Eurasian Woodcockscolopaxrusticola

birdlife.org

LC

Eurasian WoodcockScolopaxrusticola

Justification
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 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). The population size is extremely 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). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern.

Taxonomic source(s)
AERC TAC. 2003. AERC TAC Checklist of bird taxa occurring in Western Palearctic region, 15th Draft. Available at: _the_WP15.xls.
AOU. 1998. Check-list of North American birds. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
Cramp, S.; Perrins, C. M. 1977-1994. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The birds of the western Palearctic. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
Sibley, C. G.; Monroe, B. L. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA.

Distribution and population
This species has a large global population estimated to be 15,000,000-16,000,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2002).
Population justification
The global population is estimated to number c.10,000,000-26,000,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2006), while national population estimates include: c.10,000-100,000 breeding pairs, c.1,000-10,000 individuals on migration and c.50-1,000 wintering individuals in China; < c.1,000 individuals on migration and < c.1,000 wintering individuals in Taiwan; c.50-1,000 individuals on migration and c.50-1,000 wintering individuals in Korea; c.10,000-100,000 breeding pairs, c.1,000-10,000 individuals on migration and c.50-1,000 wintering individuals in Japan and c.10,000-100,000 breeding pairs and c.1,000-10,000 individuals on migration in Russia (Brazil 2009).
Trend justification
The overall population trend is stable, although some populations have unknown trends (Wetlands International 2006).
Ecology
Behaviour The species is sedentary on Atlantic islands (Hayman et al. 1986, del Hoyo et al. 1996) and in some areas in south-western maritime countries (Snow and Perrins 1998) but is otherwise strongly migratory (Hayman et al. 1986, del Hoyo et al. 1996). The spring migration starts at the end of February (Ferrand et al. in prep) (the timing of this movement being closely related to temperature), with the species arriving on the breeding grounds between March and mid-May. In Europe, the species breeds from the end of February to July (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The autumn migration to the wintering grounds is largely governed by the timing of the first winter frosts (e.g. from October to November) (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The species is typically solitary and usually migrates singly or in groups of 5-6 (Snow and Perrins 1998). Individuals may also become aggregated by topography or weather conditions, especially when migrating overland or where food and shelter are restricted (Snow and Perrins 1998). It typically forages nocturnally during the winter (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Habitat The distribution of earthworms is an important habitat characteristic for the species throughout the year (Johnsgard 1981). Breeding For breeding the species requires extensive unfragmented areas (Hayman et al. 1986, del Hoyo et al. 1996) of broadleaved deciduous or mixed broadleaved/coniferous forest (Johnsgard 1981) containing a dense undergrowth of shrubs and ground cover (Lutz and Pagh Jensenin prep) (e.g. of brambles Rubus spp., holly Ilex aquifolium, hazel Corylus avellana, gorse Ulex spp., bracken Pteridium spp. or bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus) (del Hoyo et al. 1996, Lutz and Pagh Jensenin prep) and with a mosaic (del Hoyo et al. 1996) of dry, warm resting places, moist areas for foraging (Johnsgard 1981, Hayman et al. 1986) (e.g. streams, springs or damp, swampy patches) (del Hoyo et al. 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). Non-breeding 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 (del Hoyo et al. 1996). As well as extensive broadleaved or mixed broadleaved/coniferous forest (Johnsgard 1981) the species will also occupy young conifer plantations (del Hoyo et al. 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 of between 7 and 20 years old (del Hoyo et al. 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, del Hoyo et al. 1996, Duriez et al. 2005b) sometimes 3-4 km away from woodland areas used for cover during the day (Hayman et al. 1986), 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). Diet Its diet consists predominantly of earthworms, especially during the non-breeding season (del Hoyo et al. 1996), but the species may also take adult and larval insects (e.g. beetles, earwigs and millipedes), spiders, slugs, leaches, ribbon worms (del Hoyo et al. 1996) and plant material such as seeds, fruit, agricultural grain (e.g. oats and maize), and grass roots and leaves (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Small freshwater bivalve molluscs and crustaceans are also taken by migrating birds (Johnsgard 1981). The composition of the diet may differ between the sexes (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Breeding site The nest is a shallow depression in the ground concealed by shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1996) in open wooded sites (Johnsgard 1981), often at the base of a tree or near a dead fallen branch or log (Johnsgard 1981). Management information In France, both wintering and breeding populations have been monitored since the beginning of the 1990s (Ferrand et al. 2006); in autumn-winter, the monitoring is based on indexes of abundance from data collected by hunters (approx. 1,000) and ringers (approx. 400); in spring, the monitoring is based on censuses of roding males in May-June carried out by a network of 400 observers; wintering population seems to be slightly increasing (1992-2007). Annual success of reproduction is estimated from analysis of wings collected by hunters (mainly in France (Ferrand et al. 2006) and Denmark (Clausager 2006)) and from ringing data (5,000 individuals every year in France). Hunting bags are regularly estimated in some Europeans countries, especially in Denmark (Clausager 2006), in the European part of Russia (Blokhin et al. 2006), in Finland, in Sweden (Ferrand and Gossmann 2001) and in Switzerland. The annual European hunting bag is estimated at 3-4 million birds (Ferrand and Gossmann 2001). Bag limits are applied in different European countries, especially in France, Italy and Portugal (Ferrand and Gossmann 2001). In Britain an appropriate method of surveying the species was found using data on seasonal and evening patterns of summer male display (Hoodless et al. 2006). It was found that in Britain the best months for surveying the species are May and June, and that the detection of 83% of male passes at a fixed point should be possible in a survey lasting 1 hour and commencing 15 minutes before sunset (Hoodless et al. 2006). There is evidence from France that hunting reserves may be efficient tools for conserving wintering woodcocks, but only if buffer zones at least 1 km wide where hunting pressures are kept low and under-control are in place around reserves (Duriez et al. 2005a). In France it was also found that forestry management practices should preserve rich humus types and coppices by choosing tree species that ameliorate the soil and by soil tilling (Duriez et al. 2005b). The species may also benefit from set-aside land, grass field-borders and the simplification of farm practices (e.g. by reducing soil tilling and direct sowing) (Duriez et al. 2005b).
Threats
Breeding The most significant threat to the species in its breeding range is the increased fragmentation of woodlands (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Non-breeding Outside of the breeding season the species is threatened by the disappearance of permanent grasslands (del Hoyo et al. 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 viurs (Melville and Shortridge 2006). Utilisation The species is hunted in Denmark (Bregnballe et al. 2006).

