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 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
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].
|Scientific name||Tringa stagnatilis |
This is an indicative distribution map of the present distribution of the species based on best available knowledge. See map caveat for more information.
Scientific name: Tringa stagnatilis
Common name: Marsh Sandpiper
The Marsh Sandpiper is monotypic, meaning no subspecies exist. The species is similar to the Greenshank, Tringa nebularia, in shape and plumage, but is smaller and slimmer; it is slightly larger than the Wood Sandpiper, T. glareola (Higgins & Davies 1996).
The Marsh Sandpiper is a medium sized member of the Tringinae family. It has a length of 2226 cm, a wingspan of 4045 cm and a weight of 70 g. In all plumages the species shows a contrasting outerwing, a very pale whitish tail and a bold white wedge up the back (Higgins & Davies 1996). They occur singly or in small to large flocks. They often associate with other waders and are often seen with Greenshanks, especially in saltfields. They may feed in tight co-ordinated groups, and sometimes feed with other wading birds (Higgins & Davies 1996).
The Marsh Sandpiper is found on coastal and inland wetlands throughout Australia. The species is widespread in coastal Queensland, but few records exist north of Cooktown. It is recorded in all regions of NSW but especially the central and south coasts and (inland) on the western slopes of Great Divide and western plains. In Victoria, most are found in Port Phillip Bay, but also Gippsland, Westernport Bay and the Western Districts. Inland records exist for Murray Valley, round Barmah, Kerang-Swan Hill and Mildura; also some from around Shepparton, west to Rupanyup and Hindmarsh and Albacutya Lakes. The species is a vagrant to Tasmania. In South Australia, most records are east of 137° E. Occasionally the species has been recorded in the south-east, mostly from The Coorong to Yorke Peninsula, including inland along Murray Valley. On Eyre Peninsula the species has been recorded from Whyalla to Little Swamp and Coffin Bay. It is widespread at the Lake Eyre drainage basin. There are scattered records in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. In Western Australia they are mainly found around the coast. A few visit New Zealand. The Marsh Sandpiper is also recorded on Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island, Chatham Island and Christmas Island (Higgins & Davies 1996).
The south-east Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland (1150 birds) is an internationally important site, while sites of national importance and maximum counts (Watkins 1993) include:
- Buffalo Lake area, Normanton, Queensland, 600 birds
- Hunter River estuary, NSW, 500
- Lake Namulla, Cunnamulla, Queensland, 500
- Port Hedland Saltworks, Western Australia, 500
- Tullakool Evaporation Ponds, NSW, 500
- Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, 394
- Parry River floodplain, Western Australia, 300
- Peel Inlet, Western Australia, 276
- Camballin, Western Australia, 276
- Third Marsh, Kerang, Victoria, 200
- Eighty Mile Beach, Western Australia, 140
- Parkes wetlands, NSW, 130
- Reedy Lake, Moolap, Victoria, 130
- Macquarie Marshes, NSW, 120
- Hospital Lake, Moolap, Victoria, 100
- Swan Hill Sewage Farm, Victoria, 100
- Alva Beach (Ayr), Queensland, 95
- Moolap Saltworks, Victoria, 91
- Penrice Saltworks, South Australia, 90
Up to 500 were seen at Kooragang Island, NSW and 215 at Charters Towers, Queensland (Higgins & Davies 1996).
The Marsh Sandpiper occurs throughout southern Africa, as well as the valley of the Nile River and the coast of the Red Sea. They are a common passage migrant through North Africa and are also found at the Persian Gulf and lower reaches of the Tigris, Euphrates and Karun Rivers. They occur around the coasts of the Arabian Sea to the Indian subcontinent. The species is widespread in Indomalaya, extending well inland along the course of the Irrawaddy River, the Malay Peninsula, and southern Indochina. The Marsh Sandpiper is a regular visitor to Sumatra and Borneo, and from Wallacea to New Guinea and Bougainville. It is also recorded in the Philippines and west Micronesia. They are known to pass through eastern China, Korea and Japan. They are accidental to Scandinavia and western Europe, but regular to Norway and Holland in recent years (Higgins & Davies 1996).
The Marsh Sandpiper breeds from eastern Europe to eastern Siberia. They have been recorded breeding in Romania and no longer breed in Hungary. Sporadic breeding was formerly recorded in eastern Europe. The species main breeding range extends from the lower reaches of Pripyat River in the west, east to Transbaikalia, around the headwaters of the Amur River, east of Lake Baikal; there are recent records on the middle reaches of the Amur River. North and south boundaries of the breeding range are poorly known: the northern limit is generally south of 57° N; in west, to just south of Rybinskoye Vodokhranilishche (reservoir). In the central part of its range, north of 60° N, close to the confluence of Irtysh and Ob Rivers. In the east it ranges north to Yukutsk on the Lena River. The southern limit and breeding probably mostly north of 48° N. Breeding has been recorded in north and north-east Mongolia. Isolated breeding occurs insouth Ussuriland, and in the west Heilungkiang province in China (Higgins & Davies 1996).
