Scolopax rusticola -- Linnaeus, 1758 ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- CHARADRIIFORMES -- SCOLOPACIDAE Common names: Eurasian Woodcock; Woodcock 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., Van den Bossche, W., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L. Assessment Rationale European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) EU27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) In Europe 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 stable, 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 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). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to 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; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Faroe Islands (to DK); Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland, Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Malta; Moldova; Montenegro; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom Vagrant: Bosnia and Herzegovina; Greenland (to DK); Iceland; Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO); Gibraltar (to UK) Population The European population is estimated at 6,890,000-8,710,000 calling or lekking males, which equates to 13,800,000-17,400,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 728,000-1,470,000 calling or lekking males, which equates to 1,460,000-2,940,000 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Trend In Europe the population size is estimated to be stable. In the EU27 the population size is estimated to be decreasing by less than 25% in 18.9 years (three generations). For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Habitats and Ecology The species is sedentary on Atlantic islands (Hayman et al. 1986, Van Gils and Wiersma 1996) and in some areas in south-western maritime countries (Snow and Perrins 1998) but is otherwise strongly migratory (Hayman et al. 1986, Van Gils and Wiersma 1996). The distribution of earthworms is an important habitat characteristic for the species throughout the year (Johnsgard 1981). For breeding the species requires extensive unfragmented areas (Hayman et al. 1986, Van Gils and Wiersma 1996) of broadleaved deciduous or mixed broadleaved/coniferous forest (Johnsgard 1981) containing a dense undergrowth of shrubs and ground cover (Lutz and Pagh Jensen 2005) (e.g. of brambles (Rubus spp.), holly (Ilex aquifolium), hazel (Corylus avellana), gorse (Ulex spp.), bracken (Pteridium spp.) or bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus)) (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996, Lutz and Pagh Jensen 2005) and with a mosaic (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996) of dry, warm resting places, moist areas for foraging (Johnsgard 1981, Hayman et al. 1986) (e.g. streams, springs or damp, swampy patches) (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996), and clearings or other open areas as flight paths (Johnsgard 1981, Hayman et al. 1986). The species may also nest in swampy forests with mossy ground, brooks and other watercourses or alternatively in coniferous forest with moist leaf litter and an undergrowth of broadleaved shrubs and ferns (Johnsgard 1981). The species's habitats requirements during the daylight hours of the non-breeding season are similar to its breeding habitat requirements but are less restricted (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996). As well as extensive broadleaved or mixed broadleaved/coniferous forest (Johnsgard 1981) the species will also occupy young conifer plantations (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996), hedges with high densities of trees and shrubs (Duriez et al. 2005b), smaller woods, areas of scrub (Hayman et al. 1986) and coppiced habitats with coppice that is 7–20 years old (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996). It still shows a strong preference for woodlands with rich (e.g. mull) humus types that have high earthworm biomasses, and a dense shrub strata however (Duriez et al. 2005b). At night during this season the species gathers to roost and feed in damp, earthworm-rich, permanent grasslands (Hayman et al. 1986, Van Gils and Wiersma 1996, Duriez et al. 2005b), showing a preference for grazed meadows compared to cultivated fields (as the latter contain higher earthworm biomasses) (Duriez et al. 2005b). The species may also feed on intertidal mud during freezing weather (Hayman et al. 1986). Its diet consists predominantly of earthworms, especially during the non- breeding season (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996), but the species may also take adult and larval insects (e.g. beetles, earwigs and millipedes), spiders, slugs and leaches. Habitats & Altitude Habitat (level 1 - level 2) Importance Occurrence Artificial/Terrestrial - Plantations suitable breeding Artificial/Terrestrial - Plantations suitable non-breeding Forest - Boreal suitable breeding Forest - Temperate major breeding Forest - Temperate major non-breeding Shrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation suitable breeding Shrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation suitable non-breeding Altitude Occasional altitudinal limits Threats The most significant threat to the species in its breeding range is the increased fragmentation of woodlands (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996). Outside of the breeding season the species is threatened by the disappearance of permanent grasslands (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996) and through the intensification of agricultural practices (e.g. the destruction of hedges, decreases in the number of permanent grazed meadows and the impoverishment of soil fauna as a result of ploughing and chemical application) (Duriez et al. 2005b). The species is also susceptible to avian influenza (both in its breeding and wintering range) so may be threatened by future outbreaks of the virus (Melville and Shortridge 2006). The species is widely hunted, with the largest numbers taken in France, Italy, U.K. and Spain. Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses Agriculture & Agro-industry Timing Scope Severity Impact aquaculture farming Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant Medium Impact Declines Stresses Ecosystem degradation Biological resource Hunting & trapping Timing Scope Severity Impact use terrestrial animals Ongoing Minority (<50%) Unknown Unknown (intentional use - species is the target) Stresses Species mortality Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses 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 Other ecosystem Timing Scope Severity Impact modifications modifications Ongoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact Stresses Ecosystem degradation Conservation Conservation Actions Underway The species is listed on Annex II (A) and III (B) of the EU Birds Directive. Conservation Actions Proposed Permanent grasslands in key wintering areas need to be sustainably managed and restored. Bibliography Bauthian, I. 2005. Dynamiques spatiales des espèces d’intérêt cynégétique. L’apport des modèles de dynamique des populations. Ecologie, Université Paris. Bauthian, I., Iljinsky, I., Fokin, S., Julliard, R., Gossmann, F. and Ferrand, Y. 2006. Survival rates of Russian Woodcocks. International Wader Studies 11: 61-64. Blokhin, Y.Y., Mezhnev, A.P. and Fokin, S.Y. 2006. Woodcock hunting bag statistics in Russia since 1996. International Wader Studies 11. Bregnballe, T., Noer, H., Christensen, T.K., Clausen, P., Asferg, T., Fox, A.D and Delany, S. 2006. Sustainable hunting of migratory waterbirds: the Danish approach. In: Boere, G., Galbraith, C. and Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 854-860. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Clausager, I. 2006. Wing survey of Woodcock and Snipe in Denmark. International Wader Studies 11: 106-112. Duriez, O., Eraud, C., Barbraud, C. and Ferrand, Y. 2005. Factors affecting population dynamics of Eurasian woodcocks wintering in France: assessing the efficiency of a hunting-free reserve. Biological Conservation 122(1): 89-97. Duriez, O., Ferrand, Y., Binet, F., Corda, E., Gossmann, F. and Fritz, H. 2005. Habitat selection of the Eurasian woodcock in winter in relation to earthworms availability. Biological Conservation 122(3): 479-490. Ferrand, Y., Aubry, P., Landry, P. and Priol, P. in prep. Behavioural responses of human disturbance