References
Johnsgard, P. A. 1981. The plovers, sandpipers and snipes of the world. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, U.S.A. and London.

Hayman, P.; Marchant, J.; Prater, A. J. 1986. Shorebirds. Croom Helm, London.

del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Sargatal, J. 1996. Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 3: Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.

Snow, D. W.; Perrins, C. M. 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic vol. 1: Non-Passerines. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Bregnballe, T.; Noer, H.; Christensen, T. K.; Clausen, P.; Asferg, T.; Fox, A. D.; Delany, S. 2006. Sustainable hunting of migratory waterbirds: the Danish approach. In: Boere, G.; Galbraith, C., Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 854-860. The Stationary 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.

Duriez, O.; Eraud, C.; Barbraud, C.; 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.; Fritz, H. 2005. Habitat selection of the Eurasian woodcock in winter in relation to earthworms availability. 122(3): 479-490.

Hoodless, A.; Lang, D.; Fuller, R. J.; Aebischer, N.; Ewald, J. 2006. Development of a survey method for breeding woodcock and its application to assessing the status of the British population. International Wader Studies.

Lutz, M.; Pagh Jensen, F. in prep. European management plan for Woodcock Scolopax rusticola 2006-2009 (Draft).

Ferrand Y.; Aubry P.; Landry P.; Priol P. in prep. Behavioural responses of human disturbance on wintering European Woodcock.

Ferrand, Y.; Aubry, P.; Gossmann, F.; Bastat, C.; Guénézan, M. 2006. Monitoring of the European Woodcock populations, with special reference to France. Communications of the 10th American Woodcock Symposium, Roscommon, Michigan.

Clausager, I. 2006. Wing survey of Woodcock and Snipe in Denmark. International Wader Studies 11: 106-112.

Blokhin, Y. Y.; Mezhnev, A. P.; Fokin, S. Y. 2006. Woodcock hunting bag statistics in Russia since 1996. International Wader Studies 11.

Ferrand, Y.; Gossmann, F. 2001. Elements for a Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) management plan. Game and Wildlife Science 18(1): 115-139.

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.; Ferrand, Y. 2006. Survival rates of Russian Woodcocks. International Wader Studies 11: 61-64.

Further web sources of information
Detailed species account from Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status (BirdLife International 2004)

Hear sounds for this species from xeno-canto, the community database of shared bird sounds from around the world.

View photos and videos, and hear sounds of this species from the Internet Bird Collection

Text account compilers
Butchart, S., Ekstrom, J., Malpas, L.

Contributors
Ferrand, Y.

IUCN Red List evaluators
Butchart, S., Symes, A.

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2012) Species factsheet: Scolopaxrusticola. Downloaded from on 19/11/2012. Recommended citation for factsheets for more than one species: BirdLife International (2012) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from on 19/11/2012.

This information is based upon, and updates, the information published in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004 CD-ROM and BirdLife International (2008) Threatened birds of the world 2008 CD-ROM. These sources provide the information for species accounts for the birds on the IUCN Red List.

To provide new information to update this factsheet or to correct any errors, please email BirdLife

To contribute to discussions on the evaluation of the IUCN Red List status of Globally Threatened Birds, please visit BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums.