Biodiversity

Species Profile and Threats Database


For information to assist proponents in referral, environmental assessments and compliance issues, refer to the Policy Statements and Guidelines (where available), the Conservation Advice (where available) or the Listing Advice (where available).
 
In addition, proponents and land managers should refer to the Recovery Plan (where available) or the Conservation Advice (where available) for recovery, mitigation and conservation information.

EPBC Act Listing Status Listed marine
Listed migratory - Bonn, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA
Adopted/Made Recovery Plans
Other EPBC Act Plans Background Paper to the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH), 2005c) [Wildlife Conservation Plan].
 
Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH), 2006f) [Wildlife Conservation Plan].
 
Policy Statements and Guidelines Draft Significant impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebirds Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), 2009aj) [Admin Guideline].
 
Draft background paper to EPBC Act policy statement 3.21 (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), 2009bc) [Admin Guideline].
 
Shorebirds - A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier Reef (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), 2011i) [Admin Guideline].
 
Federal Register of
    Legislative Instruments
List of Migratory Species (13/07/2000) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000b) [Legislative Instrument].
 
Declaration under section 248 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - List of Marine Species (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000c) [Legislative Instrument].
 
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - Listed Migratory Species - Approval of an International Agreement (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007h) [Legislative Instrument].
 
State Listing Status
NSW: Listed as Vulnerable (Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (New South Wales): December 2013 list)
SA: Listed as Rare (National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australia): Rare species: June 2011 list)
Non-statutory Listing Status
IUCN: Listed as Near Threatened (Global Status: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: 2013.1 list)
VIC: Listed as Vulnerable (Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria: 2013 list)
Scientific name Limosa limosa [845]
Family Scolopacidae:Charadriiformes:Aves:Chordata:Animalia
Species author (Linnaeus,1758)
Infraspecies author  
Reference  
Distribution map Species Distribution Map

This is an indicative distribution map of the present distribution of the species based on best available knowledge. See map caveat for more information.

Illustrations Google Images

Scientific name: Limosa limosa

Common name: Black-tailed Godwit

Other names: Large Godwit
The Black-tailed Godwit is polytypic, meaning more than one subspecies exists:

  • the nominate subspecies, limosa, is found in western Siberia and Europe
  • the subspecies, islandica, breeds in Iceland
  • the subspecies, melanuroides, breeds in east Siberia and Mongolia and is the only subspecies recorded in Australia.

The Black-tailed Godwit is a large wader and member of the Tringinae family. The species has a length of 40–44 cm, a wingspan of 63–75 cm and a weight of 200–300 g. The species is described as being large and graceful with a rather small head, long neck, very long straight or slightly curved bill and very long legs. The species is slightly smaller than the Bar-tailed Godwit, Limosa lapponica, with a straighter and slightly blunter bill, longer neck, shallower forehead, slimmer body and longer legs. Females have a slightly larger and longer bill, but a duller breeding plumage as compared to males. They occur singly or in small to large groups, numbering hundreds at favoured roosting sites. They associate with other waders; often at edges of flocks of other species of Godwit and, in New Zealand, sometimes with Black-winged Stilts, Himantopus himantopus (Higgins & Davies 1996). They feed in sea-edge flocks (Rogers 1999b).

Non-breeding distribution
The Black-tailed Godwit is found in all states and territories of Australia, however, it prefers coastal regions and the largest populations are found on the north coast between Darwin and Weipa. It is generally found in small numbers elsewhere and there are scattered inland records (Watkins 1993). The species is a regular visitor in small numbers to New Zealand (maximum of 21 recorded in a year) as well as Lord Howe Island and Auckland Island. It also occurs in the British Isles, France, the Iberian Peninsula and along the north coasts of the Mediterranean. In Africa, it is found in northern Algeria and north-west Morocco and occasionally elsewhere along the south Mediterranean. Large populations are found mainly from west Africa (south Mauritania to Cameroon), east to south-west of the Red Sea and along the coast of Kenya. They occasionally visit the Horn of Africa and areas south of the main range, however records are scattered in southern Africa. The Black-tailed Godwit also occurs in the northern regions of the Persian Gulf and southern regions of the Caspian Sea. On the Indian subcontinent, the species is known to occur in Pakistan and northern India. It is commonly found east to Bihar and north-west of the Bay of Bengal. It has been sighted from Burma, east through Thailand to Indochina, and south through south-east Asia to New Guinea and Australasia. The species is a passage migrant in eastern China, the Korean Peninsula, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines. Some are known to pass through Indochina, south-east Asia and Indomalaya. They are vagrants to islands in the north Atlantic, Bering Sea, and in North America and Micronesia (Higgins & Davies 1996).

Breeding distribution
For populations occuring in the East Asian Australasian Flyway breeding probably occurs in the far-east Russia. Elsewhere the Black-tailed Godwit is known to breed in Iceland and The Faeroes in the northern Atlantic, Europe, Russia and China. It breeds in widely scattered localities in Norway, south and south-east Sweden and west Finland. It breeds throughout the Netherlands, sparsely scattered sites through the British Isles, France, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Austria and northern Italy. It breeds at scattered sites in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Rumania; widespread from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and west Poland, east into Russia, where breeding range extends from shores of Lake Chudskoye, south to Carpathian Mountains, and south-east to Crimean Peninsula, then east to round headwaters of Ob River. At the Ob River the northern breeding boundary is generally 55° N, E of Urals, and up to 60° N farther west. The Black-tailed Godwit breeds around lakes east of Lake Balkash, between the Altai and Tien Shan Mountains; in an area bounded by upper Lena and Vilyny Rivers and the lower reaches of Anadyr and Amur Rivers. The species breeds in China from west Heilungkiang, south to west Liaoning, and also in north-west Sinkiang (Higgins & Davies 1996).

Population overview
The world population of the Black-tailed Godwit is estimated to be between 561 000–750 000 pairs. In Australia there are an estimated 81 000 pairs (Watkins 1993). Very low numbers occur in Victoria in most years (Wilson 2001a). In the Coorong, South Australia, recent counts ranged from 105 to 185 birds (Wilson 2001b).

Trends
The species is not globally threatened and has increased in some areas due to ability to adapt to man-made habitats such as fertilised meadows, but has declined in other areas, probably due to agricultural intensification, in particular, drainage and rotary mowing (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Three of the six recognised populations have recently had their population estimates revised downwards (Rose & Scott 1997). There is some evidence of population decline in Australia with the species showing a decline between atlases (Barrett et al. 2002).

Important sites
An estimated 160 000 Black-tailed Godwits occupy the Flyway, representing 21% of the global population(Bamford et al. 2008). The Black-tailed Godwit occurs in many smaller populations. During the non-breeding season, 11 important sites have been identified in Australia. Note that an important site is calculated using the 1% criterion (i.e. a site is considered important if it is occupied by more then 1% of the bird's total population). Australian sites of international importance and their maximum counts include (Bamford et al. 2008):


Location State Population
SE Gulf of Carpentaria Queensland 26 971
Roebuck Bay Western Australia 7374
Nungbalgarri Creek Northern Territory 6350
Buckingham Bay Northern Territory 6000
Port McArthur Northern Territory 5230
Boucat Bay Northern Territory 5000
Hunter Estuary NSW 4000
Blue Mud Bay Northern Territory 4000
Roper River area Northern Territory 3015
Cape Bowling Green Queensland 2058
Adelaide River Floodplain Northern Territory 2000
Chambers Bay Western Australia 1960
Fog Bay and adjacent islands Northern Territory 1700
Anson Bay, south Northern Territory 1600

Habitat overview
In Australia the Black-tailed Godwit has a primarily coastal habitat environment. The species is commonly found in sheltered bays, estuaries and lagoons with large intertidal mudflats or sandflats, or spits and banks of mud, sand or shell-grit; occasionally recorded on rocky coasts or coral islets. The use of habitat often depends on the stage of the tide. It is also found in shallow and sparsely vegetated, near-coastal, wetlands; such as saltmarsh, saltflats, river pools, swamps, lagoons and floodplains. There are a few inland records, around shallow, freshwater and saline lakes, swamps, dams and bore-overflows. They also use lagoons in sewage farms and saltworks (Higgins & Davies 1996).

