Cygnus cygnus -- (Linnaeus, 1758) ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- -- Common names: Whooper ; European Red List Assessment European Red List Status LC -- Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1) Assessment Information Year published: 2015 Date assessed: 2015-03-31 Assessor(s): BirdLife International Reviewer(s): Symes, A. Compiler(s): Ashpole, J., Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L. Assessment Rationale European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) EU27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

In this species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). The population trend appears to be increasing, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern in Europe.

Within the EU27 this species has a very large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). The population trend appears to be increasing, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern in the EU27. Occurrence Countries/Territories of Occurrence Native: Albania; Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; ; Faroe Islands (to DK); Greenland (to DK); Estonia; ; France; Germany; Greece; ; , Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Montenegro; Netherlands; Norway; Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO); ; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; Vagrant: Cyprus; Hungary; Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Portugal Population The European population is estimated at 25,300-32,800 pairs, which equates to 50,600-65,500 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 13,900-19,100 pairs, which equates to 27,900-38,200 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Trend In Europe and the EU27 the population size is estimated to be increasing. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Habitats and Ecology The species breeds on islands in or along the banks of shallow freshwater pools, lakes, slow-flowing rivers (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014), marshes, swamps and bogs, showing a preference for habitats with abundant emergent vegetation (Kear 2005) and reedbeds in (coniferous forest) zones, birch forest zones (Johnsgard 1978) and shrub/forest tundra (Kear 2005). Non-breeders may also be found in flocks on lakes, river channels and coastal bays (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014). On migration the species frequents lakes, estuaries and sheltered coasts. It traditionally winters on freshwater lakes and marshes, brackish lagoons and coastal bays (Kear 2005), floodlands (Snow and Perrins 1998), although low-lying coastal agricultural land (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014) and wet pastures (Snow and Perrins 1998) are now used increasingly (Kear 2005). It breeds from mid-May in solitary pairs with well-defined territories. The nest is a large mound of plant matter (del Hoyo et al. 1992) built on dry ground or in reedbeds (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014) on small islands in or along the edges of lakes, pools or rivers (Madge and Burn 1988). The same nest mound may be used over several years although it is often repaired and new material is added (Kear 2005). Clutch size is typically four or five eggs, although can be up to 12. The species is predominantly herbivorous, its diet consisting of grasses (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014), the leaves, stems and roots of aquatic plants, sedges and horsetails (Equisetum spp.) (Johnsgard 1978, Kear 2005). During the winter the species also takes agricultural grain, vegetables (e.g. potatoes and turnips (Johnsgard 1978) and acorns (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014)), and on the breeding grounds young often take adult and larval insects (Johnsgard 1978). This species is predominantly migratory (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014). Habitats & Altitude Habitat (level 1 - level 2) Importance Occurrence Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land major non-breeding Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Brackish/Saline Lagoons/Marine Lakes suitable breeding Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Brackish/Saline Lagoons/Marine Lakes suitable non-breeding Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Freshwater Lakes suitable breeding Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Freshwater Lakes suitable non-breeding (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands suitable breeding Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands suitable non-breeding Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over ha) suitable breeding Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over ha) suitable non-breeding Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over ha) major breeding Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over ha) major non-breeding Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls) suitable breeding Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls) suitable non-breeding Altitude Occasional altitudinal limits Threats The species is threatened by habitat degradation and loss. Threats to its habitats include agricultural expansion, drainage for irrigation, overgrazing by livestock (e.g. sheep), the development of roads (Kear 2005) and chronic oil pollution from oil exploration and transportation. The species may suffer heavy losses from future oil spills (Nikolaeva et al. 2006), flying accidents (such as collisions with overhead lines (Kear 2005) or wind turbines (Larsen and Clausen 2002)), poisoning (Kear 2005) from lead shot ingestion (Spray and Milne 1988) and it is susceptible to avian influenza, so may be threatened by future outbreaks of the disease (Melville and Shortridge 2006). The species is also threatened by hunting (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014), nest destruction and by subsistence egg collecting (Gudmundsson 1979, Nikolaeva et al. 2006). Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses Agriculture & Agro-industry Timing Scope Severity Impact aquaculture farming Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Negligible declines Low Impact Stresses Ecosystem conversion Agriculture & Agro-industry Timing Scope Severity Impact aquaculture grazing, ranching or Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Negligible declines Low Impact farming Stresses Ecosystem conversion Biological resource Fishing & harvesting Timing Scope Severity Impact use aquatic resources Ongoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact (unintentional effects: Stresses (subsistence/small Species mortality scale) [harvest]) Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses Biological resource Hunting & trapping Timing Scope Severity Impact use terrestrial Ongoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact (intentional use - species is the target) Stresses Species mortality Biological resource Hunting & trapping Timing Scope Severity Impact use terrestrial animals Ongoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact (persecution/ control) Stresses Species mortality Climate change & Habitat shifting & Timing Scope Severity Impact severe weather alteration Future Whole (>90%) Unknown Unknown Stresses Ecosystem degradation; Indirect ecosystem effects Energy production Oil & gas drilling Timing Scope Severity Impact & mining Ongoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant Low Impact Declines Stresses Indirect ecosystem effects Energy production Renewable energy Timing Scope Severity Impact & mining Ongoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact Stresses Species mortality Invasive and other Avian Influenza Timing Scope Severity Impact problematic Virus (H subtype) Past, Likely to Majority (50-90%) Rapid Declines Past Impact species, genes & Return diseases Stresses Species mortality Natural system Abstraction of Timing Scope Severity Impact modifications surface water Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Negligible declines Low Impact (unknown use) Stresses Ecosystem conversion Pollution Oil spills Timing Scope Severity Impact Past, Likely to Minority (<50%) Causing/Could Past Impact Return cause fluctuations Stresses Species mortality Transportation & Roads & railroads Timing Scope Severity Impact service corridors Ongoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact Stresses Ecosystem conversion; Species mortality Transportation & Utility & service Timing Scope Severity Impact service corridors lines Ongoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact Stresses Species mortality Conservation Conservation Actions Underway Bern Convention Appendix II. EU Birds Directive Annex I. CMS Appendix II. In the U.K., the species is listed as Amber on the national Red List (Eaton et al. 2009).

