway
CMS Appendix I and II. The species has been added to the list as a Class 1 protected species on the National Key Protected Wild Animal List of China: it is forbidden to hunt, capture, kill, sell, acquire and use the species (Choi 2021). Fourteen sites along the coast of Bohai Gulf and the Yellow Sea in China have been nominated for World Heritage Site status. Protected areas in its breeding, staging and wintering areas include Moroshechnaya and several local wildlife refuges on the Chukotsk peninsula (Russia), Yancheng and Chongming Dongtan (China), Mai Po (Hong Kong), Lanyang estuary (Taiwan, China), Point Calimere and Chilka lake (India), and Xuan Thuy Nature Reserve (Vietnam). In September 2019 the Bird Conservation Society of Thailand completed the purchase of 8 hectares to conserve habitat at Pak Thale, within the Pak Thale-Laem Phak Bia Flyway Network site recognised by the Government of Thailand (Jearwattanakanok & Yong 2019). The Gulf of Mottama (160,000 ha), Myanmar has also been proposed as a Ramsar site and the area belonging to Mon State is soon to be designated (Clark et al. 2014, Zöckler 2015). This work across the Gulf of Mottama headed by the Spoon-billed Sandpiper Task Force, with support from the Swiss Development Cooperation and the Rainforest Trust, also ensure sustainable development in line with conservation goals (C. Zöckler in litt. 2020). The species is also legally protected under the Wildlife Act of Myanmar, however the law lacks full implementation (Aung et al. 2020). In 2019, the main stop over sites in Tiaozini (Rudong) were also included into the World Heritage Site nomination (C. Zöckler in litt. 2020). Hunters within the area have also signed agreements to surrender trapping equipment and engage in alternate livelihoods (Ceci 2017). Work by the group 'SBS in China' recently lead to the local government designating a 10,000 ha area for Spoon-billed Sandpipers in Rudong (Clark et al. 2014). The Chinese government have additionally declared a moratorium for future coastal development (P. Insua-Cao in litt. 2019). Shellfish protected areas have also been designated, which will provide suitable feeding habitat for birds and protect local livelihoods.
Annual surveys of breeding sites on Chukotka are undertaken and over 450 adults and young have been ringed on the breeding grounds since 2000 (Zöckler et al. 2008). Annual searches of potential new breeding sites have taken place from 2011 to at least 2013 (Zöckler 2013). Recent advances on the protection of important site for the species have additionally accelerated. In Myanmar, 2 further Ramsar sites protects the species in the the Ayeyarwady Delta (50,000 ha) and Nan Thar Island (40,000), with a vast increase in the official protection level, including preparations for the last remaining site in the south of the country to be protected (C. Zöckler in litt. 2020). Since 2018, the government of Chukotka is also supporting the development of a 300,000 ha large protected area that is adequately named the Land of the Spoon-billed Sandpiper (Syroechkovsky 2019).
A range of awareness and outreach programmes have taken place. Local support groups have been established in some breeding areas and negotiations have taken place to reduce short-term hunting pressure at one of the key wintering sites in Myanmar (Zöckler & Htin Hla 2009, Zöckler et al. 2010b). Researchers and a local environmentalist group convinced two villages on Nan Thar Island, Myanmar, to agree to a hunting ban of the species, with a view to develop an ecologically and economically sound alternative in the future (C. Zöckler in litt. 2007, 2009, 2010, Zöckler et al. 2010b). The development of ecotourism at Nan Thar generated extra income for local people and encouraged them to protect the birds (Clark et al. 2014, Zöckler et al. 2014). In the Bay of Martaban, socio-economic surveys carried out in early 2010 indicated that bird-hunting is undesirable and that most hunters would readily switch to alternative livelihoods if assisted (BANCA 2010). These surveys were swiftly followed by mitigation activities in the same year, in which hunters agreed to stop their activities in exchange for equipment to provide them with an alternative income source, and awareness-raising events and materials were provided for whole communities (BANCA in litt. 2010). On the eastern shore of the Gulf of Martaban, 9 out of 15 hunters targeted by the mitigation activities had increased their livelihood status, the remaining six had neither increased nor decreased their livelihood status (BANCA 2012). Conservationists in Bangladesh successfully raised funds to provide hunters with loans so that they could establish new livelihoods, such as farming (Chowdhury et al. 2014). The Bangladesh Spoon-billed Sandpiper Conservation Project conducted a one year awareness-raising project on Sonadia Island, an important wintering site for the species (Clark et al. 2014). Activities involved former hunters visiting schools to talk about conservation work, film showings, boat races, mural painting and photography exhibitions (S. U. Chowdhury in litt. 2016). In 2011, awareness-raising and advocacy activities including two training workshops took place in schools in China. Schoolchildren living close to the species's breeding grounds in Russia have also been taught about the species and sent letters to other schoolchildren living along the flyway asking them to protect the species (Clark et al. 2014).