Refuge habitat
During a period of cyclonic activity waders (including this species) moved to sheltered areas to avoid high winds and heavy rain, and few casualties (none of this species) were observed (Jessop & Collins 2000).

Habitat for feeding
The Black-tailed Godwit forages on wide intertidal mudflats or sandflats, in soft mud or shallow water and occasionally in shallow estuaries. They use similar habitats on shores of inland lakes and other wetlands. They are found in muddy areas often open and unvegetated, but commonly use drying marshy wetlands preferred by Pectoral Sandpipers, Calidris melanotus, and Long-toed Stints, C. subminuta, (Higgins & Davies 1996); sometimes they forage among mangroves. They roost and loaf on low banks of mud, sand or shell, bars, islets and beaches in sheltered areas; also on saltflats behind mangroves. They may occur in non-vegetated areas, or among low vegetation, such as samphire (Higgins & Davies 1996).

Habitat for roosting
The claypan may be an important roost site for this species at least during the non-breeding season (Collins et al. 2001).

Breeding overview
The Black-tailed Godwit does not breed in Australia.

Breeding micro-habitat
The Black-tailed Godwit nests in short vegetation, from open to rather concealed, lined with a thick mat of vegetation (del Hoyo et al. 1996).

Breeding behaviours
The Black-tailed Godwit nests on the ground (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Nest protection is an important tool for conservation in Europe where the birds nest in dairy farming areas (Guldemond et al. 1995).

Breeding season
The Black-tailed Godwit nests in the Northern Hemisphere summer, with laying from April to mid-June (del Hoyo et al. 1996).

Fecundity, lifespan, generation interval
The Black-tailed Godwit lays three to five (usually four) eggs and incubates them for 22–24 days. They have a nestling period of 28–34 days. They may breed from one year of age. The annual mortality said to be 20% (del Hoyo et al. 1996).

Summary of food items or sources
The Black-tailed Godwit is omnivorous. There is little information on feeding habits in the Australian and New Zealand region, however, records from observers provide some insight into the species dietary requirments. The species has been recorded eating annelids, crustaceans, arachnids, fish eggs and spawn and tadpoles of frogs, and occasionally seeds (Higgins & Davies 1996). In Portugal, the bivalve mollusc Scrobicularia plana represented 88% of ingested biomass and polychaetes the remaining 12% (Moreira 1994). In a rice-growing region of Senegal, Black-tailed Godwits apparently only ate plant material, mostly (83.7%) rice including during the period of weight gain prior to migration (Tréca 1994). Seeds and berries are thought to be especially important after breeding and on migration (Cramp & Simmonds 1983).

The Black-tailed Godwit feeds in sea-edge flocks, and are often associated with Bar-tailed Godwits, but appear to be quite selective in feeding sites. It has been suggested that they prefer areas with certain bivalves, e.g. Siliqua and Tellina in Roebuck Bay (Rogers 1999b). The species is diurnal and nocturnal and locate food by touch and sight. They often wade up to the tarsus in water (Higgins & Davies 1996). Outside of Australia they may come into competition with farmers, e.g. in one region with 6000 ha of rice fields, they are estimated to take 3–6 tons of seed per day; cultivated rice is taken at planting time and during and after harvest (Tréca 1994).

Migration patterns
The Black-tailed Godwit breeds in the Northern Hemisphere and move south, in broad fronts, often overland, for the boreal winter (Higgins & Davies 1996).