Conservation Actions Proposed Key sites should be identified and protected by legislation against all forms of development and habitat alteration. Strict legislation should also be enforced with regards to oil drilling and transportation. Power lines should be made more visible or moved and careful assessment made during planning of wind farm construction. Protection from hunting and persecution should also be implemented and enforced. Bibliography Carboneras, C. and Kirwan, G.M. 2014. Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. and de Juana, E. (eds.) (2014). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. (retrieved from http://www.hbw.com/node/52807 on 26 February 2015). Gudmundsson, F. 1979. The past status and exploitation of the Myvatn waterfowl populations. Oikos 32((1-2)): 232-249. Johnsgard, P.A. 1978. Ducks, geese and of the World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London. Kear, J. 2005. Ducks, geese and swans volume 1: general chapters; species accounts (Anhima to Salvadorina). Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. Larsen, J. K. and Clausen, P. 2002. Potential wind park impacts on Whooper Swans in winter: The risk of collision. In: Rees, E. C.; Earnst, S. L.; Coulson, J. (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Swan Symposium, pp. 327-330. Waterbird Society. Madge, S.; Burn, H. 1988. Wildfowl. Christopher Helm, London. Melville, D.S.; Shortridge, K.F. 2006. Migratory waterbirds and avian influenza in the East Asian- Australasian Flyway with particular reference to the 2003-2004 H5N1 outbreak. In: Boere, G., Galbraith, C. and Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 432-438. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Nikolaeva, N. G.; Spiridonov, V. A.; Krasnov, Y. V. 2006. Existing and proposed marine protected areas and their relevance for seabird conservation: a case study in the Barents Sea region. In: Boere, G. Galbraith, C. and Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 743-749. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Scott, D.A. and Rose, P.M. 1996. Atlas of Anatidae populations in Africa and western Eurasia. Wetlands International, Wageningen, Netherlands. Snow, D.W. and Perrins, C.M. 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic vol. 1: Non-Passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Spray, C. J. and Milne, H. 1988. The incidence of lead poisoning among whooper and mute swans Cygnus cygnus and C. olor in Scotland. Biological Conservation 44: 265-281. Map (see overleaf)