Haematopus ostralegus -- Linnaeus, 1758ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- CHARADRIIFORMES -- HAEMATOPODIDAECommon names: Eurasian Oystercatcher; Pied Oystercatcher

European Red List AssessmentEuropean Red List Status

VU -- Vulnerable, (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: Vulnerable (VU)EU27 regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)

This widespread shorebird is undergoing rapid population declines across the European part of its extremely large global range. It is therefore classified as Vulnerable (A2abc+3bc+4abc) in both Europe and the EU27.

OccurrenceCountries/Territories of OccurrenceNative:Albania; 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; Lithuania; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Malta; Moldova; Montenegro; Netherlands; Norway; Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO); Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; Gibraltar (to UK)Vagrant:Greenland (to DK); Luxembourg; Slovenia

PopulationThe European population is estimated at 284,000-354,000 pairs, which equates to 568,000-708,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 226,000-267,000 pairs, which equates to 453,000-533,000 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF.

TrendIn Europe and the EU27 the population size is estimated to be decreasing by 30-49% in 41.1 years (three generations) both in the breeding season and in winter. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF.

Habitats and EcologyMost populations of this species are fully migratory, inland breeders moving to the coast for the winter (Hockey et al. 2013). The species breeds from April to July (Hayman et al. 1986) in solitary pairs or small groups (Flint et al. 1984), during the winter foraging singly or in small groups of up to 10 individuals (Snow and Perrins 1998) and with larger flocks often forming in major bays and estuaries and at roosting sites (Hayman et al. 1986, Snow and Perrins 1998, Hockey et al. 2013). The species breeds on coastal saltmarshes, sand and shingle beaches (Hockey et al. 2013), dunes, cliff-tops with short grass (Hayman et al. 1986) and occasionally rocky shores (Hockey et al. 2013), as well as inland along the shores of lakes, reservoirs and rivers (Hayman et al. 1986) or on agricultural (Hockey et al. 2013) grass and cereal fields, often some distance from water (Hayman et al. 1986). Outside of the breeding season the species is chiefly coastal, frequenting estuarine mudflats, saltmarshes and sandy and rocky shores (Hockey et al. 2013). When foraging on soft intertidal substrates bivalves and gastropods are the most important food items for this species

(Hockey et al. 2013). Polychaetes and crustaceans are more important in estuaries however, and molluscs (e.g. mussels, limpets and whelks) are most important on rocky shores. When inland, prey such as earthworms and insect larvae (e.g. caterpillars and cranefly larvae) are also taken. The nest is a shallow scrape on the ground (Hockey et al. 2013) often on raised surfaces (e.g. earth banks) (Hayman et al. 1986) in the open or in short vegetation (Snow and Perrins 1998) on cultivated or uncultivated land, cliff-tops, rocky outcrops or clearings in taller vegetation including woods and moorland (Snow and Perrins 1998).Habitats & Altitude

Habitat (level 1 - level 2) Importance OccurrenceArtificial/Aquatic - Water Storage Areas (over ha) suitable breedingArtificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land suitable breedingMarine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Brackish/Saline Lagoons/Marine Lakes suitable non-breedingMarine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Freshwater Lakes suitable non-breedingMarine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Sand Dunes suitable breedingMarine Intertidal - Mud Flats and Salt Flats suitable non-breedingMarine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline suitable breedingMarine Intertidal - Salt Marshes (Emergent Grasses) major breedingMarine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc major breedingMarine Intertidal - Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches major breedingMarine Intertidal - Tidepools suitable breedingMarine Intertidal - Tidepools suitable non-breedingMarine Neritic - Estuaries suitable non-breedingWetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over ha) suitable breedingWetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls) suitable breedingAltitude Occasional altitudinal limits

ThreatsThe main threat to the species is the over-fishing of benthic shellfish and the resulting disappearance of intertidal mussel and cockle beds (Atkinson et al. 2003, Verhulst et al. 2004, Ens 2006). The species is also threatened by habitat degradation on its wintering grounds due to land reclamation, pollution, human disturbance (Kelin and Qiang 2006) (e.g. from construction work) (Burton et al. 2002), coastal barrage construction (Burton 2006) and reduced river flows (Kelin and Qiang 2006). The species is 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