Departure from breeding grounds
The Black-tailed Godwit leaves Anadyr Territory, Russia, by late August, passing though Russian Ussuriland. The species is a common passage migrant in Japan, throughout September and October. In Korea, the species migrates from August–November. It is transient in Manchuria, Mongolia, along Chinese coast and on Hainan from July–September. It also passes through west China. The Black-tailed Godwit is uncommon in Taiwan, from September. Small numbers pass through Hong Kong from August–November. Few occur in Burma and pass through Thailand. The species is numerous on the west coast of Peninsula Malaysia but uncommon in Singapore. It also migrates through Borneo, Sumatra, Wallacea, and Bali. The species is locally abundant in New Guinea, arriving as early as July but with greatest numbers from October–November (Higgins & Davies 1996). The species is not recorded as a passage migrant in the Torres Strait (Draffan et al. 1983).

Arrival in Australia
The Black-tailed Godwit first arrives in north-west Australia from late August (Lane 1987) with numbers falling from September to mid-November (Blakers et al. 1984). They pass through Darwin from November (Lane 1987) and arrive at the Gulf of Carpentaria from September–December (Garnett 1989). Most stay in north Australia, especially coastal Arnhem Land and south-east Gulf of Carpentaria, but some move to east and south Australia. At Gulf St Vincent, South Australia, most birds arrive in November–December. This is later than other groups of Palaearctic migrants, although a few may arrive in July or early August. Birds moving to southern Australia may cross the continent. Small numbers move through the Mt Isa region, Queensland, mainly in September–November and down the east coast as far south as the estuary of the Hunter River. In Victoria, the species arrives mainly from August onwards but rarely move farther south to Tasmania. Some apparently move to south-west Australia. The Black-tailed Godwit is rare at Lord Howe Island (Higgins & Davies 1996). During the non-breeding season, numbers are rather stable in the Gulf of Carpentaria and estuary of the Hunter River in December–February (Lane 1987), although some dispersive movements do occur (Higgins & Davies 1996).

Return to breeding grounds
There are few records of the Black-tailed Godwit in Victoria after May (Emison et al. 1987). They probably move regularly through the Murray River area in March and April. In Gulf St Vincent, South Australia, numbers increase in February–April, occasionally later, followed soon after by rapid decline, possibly as birds migrate North. In south-west, Western Australia, there is some evidence that small flocks move along the coast during April. There are inland records during March and April. They move up the east coast of Queensland during March–April but there are no influxes in Darwin or north-west Australia at this time. This suggests that birds move north from Arnhem Land and the Gulf of Carpentaria where they rapidly depart after mid-April (Higgins & Davies 1996). In 1986, the species left Broome, Western Australia, between 18–19 April (Lane 1988).

Outside Australia, large flocks are seen in south-east Irian Jaya in April–May and a few pass through the Port Moresby district in March–April. There are no records after March in Sumatra. The Black-tailed Godwit is recorded in Vietnam, Burma and Sulawesi in March–April. They pass through Hong Kong (where more numerous than on southward migration) and south-east China in March–May, Jiangsu coast, east China in April–May, and Beidaihe mainly during March. They are fewer in Japan than on southward migration and apparently pass Korea in April–May. They are known to pass through south Ussuriland, Russia and are recorded arriving in Anadyr, Russia in May (Higgins & Davies 1996). Substantial numbers of non-breeders remain in north Australia during winter, e.g. in Gulf of Carpentaria (Garnett 1989). Generally, those wintering farther south are found in small numbers, but sometimes in flocks of hundreds. There are winter records from as far south as Corner Inlet, Victoria (Higgins & Davies 1996).

