Tringa totanus -- (Linnaeus, 1758)ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- CHARADRIIFORMES -- SCOLOPACIDAECommon names: Common Redshank; Chevalier gambette; Redshank

European Red List AssessmentEuropean Red List Status

LC -- Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment InformationYear published: 2015Date assessed: 2015-03-31Assessor(s): BirdLife InternationalReviewer(s): Symes, A.Compiler(s): Ashpole, J., Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Van den Bossche, W., Wheatley, H. &

Wright, L.Assessment RationaleEuropean regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU27 regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)

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 <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). The population size is very large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >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 Europe.

In the EU27 the species is undergoing rapid declines, and it is therefore classified as Vulnerable. Since the wider European population is also decreasing, there is not considered to be significant potential for rescue from outside the EU27 and the final category is unchanged.

OccurrenceCountries/Territories of OccurrenceNative:Albania; Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Faroe Islands (to DK); Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland, Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; 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 KingdomVagrant:Greenland (to DK); Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO); Gibraltar (to UK)

PopulationThe European population is estimated at 340,000-484,000 pairs, which equates to 680,000-968,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 93,700-130,000 pairs, which equates to 187,000-259,000 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF.

TrendIn Europe the population size is estimated to be decreasing by less than 25% in 18.6 years (three generations). In the EU27 the population size is estimated to be decreasing by 30-49% over the same period. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF.

Habitats and Ecology

Most populations of this species are fully migratory and travel on a broad front over land and along coasts, some Icelandic and western European populations remaining close to their breeding grounds (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996). It breeds from March to August (Hayman et al. 1986) in solitary pairs or in loose colonies (Hayman et al. 1986, Van Gils and Wiersma 1996), departing the breeding grounds from June to October, and returning from the wintering grounds again between February and April (Hayman et al. 1986). The species breeds on coastal saltmarshes, inland wet grasslands with short swards (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996) (including cultivated meadows) (Johnsgard 1981), grassy marshes, swampy heathlands (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996) and swampy moors (Johnsgard 1981). On passage the species may frequent inland flooded grasslands (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996) and the silty shores of rivers and lakes (Flint et al. 1984), but during the winter it is largely coastal, occupying rocky, muddy and sandy beaches, saltmarshes, tidal mudflats, saline and freshwater coastal lagoons (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996), tidal estuaries (Johnsgard 1981), saltworks and sewage farms. When breeding it feeds on insects, spiders and annelid worms. During the non-breeding season the species takes insects, spiders and annelid worms, as well as molluscs, crustaceans (especially amphipods e.g. Corophium spp.) and occasionally small fish and tadpoles (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996). The nest is a shallow scrape or hollow (Snow and Perrins 1998) on a hummock or at the base of a tuft (Flint et al. 1984) of grass, often well hidden by overhanging leaves (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996). The species usually nests solitarily inland (less than 10 pairs/km2) but in loosely colonial groups (up to 100–300 pairs/km2) on the coast (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996).Habitats & Altitude

Habitat (level 1 - level 2) Importance OccurrenceArtificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland suitable breedingArtificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland suitable non-breedingMarine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Brackish/Saline Lagoons/Marine Lakes suitable breedingMarine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Brackish/Saline Lagoons/Marine Lakes suitable non-breedingMarine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Freshwater Lakes suitable breedingMarine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Freshwater Lakes suitable non-breedingMarine Intertidal - Mud Flats and Salt Flats suitable breedingMarine Intertidal - Mud Flats and Salt Flats suitable non-breedingMarine Intertidal - Salt Marshes (Emergent Grasses) suitable breedingMarine Intertidal - Salt Marshes (Emergent Grasses) suitable non-breedingMarine Neritic - Estuaries suitable breedingMarine Neritic - Estuaries suitable non-breedingWetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over ha) suitable non-breedingWetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Marshes/Pools (under ha) suitable non-breedingAltitude Occasional altitudinal limits