The Marsh Sandpiper occurs in many smaller populations. All international important sites occur are 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). Excluding the Australian sites, important sites include (Bamford et al. 2008):
|South Bo Hai Wan||China||14 183|
|Daursky Nature Reserve||Russia||12 000|
|Yancheng National Nature Reserve||China||9026|
|North Bo Hai Wan||China||4500|
|Huang He National Nature Reserve||China||4246|
|Shi Jiu Tuo/Daqing He||China||3500|
|North-west Bo Hai Wan||China||2425|
|South-west Bo Hai Wan||China||1753|
|Inner Gulf of Thailand||Thailand||1383|
|Zhalong National Nature Reserve||China||1483|
|Kuala Kedah to Kuala Sungai||Malaysia||1286|
|Mai Po Marshes||China||1165|
|Chongming Dongtan N. N. Reserve||China||451|
The Marsh Sandpiper has an estimated East Asian-Australasian Flyway population of 100 0001 000 000. The global population is estimated at 186 0001 242 000 (Bamford et al. 2008).
The Marsh Sandpiper is not globally threatened, but the breeding range in the west Palearctic has shrunk (del Hoyo et al. 1996). In Australia, an overall increase between atlases 20 years apart was detected, but this trend showed significant regional variation (Barrett et al. 2002). Victoria counts peaked from 19951997 but in 19992001 returned to levels found in the 1980s and early 1990s (Wilson 2001a).
The Marsh Sandpiper lives in permanent or ephemeral wetlands of varying salinity, including swamps, lagoons, billabongs, saltpans, saltmarshes, estuaries, pools on inundated floodplains, and intertidal mudflats and also regularly at sewage farms and saltworks. They are recorded less often at reservoirs, waterholes, soaks, bore-drain swamps and flooded inland lakes. In north Australia they prefer intertidal mudflats (Higgins & Davies 1996), although surveys in Kakadu National Park recorded more birds around shallow freshwater lakes than in areas influenced by tide (Bamford 1988). At the Top End they often use ephemeral pools on inundated freshwater and tidal floodplains (Higgins & Davies 1996). Three of the five sites with highest recorded numbers are saltwater habitats (Hunter Estuary, NSW; Port Hedland Saltworks, Western Australia; Tullakool Evaporation Ponds, NSW) (Watkins 1993). In the south-east Gulf of Carpentaria they have been recorded round both saline and fresh waters (Garnett 1989). Elsewhere they said to avoid, or rarely occur in, tidal habitats, and rarely occur on beaches. In Western Australia they prefer freshwater to marine environments. In south-east Australia they prefer inland saline lakes and coastal saltworks. They are found infrequently around mangroves (Higgins & Davies 1996).
Habitat for feeding
The Marsh Sandpiper usually forages in shallow water at the edge of wetlands. They probe wet mud of mudflats or feed among marshy vegetation (Higgins & Davies 1996).
Habitat for roosting
The Marsh Sandpiper has been recorded roosting or loafing on tidal mudflats, near low saltmarsh, and around inland swamps (Higgins & Davies 1996).
The Marsh Sandpiper does not breed in Australia. Within its breeding distribution the species is known to breed solitarily or in loose colonies, sometimes with other species. The nest (usually filled with dry grass) is usually located on a mound, in short vegetation, close to water. Laying occurs late AprilJune. The species usually lay four eggs, but can lay from three to five. The age of first breeding is one year or older. In Kharkov, north-east Ukraine the amount of rain in spring affects numbers of breeding birds (del Hoyo et al. 1996).
The Marsh Sandpiper is carnivorous; recorded eating insects, molluscs and (internationally) crustaceans. Plant material has been found in stomachs but this may have been ingested incidentally (Higgins & Davies 1996). There is a recent record of a fish being carried to shore and eaten (Wieneke & Cross 1996). The species usually feed in shallow water, often wading deeper than the level of the tarsus. They walk briskly and steadily, or dash about, turning in half-circles and sometimes swim. They generally pick at the surface of water or mud and may glean from vegetation. They feed singly or in groups and have also been recorded following ducks, egrets and other waders, feeding on prey disturbed by these birds (Cramp & Simmonds 1983).
The Marsh Sandpiper is a migratory species that breeds in east Europe, southern Siberia and northern China. The species migrates south for the boreal winter to non-breeding areas from Africa, across southern Asia to Australia. Most birds spend the non-breeding period in Africa and Indian subcontinent. On migration, the Marsh Sandpiper moves overland in broad fronts, with large distances between staging areas (Cramp & Simmonds 1983).