A Species Action Plan was produced in 2006 (Zöckler et al. 2008), and updated in 2008 (Zöckler et al. 2008) and 2010 (Zöckler et al. 2010b). At the fifth meeting of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership in Cambodia in December 2010, the partners agreed to establish a Task Force for this species, charged with implementing the action plan (Fowlie 2011). In 2012, the 'Saving Spoony's Chinese Wetlands' project came top in a vote organised by the Disney Foundation, winning $100,000 to support conservation efforts for the species (Clark et al. 2014).
Headstarting, or artificial incubation and captive rearing on the breeding grounds, avoids the high levels of natural predation that occur at egg and chick stage. This significantly increased breeding success, with the number of wild birds fledged increasing by approximately five times per pair (D. Pain in litt. 2016). In addition, by taking eggs within days of them being laid early in the season, some birds lay a second clutch that they incubate and raise themselves. Headstarting expeditions in 2012 and 2013 have resulted in the release of a total of 25 juveniles from 35 eggs collected (Zöckler 2013). In 2015, 37 eggs were collected for headstarting in Chukotka, of which 35 were fertile (B. Hughes in litt. 2015). In July 2016, the headstarting programme successfully released 30 fledglings, the most birds released in a single year. 22 chicks from 30 eggs survived to fledging in 2020, but despite continued releases the number of headstarted birds appears to have ceased offsetting the decline at the release site in 2019 (Syroechkovskiy et al. 2020).
A captive-rearing and breeding programme started in 2011, when eggs were collected in Chukotka, and the young birds reared in captivity in Russia were subsequently transported to purpose-built conservation breeding facilities at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust headquarters at Slimbridge, UK (Pain 2010). In 2012, eggs were transported from Chukotka direct to Slimbridge (Pain et al. 2011, Donald et al. 2013). In May 2014 the captive population numbered 25 birds (Clark et al. 2014). Two pairs of captive birds at Slimbridge started to breed in 2016 (D. Pain in litt. 2016). One chick fledged in 2018 but unfortunately died shortly after, but two chicks were successfully reared fledging in 2019 and remain alive in 2021. No further successful breeding has occurred, and in 2020 several of the eight and nine year-old founders of the captive population died, possibly due at least in part to age (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust 2021).
Conservation Actions Proposed
Continue to develop captive breeding programmes and continue to monitor numbers at known breeding sites and carry out searches of suitable habitat in north Kamchatka. Continue to survey wintering sites to monitor the population and identify key sites in the East Asian Flyway to help ensure their protection. Campaign against the continued reclamation of intertidal mudflats along the entire migration route. Restore reclaimed wetland sites. Continue to search for stopover sites in the Russian Far East (Clark et al. 2014). Actively prevent collection of eggs and birds for scientific purposes, museums and private collections. Take measures to ensure that researcher activity does not increase mortality. Ensure effective legal protection of all known breeding sites. Survey existing and potential wintering sites in Myanmar and Bangladesh. Stop hunting and trapping at key sites in Myanmar, Bangladesh and Russia. Ensure awareness-raising activities are maintained in the long-term. Ensure protection of newly discovered sites and existing sites, especially in South Korea. Legally protect it in all range states. Identify and mitigate pressures at breeding grounds. Lobby against plans for a deep-water port at Sonadia, Bangladesh (Bird et al. 2010, Chowdhury 2012) and protect important sites along the Meghna Estuary, Bangladesh (Chowdhury et al. 2018). Pursue protected area status for the Bay of Martaban and other coastal sites in Myanmar (BANCA in litt. 2010, Zöckler et al. 2014). Encourage initiatives that promote opportunities for ex-hunters to become bird guides (P. Palmer in litt. 2020).
14-16 cm. Small stint with spatulate bill. Breeding adult has red-brown head, neck and breast with dark brown streaks. Blackish upperparts with buff and pale rufous fringing. Non-breeding adult lacks reddish coloration, but has pale brownish-grey upperparts with whitish fringing to wing-coverts. White underparts. Similar spp. Red-necked Stint C. ruficollis and Little Stint C. minuta lack spatulate bill. Non-breeders of both species have less white on forehead, appear smaller-headed and have narrower supercilia. Breeding C. ruficollis has less uniformly fringed rufous/brick-red fringes to scapulars. Voice Quiet, rolling preep and shrill wheet, usually in flight.
Text account compilers
Ashpole, J, Crosby, M., Martin, R., Gilroy, J., Calvert, R., Westrip, J.R.S., Taylor, J., Peet, N., Everest, J., Berryman, A., Fernando, E., Chan, S., Symes, A., Benstead, P., Mahood, S.
Contributors
Chan, S., Cheung, F., Chowdhury, S.U., Chutima, G., Fu, V., Hughes, B., Li, Z.W.D., Moores, N., Pain, D., Palmer, P., Rahmani, A., Stroud, D., Sutasha, K., Syroechkovskiy, E., Tomkovich, P., Tong, M. & Zöckler, S.
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: Spoon-billed Sandpiper Calidris pygmaea. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/spoon-billed-sandpiper-calidris-pygmaea on 22/11/2024.
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 22/11/2024.