Global threats
There are a number of threats that affect migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. The greatest threat is indirect and direct habitat loss (Melville 1997). Staging areas used during migration through eastern Asia are being lost and degraded by activities which are reclaiming the mudflats for development or developing them for aquaculture (Barter 2002, 2005c; Ge et al. 2007; Round 2006). This is especially evident in the Yellow Sea, where at least 40% of intertidal areas have been reclaimed. This process is continuing at a rapid rate and may accelerate in the near future (Barter 2002, 2005c). For example, in South Korea, the Mangyeung and Dongjin River estuaries each supported 5% of the combined estimated Flyway populations (and are the most important sites for this species on both northern and southern migration) but they are currently being reclaimed as part of the Saemangeum Reclamation Project (Barter 2002, 2005c). The 33 km sea-wall across these two estuaries was completed in April 2006, resulting in significant change in the 40 100 ha area.

Reclamation is also a threat in other areas of the Flyway, such as in Malaysia (Wei et al. 2006). In addition, water regulation and diversion infrastructure in the major tributaries have resulted in the reduction of water and sediment flows (Barter 2002; Barter et al. 1998).

Migratory shorebirds are also adversely affected by pollution, both on passage and in non-breeding areas (Harding et al. 2007; Melville 1997; Round 2006; Wei et al. 2006).

Disturbance from human activities, including recreation, shellfish harvesting, fishing and aquaculture is likely to increase significantly in the future (Barter et al. 2005c; Davidson & Rothwell 1993).

It is predicted that the rate of decrease in the intertidal area in the Yellow Sea will accelerate (Barter 2002). In addition, intensive oil exploration and extraction, and reduction in river flows due to upstream water diversion, are other potentially significant threats in parts of China where this species is present in internationally significant numbers (Barter 2005c; Barter et al. 1998).

Global warming and associated changes in sea level are likely to have a long-term impact on the breeding, staging and non-breeding grounds of migratory waders (Harding et al. 2007).

Hunting is still a very serious problem for waders in China, and this species is sometimes caught (Ming et al. 1998).

Threats within Australia
Within Australia, there are a number of threats common to most migratory shorebirds, including the Black-tailed Godwit.

Habitat loss
The loss of important habitat reduces the availability of foraging and roosting sites. This affects the ability of the birds to build up the energy stores required for successful migration and breeding. Some sites are important all year round for juveniles who may stay in Australia throughout the breeding season until they reach maturity. A variety of activities may cause habitat loss. These include direct losses through land clearing, inundation, infilling or draining. Indirect loss may occur due to changes in water quality, hydrology or structural changes near roosting sites (DEWHA 2009aj).

Habitat degradation
As most migratory shorebirds have specialized feeding techniques, they are particularly susceptible to slight changes in prey sources and foraging environments. Activities that cause habitat degradation (DEWHA 2009aj) include, but are not restricted to:

  • loss of marine or estuarine vegetation, which is likely to alter the dynamic equilibrium of sediment banks and mudflats
  • invasion of intertidal mudflats by weeds such as cord grass
  • water pollution and changes to the water regime
  • changes to the hydrological regime
  • exposure of acid sulphate soils, hence changing the chemical balance at the site.

Disturbance
Disturbance can result from residential and recreational activities including; fishing, power boating, four wheel driving, walking dogs, noise and night lighting. While some disturbances may have only a low impact it is important to consider the combined effect of disturbances with other threats. Roosting and foraging birds are sensitive to discrete, unpredictable disturbances such as loud noises (i.e. construction sites) and approaching objects (i.e. boats). Sustained disturbances can prevent shorebirds from using parts of the habitat (DEWHA 2009aj).

Direct mortality
Direct mortality is a result of human activities around the migration pathways of shorebirds and at roosting and foraging sites. Examples include the construction of wind farms in migration or movement pathways, bird strike due to aircraft, hunting, chemical and oil spills (DEWHA 2009aj).

Governments and conservation groups have undertaken a wide range of activities relating to migratory shorebird conservation (AGDEH 2005c) both in Australia and in cooperation with other countries associated with the East Asian-Australasian Flyway.

Australia
The Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (AGDEH 2006f) outlines national activities to support flyway shorebird conservation initiatives and provides a strategic framework to ensure these activities and future research and management actions are integrated and remain focused on the long-term survival of migratory shorebird populations and their habitats.