ThreatsThe species is threatened by the loss of breeding and wintering habitats through agricultural intensification, wetland drainage, flood control, afforestation, land reclamation, industrial development (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996), encroachment of Spartina spp. on mudflats (Evans 1986, Van Gils and Wiersma 1996), improvement of marginal grasslands (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996) (e.g. by drainage, inorganic fertilising and re-seeding) (Baines 1988), coastal barrage construction (Burton 2006), and heavy grazing (e.g., of saltmarshes) (Norris et al. 1998). The species is also threatened by disturbance on intertidal mudflats from construction work (U.K.) (Burton et al. 2002a) and foot-traffic on footpaths (Burton et al. 2002b). It is vulnerable to severe cold periods on its western European wintering grounds (Van Gils and Wiersma 1996) and suffers from nest predation by introduced predators (e.g. European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)) on some islands (Jackson 2001). The species is also susceptible to avian influenza so may be threatened by future outbreaks of the virus (Melville and Shortridge 2006).Threats & Impacts

Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and StressesAgriculture & aquaculture

Agro-industry farming

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Majority (50-90%) Unknown Unknown

StressesEcosystem degradation

Threats & ImpactsThreat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses

Agriculture & aquaculture

Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant

DeclinesLow Impact

StressesEcosystem degradation

Agriculture & aquaculture

Agro-industry plantations

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant

DeclinesLow Impact

StressesEcosystem degradation

Climate change & severe weather

Droughts Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant

DeclinesLow Impact

StressesEcosystem degradation

Human intrusions & disturbance

Recreational activities

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant

DeclinesLow Impact

StressesSpecies disturbance

Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases

Avian Influenza Virus (H subtype)

Timing Scope Severity ImpactPast, Likely to Return

Majority (50-90%) Rapid Declines Past Impact

StressesSpecies mortality

Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases

Western European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant

DeclinesLow Impact

StressesSpecies mortality

Natural system modifications

Abstraction of surface water (unknown use)

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant

DeclinesMedium Impact

StressesEcosystem conversion; Ecosystem degradation

Natural system modifications

Other ecosystem modifications

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant

DeclinesLow Impact

StressesEcosystem conversion; Ecosystem degradation

ConservationConservation Actions UnderwayThe species is listed on Annex II (B) of the EU Birds Directive. The EU commisioned a Management Plan for this huntable bird species considered to be in unfavourable status (Technical Report - 2009 - 031) (Jensen et al. 2009).

Conservation Actions ProposedOptimal breeding conditions for this species may be provided by creating a mosaic of unflooded grassland, winter-flooded grassland and shallow pools (Ausden et al. 2002). Winter flooding of grasslands is beneficial to the species as it helps to keep the sward height short and open and also creates pools which provide a source of aquatic invertebrates in the spring (Ausden et al. 2002, Olsen and Schmidt 2004). Such shallow pools on coastal grazing marshes should be maintained until the end of June (Ausden et al. 2003). The number of breeding pairs on improved grassland was successfully increased on a reserve in Wales by the implementation of a two-year rotation of chisel ploughing, as well as a seasonal sheep and cattle grazing regime and a controlled increase in the water-level (Squires and Allcorn 2006). At Lower Lough Erne in Northern Ireland the breeding population of the species increased considerably as a result of cutting rush beds

in mid-winter (although the species nested on uncut areas, chicks benefited from the presence of adjacent short, open areas for feeding) (Robson and Allcorn 2006). Low-level grazing of salt marshes (e.g. c. 1 cow per hectare) does not appear to affect the species and may even be beneficial to breeding populations (Norris et al. 1997, Ausden et al. 2005), although cattle should not be put onto the marsh until towards the end of the nesting season (e.g. late-May or early-June) to minimise the risk of nest trampling (Norris et al. 1997). There is also evidence that too heavy grazing can be detrimental (Evans 1986). The species is known to show increased hatching success when ground predators have been excluded by erecting protective fences around nesting areas (Jackson 2001), and in the U.K. there is evidence that the removal of Spartina anglica from tidal mudflats using a herbicide is beneficial for the species (Evans 1986).