Biological resource use

Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources (unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest])

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

DeclinesMedium Impact

StressesEcosystem degradation

Biological resource use

Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals (intentional use - species is the target)

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Minority (<50%) Unknown Unknown

StressesSpecies mortality

Human intrusions & disturbance

Recreational activities

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

DeclinesMedium Impact

StressesSpecies disturbance

Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases

Avian Influenza Virus (H subtype)

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

DeclinesLow Impact

StressesSpecies mortality

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

Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases

Unspecified species 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 Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant

DeclinesLow Impact

StressesEcosystem degradation

Residential & commercial development

Commercial & industrial areas

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

DeclinesMedium Impact

StressesEcosystem conversion

ConservationConservation Actions UnderwayThe species is listed on Annex II (B) of the EU Birds Directive.

Conservation Actions ProposedThe breeding numbers of this species may decline if cattle grazing regimes are implemented on coastal grassland, possibly as a result of changes in food availability and increased predation risks (Olsen and Schmidt 2004). Removing large numbers of gulls (e.g. Larus argentatus and Larus fuscus) from islands may attract higher breeding numbers of the species but may not improve the overall breeding conditions (Harris and Wanless 1997). There is also evidence that the creation of large marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect this species from the threat of anthropogenic shellfish over-fishing may not be an effective management or conservation technique on a global scale, especially if over-fishing continues to occur in adjacent areas (Verhulst et al. 2004). Shellfish fishing at wintering and stop-over habitats needs to be sustainably managed.

BibliographyAtkinson, P. W.; Clark, N. A.; Bell, M. C.; Dare, P. J.; Clark, J. A.; Ireland, P. L. 2003. Changes in commercially fished shellfish stocks and shorebird populations in the Wash, England. Biological Conservation 114: 127-141.Burton, N. H. K. 2006. The impact of the Cardiff Bay barrage on wintering waterbirds. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), aterbirds around the world, pp. 805. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK.Burton, N. H. K.; Rehfisch, M. M.; 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.; Thomson, D.L. 1997. UK birds are laying earlier. Nature 388: 526.Crick, H. Q. P.; Sparks, T.H. 1999. Climate change related to egg-laying trends. Nature 399: 423-424.Hagemeijer, W.J.M. & Blair, M.J. 1997. The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds: Their Distribution and Abundance. T & A D Poyser, London.Hockey, P., Kirwan, G.M. & Boesman, P. (2013). Eurasian Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E. (eds.) (2013). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. (retrieved from http://www.hbw.com/node/53753 on 15 April 2015).Ens, B. J. 2006. The conflict between shellfisheries and migratory waterbirds in the Dutch Wadden Sea. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 806-811. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK.Flint, V. E.; Boehme, R. L.; Kostin, Y. V.; Kuznetsov, A. A. 1984. A field guide to birds of the USSR. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Harris, M. P.; Wanless, S. 1997. The effect of removing large numbers of gull Larus spp. on an island population of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus: implications for management. Biological Conservation 82: 167-171.

BibliographyHayman, P.; Marchant, J.; Prater, A. J. 1986. Shorebirds. Croom Helm, London.Kelin, C.; Qiang, X. 2006. Conserving migratory shorebirds in the Yellow Sea region. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 319. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK.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., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 432-438. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK.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.Snow, D. W.; Perrins, C. M. 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic vol. 1: Non-Passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Vahatalo, A. V.; Rainio, K.; Lehikoinen, A.; Lehikoinen, E. 2004. Spring arrival of birds depends on the North Atlantic Oscillation. Journal of Avian Biology 35: 210-216.Verhulst, S.; Oosterbeek, K.; Rutten, A. L.; Ens, B. J. 2004. Shellfish fishery severely reduces condition and survival of oystercatchers despite creation of large marine protected areas. Ecology and Society 9(1): unpaginated.

Map (see overleaf)