Since 1996–97, the Australian Government has invested approximately $5 000 000 of Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funding in projects contributing to migratory shorebird conservation (DEWHA 2007e). This funding has been distributed across a range of important projects, including the implementation of a nationally coordinated monitoring programme that will produce robust, long-term population data able to support the conservation and effective management of shorebirds and their habitat; migration studies using colour bands and leg flags; and development of a shorebird conservation toolkit to assist users to develop and implement shorebird conservation projects.

Birds Australia is currently co-ordinating the Shorebirds 2020 project, which aims to monitor shorebird populations at important sites throughout Australia; and Birdlife International is identifying sites and regions which are important to various species of birds, including shorebirds, and the processes that are affecting them. The aim is to inform decisions on the management of shorebird habitat. It may be possible to rehabilitate some degraded wetlands or to create artificial wader feeding or roosting sites to replace those destroyed by development, such as by creating artificial sandflats and sand islands from dredge spoil and by building breakwaters (Dening 2005; Straw 1992a, 1999).

The Significant impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebirds Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 (DEWHA 2009aj) provides guidelines for determining the impacts of proposed actions on migratory shorebirds. The policy statement also provides mitigation strategies to reduce the level and extent of those impacts.

International
Australia has played an important role in building international cooperation to conserve migratory birds. In addition to being party to international agreements on migratory species, Australia is also a member of the Partnership for the Conservation of Migratory Waterbirds and the Sustainable Use of their Habitats in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway (Flyway Partnership), which was launched in Bogor, Indonesia on 6 November 2006. Prior to this agreement, Australia was party to the Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Strategy and the Action Plan for the Conservation of Migratory Shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway and the East Asian-Australasian Shorebird Site Network.

The East Asian-Australasian Flyway Site Network, which is part of the broader Flyway Partnership, promotes the identification and protection of key sites for migratory shorebirds. Australia has 17 sites in the network (Partnership EAAF 2008):

  • Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory (1 375 940 ha)
  • Parry Lagoons, Western Australia (36 111 ha)
  • Thomsons Lake, Western Australia (213 ha)
  • Moreton Bay, Queensland (113 314 ha)
  • Hunter Estuary, NSW (2916 ha)
  • Corner Inlet, Victoria (51 500 ha)
  • The Coorong, Lake Alexandrina & Lake Albert, South Australia (140 500 ha)
  • Orielton Lagoon, Tasmania (2920 ha)
  • Logan Lagoon, Tasmania (2320 ha)
  • Western Port, Victoria (59 297 ha)
  • Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula, Victoria (16 540 ha)
  • Shallow Inlet Marine and Coastal Park, Victoria
  • Discovery Bay Coastal Park, Victoria
  • Bowling Green Bay, Queensland
  • Shoalwater Bay, Queensland
  • Great Sandy Strait, Queensland
  • Currawinya National Park, Queensland.

The Department's Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (AGDEH 2006f), the Background Paper to the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (AGDEH 2005c) and The Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett & Crowley 2000) also contain actions aimed at the conservation of migratory birds within Australia.

The Significant impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebirds Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 (DEWHA 2009aj) provides guidelines for determining the impacts of proposed actions on migratory shorebirds. The policy statement also provides mitigation strategies to reduce the level and extent of those impacts.

The following table lists known and perceived threats to this species. Threats are based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) threat classification version 1.1.

Threat Class Threatening Species References
Biological Resource Use:Hunting and Collecting Terrestrial Animals:Direct exploitation by humans including hunting Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH), 2006f) [Wildlife Conservation Plan].
Energy Production and Mining:Oil and Gas Drilling:Exploration drilling Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH), 2006f) [Wildlife Conservation Plan].
Energy Production and Mining:Oil and Gas Drilling:Production of oil and gas resources Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH), 2006f) [Wildlife Conservation Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Dams and Water Management/Use:Changes to hydrology due to water diversion Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH), 2006f) [Wildlife Conservation Plan].

Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH) (2005c). Background Paper to the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds. [Online]. Canberra, ACT: Department of the Environment and Heritage. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/publications/pubs/shorebird-plan-background.pdf.

Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH) (2006f). Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds. [Online]. Canberra, ACT: Department of the Environment and Heritage. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/publications/shorebird-plan.html.

Bamford M., D. Watkins, W. Bancroft, G. Tischler & J. Wahl (2008). Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian - Australasian Flyway: Population estimates and internationally important sites. [Online]. Canberra, ACT: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Wetlands International-Oceania. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/publications/shorebirds-east-asia.html.

Barrett, G., A. Silcocks, R. Cunningham & R. Poulter (2002). Comparison of Atlas 1 (1977-1981) and Atlas 2 (1998-2001): Supplementary Report No. 1. Melbourne: Birds Australia, report for Natural Heritage Trust.

Barter, M.A. (2002). Shorebirds of the Yellow Sea: Importance, Threats and Conservation Status. Wetlands International Global Series No. 8, International Wader Studies 12. Canberra, ACT: Wetlands International.

Barter, M.A. (2005c). Yellow Sea-driven priorities for Australian shorebird researchers. In: Straw, P., ed. Status and Conservation of Shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. Proceedings of the Australasian Shorebirds Conference 13-15 December 2003, Canberra, Australia. Sydney, NSW: Wetlands International Global Series 18, International Wader Studies 17.

Barter, M.A., D. Tonkinson, J.Z. Lu, S.Y. Zhu, Y. Kong, T.H. Wang, Z.W. Li & X.M. Meng (1998). Shorebird numbers in the Huang He (Yellow River) Delta during the 1997 northward migration. Stilt. 33:15-26.

Blakers, M., S.J.J.F. Davies & P.N. Reilly (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. Melbourne, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.

Collins, P., A. Boyle, C. Minton & R. Jessop (2001). The importance of inland claypans for waders in Roebuck Bay, Broome, NW Australia. Stilt. 38:4--8.

Cramp, S. & K.E.L. Simmons, eds. (1983). Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Volume 3, Waders to Gulls. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davidson, N. & P. Rothwell (1993). Disturbance to waterfowl on estuaries. Wader Study Group Bulletin. 68.

del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott & J. Sargatal, eds. (1996). Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 3, Hoatzin to Auks. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.

Dening, J. (2005). Roost management in south-East Queensland: building partnerships to replace lost habitat. In: Straw, P., ed. Status and Conservation of Shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. Proceedings of the Australasian Shorebirds Conference 13-15 December 2003. Page(s) 94-96. Sydney, NSW. Wetlands International Global Series 18, International Wader Studies 17.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2007e). Migratory Waterbirds Information Page, Departmental Website. [Online]. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/waterbirds/index.html#conservation.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009aj). Draft Significant impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebirds Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21. [Online]. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/migratory-shorebirds.html.

Draffan, R.D.W., S.T. Garnett & G.J. Malone (1983). Birds of the Torres Strait: an annotated list and biogeographic analysis. Emu. 83:207-234.

Emison,W.B., C.M. Beardsell, F.I. Norman, R.H. Loyn & S.C. Bennett (1987). Atlas of Victorian Birds. Melbourne: Department of Conservation (Forest & Lands) & Royal Australian Ornithological Union.

Garnett, S.T. (1989). Wading Bird Abundance and Distribution - South-eastern Coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria. RAOU Report Series. 58:1-39.

Garnett, S.T. & G.M. Crowley (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. [Online]. Canberra, ACT: Environment Australia and Birds Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/birds2000/index.html.

Ge, Z.-M., T-H. Wang, X. Zhou, K.-Y. Wang & W.-Y. Shi (2007). Changes in the spatial distribution of migratory shorebirds along the Shanghai shoreline, China, between 1984 and 2004. Emu. 107:19-27.