Departure from breeding grounds
The Marsh Sandpiper departs the breeding grounds from the first half of July to early September. There is little difference between the timing of adult and juvenile departures (Cramp & Simmonds 1983). They move through central Mongolia, and central, north-east and coastal China. They only occur in Korea on southern migration (from AugustSeptember) and are only found in significant numbers in Japan during southern migration. In China they pass Beidaihe and are mainly seen from late August and early September. They pass through the Jiangsu Province in AugustSeptember and are abundant on passage on the Yellow River Delta. They are not seen in large numbers in Taiwan. The species pass through Hong Kong from late August to late October. They are uncommon but regular in Burma; recorded in Cambodia; and common in Thailand, apparently arriving there about September. The Marsh Sandpiper also passes through Malaysia and Sumatra. It is a regular visitor to Borneo, passing through Brunei about late September. The species is rarely recorded in the Philippines and is apparently uncommon in Wallacea, but common on the west coast of Sulawesi from September. They occur in Bali, generally in small numbers, from late August to late October and are also seen south-east Irian Jaya in SeptemberDecember. They are mostly transient in Papua New Guinea from October to early November, but in some districts they arrive in September. Small numbers regularly visit Bougainville Island (Higgins & Davies 1996). The species is an uncommon passage migrant in the Torres Strait (Draffan et al. 1983). Birds arrive in Australia from September and apparently move south across the continent from SeptemberDecember (Lane 1987). In the Australian summer, some (possibly dispersive) movements have been observed (Higgins & Davies 1996).
Return to breeding grounds
In Australia the Marsh Sandpiper begins to migrate north in MarchApril, when temporary influxes occur at some sites on east coast. Birds move to the north end of Gulf St Vincent before leaving. They leave Port Hedland Saltworks, north-west Australia from mid-April (Lane 1987) and apparently leave south-east Gulf of Carpentaria after this. They usually leave the Port Moresby district in April, although there are a few records of return passage from New Guinea. A few pass through Brunei in MarchApril. They are not common after April on the west coast of Sulawesi and apparently only pass through the Red River Delta, Vietnam, on northern migration. They move through Hong Kong from late March to late April and a few pass through the Jiangsu Province, China, on northern migration. They also make a small passage in AprilMarch through Taiwan (Higgins & Davies 1996). Breeding areas are reoccupied from mid-April to mid-May (Cramp & Simmonds 1983). Internationally, many non-breeders are said to remain in non-breeding areas, or at sites between breeding and non-breeding areas (Hayman et al. 1986); however, few remain in Australia during winter (Blakers et al. 1984). Those which do remain mainly stay in northern Australia, but birds have also been recorded during winter in Victoria, NSW and South Australia (Higgins & Davies 1996).
Reasons for migration
Southward migration occurs to escape severe winter conditions and consequent high energy demand and low prey availability; northward migration is to breeding grounds where food is temporarily superabundant during the Northern Hemisphere summer. The evolution of these migrations is poorly understood (Higgins & Davies 1996).
Migratory pathways and important sites
The Yellow Sea is important for this species during northern migration when it supports about 40% of the estimated flyway population. Five sites of international importance have been identified, all in China (Dong Sha, Yancheng National Nature Reserve, Huang He National Nature Reserve, Tianjin Municipality, Shi Jiu Tuo). Three of these sites are important during northern migration and four during southern migration (Barter 2002).
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 Marsh Sandpiper.
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).
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 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 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.
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 199697, 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.
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|
|Agriculture and Aquaculture:Agriculture and Aquaculture:Land clearing, habitat fragmentation and/or habitat degradation||Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH), 2006f) [Wildlife Conservation Plan].|
|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|
|Natural System Modifications:Dams and Water Management/Use:Alteration of hydrological regimes and water quality|
|Natural System Modifications:Dams and Water Management/Use:Changes to habitat hydrology|
|Natural System Modifications:Dams and Water Management/Use:Changes to hydrology due to water diversion|
|Natural System Modifications:Other Ecosystem Modifications:Loss and damage of intertidal areas due to land reclamation|
|Protected status:Protected status:Lack of secure conservation land tenure|
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.
Bamford, M.J. (1988). Kakadu National Park: a Preliminary Survey of Migratory Waders, October/November 1987. RAOU Report Series. 41:1-34. Melbourne: Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hayman, P., J. Marchant & T. Prater (1986). Shorebirds. An identification guide to the waders of the world. London & Sydney: Croom Helm.
Lane, B.A. (1987). Shorebirds in Australia. Sydney, NSW: Reed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (2013). Tringa stagnatilis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:06:15 +1100.