BibliographyAusden, M., Badley, J. and James, L. 2005. The effect of introducing cattle grazing to saltmarsh on densities of breeding redshank Tringa totanus at Frampton Marsh RSPB Reserve, Lincolnshire, England. Conservation Evidence 2: 57-59.Ausden, M., Rowlands, A., Sutherland, W.J. and James, R. 2003. Diet of breeding Lapwing Vanellus vanellus and Redshank Tringa totanus on coastal grazing marsh and implications for habitat management. Bird Study 50: 285-293.Baines, D. 1988. The effects of improvement of upland grassland on the distribution and density of breeding wading birds (Charadriiformes) in northern England. Biological Conservation 45: 221-236.Burton, N.H.K. 2006. The impact of the Cardiff Bay barrage on wintering waterbirds. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 805. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK.Burton, N.H.K., Armitage, M.J.S., Musgrove, A.J. and Rehfisch, M.M. 2002. Impacts of Man-Made landscape Features on Numbers of Estuarine Waterbirds at Low Tide. Environmental Management 30(6): 857-864.Burton, N.H.K., Rehfisch, M.M. and Clark, N.A. 2002. Impacts of Disturbance from Construction Work on the Densities and Feeding Behavior of Waterbirds using the Intertidal Mudflats of Cardiff Bay, UK. Environmental Management 30(6): 865-871.Crick, H.Q.P., Dudley, C., Glue, D.E. and Thomson, D.L. 1997. UK birds are laying earlier. Nature 388: 526.Evans, P.R. 1986. Use of the Herbicide 'Dalapon' for Control of Spartina Encroaching on Intertidal Mudflats: Beneficial Effects on Shorebirds. Colonial Waterbirds 9(1): 171-175.Flint, V.E., Boehme, R.L., Kostin, Y.V. and Kuznetsov, A.A. 1984. A field guide to birds of the USSR. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Hayman, P., Marchant, J. and Prater, A.J. 1986. Shorebirds. Croom Helm, London.Jackson, D.B. 2001. Experimental Removal of Introduced Hedgehogs Improves Wader Nest Success in the Western Isles, Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 38(4): 802-812.Jensen, F.P., Perennou, C. and Lutz, M. 2009. European Union Management Plan 2009-2001 for Redshank Tringa totanus. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Johnsgard, P.A. 1981. The plovers, sandpipers and snipes of the world. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, U.S.A. and London.Melville, D.S. and 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.Norris, K., Brindley, E., Cook, T., Babbs, S., Forster Brown, C. and Yaxley, R. 1998. Is the density of Redshank Tringa totanus nesting on saltmarshes in Great Britain declining due to changes in grazing management? Journal of Applied Ecology 35(5): 621-634.Norris, K., Cook, T., O'Dowd, B. and Durdin, C. 1997. The Density of Redshank Tringa totanus Breeding on the Salt-Marshes of the Wash in Relation to Habitat and Its Grazing Management. Journal of Applied Ecology 34(4): 999-1013.Olsen, H., Schmidt, N.M. 2004. Impacts of wet grassland management and winter severity on wader breeding numbers in eastern Denmark. Basic and Applied Ecology 5: 203-210.Robson, B. and Allcorn, R.I. 2006. Rush cutting to create nesting patches for lapwings Vanellus vanellus and other waders, Lower Lough Erne RSPB reserve, County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland. Conservation Evidence 3: 81-83.

BibliographySnow, D.W. and Perrins, C.M. 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic vol. 1: Non-Passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Squires, R. and Allcorn, R.I. 2006. The effect of chisel ploughing to create nesting habitat for breeding lapwings Vanellus vanellus at Ynys-Hir RSPB reserve, Powys, Wales. Conservation Evidence 3: 77-78.Van Gils, J. and Wiersma, P. 1996. Common Redshank (Tringa totanus). 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/53902 on 15 April 2015).

Map (see overleaf)