Guldemond, J.A., M.C.S. Romero & P. Terwan (1995). Meadow birds, water tables and nest protection: ten years of research on Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa and Redshank Tringa totanus. Limosa. 68:89--96.

Harding, S.B., J.R. Wilson & D.W. Geering (2007). Threats to shorebirds and conservation actions. In: Geering, A., L. Agnew & S. Harding, eds. Shorebirds of Australia. Page(s) 197-213. Melbourne, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing.

Higgins, P.J. & S.J.J.F. Davies, eds (1996). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume Three - Snipe to Pigeons. Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Jessop, R. & P. Collins (2000). The effects of cyclonic weather conditions on the bird life around Broome, Western Australia. Stilt. 36:11-15.

Lane, B.A. (1987). Shorebirds in Australia. Sydney, NSW: Reed.

Lane, B.A. (1988). Wader Expeditions to Northern Australia in 1986. RAOU Report Series. 42:1--33.

Melville, D.S. (1997). Threats to waders along the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. In: Straw, P., ed. Shorebird conservation in the Asia-Pacific region. Page(s) 15-34. Melbourne, Victoria: Birds Australia.

Ming, M., L. Jianjian, T. Chengjia, S. Pingyue & H. Wei (1998). The contribution of shorebirds to the catches of hunters in the Shanghai area, China, during 1997-1998. Stilt. 33:32-36.

Moreira, F. (1994). Diet, prey-size selection and intake rates of Black-tailed Godwits Limosa limosa feeding on mudflats. Ibis. 136:349--355.

Partnership for the East Asian-Australasian Flyway (Partnership EAAF) (2008). East Asian-Australasian Flyway Site Network: October 2008. [Online]. Available from: http://www.eaaflyway.net/documents/Flyway-Network-Sites-Oct-08.pdf.

Rogers, D. (1999b). Roost choice in the waders of Roebuck Bay: is avoiding heat stress their main consideration?. Stilt. 35:65.

Rose, P.M. & D.A. Scott (1997). Waterfowl population estimates, 2nd edition. Wetlands International Publication No. 44. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wetlands International.

Round, P.D. (2006). Shorebirds in the Inner Gulf of Thailand. Stilt. 50:96-102.

Straw, P. (1992a). Relocation of Shorebirds. A Feasibility Study and Management Options. Sydney, NSW: Unpublished report by the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union for the Federal Airports Corporation.

Straw, P. (1999). Habitat remediation - a last resort?. Stilt. 35:66.

Tréca, B. (1994). The diet of Ruffs and Black-tailed Godwits in Senegal. Ostrich. 65:256--263.

Watkins, D. (1993). A national plan for shorebird conservation in Australia. RAOU Report Series. 90.

Wei, D.L.Z., Y.C. Aik, L.K. Chye, K. Kumar, L.A. Tiah, Y. Chong & C.W. Mun (2006). Shorebird survey of the Malaysian coast November 2004-April 2005. Stilt. 49:7-18.

Wilson, J.R. (2001a). The January and February 2001 Victoria wader count. Stilt. 40:55-64.

Wilson, J.R. (2001b). Wader surveys in the Coorong, South Australia in January and February 2001. Stilt. 40:38-54.

EPBC Act email updates can be received via the Communities for Communities newsletter and the EPBC Act newsletter.

This database is designed to provide statutory, biological and ecological information on species and ecological communities, migratory species, marine species, and species and species products subject to international trade and commercial use protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). It has been compiled from a range of sources including listing advice, recovery plans, published literature and individual experts. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken, by the Commonwealth for its accuracy, currency or completeness. The Commonwealth does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this database. The information contained in this database does not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth. This database is not intended to be a complete source of information on the matters it deals with. Individuals and organisations should consider all the available information, including that available from other sources, in deciding whether there is a need to make a referral or apply for a permit or exemption under the EPBC Act.

Citation: Department of the Environment (2014). Limosa limosa in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:40:40 +1000.