Username :
Password :
           
Taxon ID: 38,862 Total records: 39,143

Netta rufina

Classification

Kingdom Animalia (COL)
Phylum Chordata (COL)
Class Aves (COL)
Order Anseriformes (COL)
Family Anatidae (COL)

Taxonomy

Genus Netta Reference
SubGenus Vernacular Name
Species rufina IUCN Threat Status-Year Least Concern, 2012
SubSpecies Nat'l Threat Status-Year Not Evaluated, 2000
Infraspecies Reason for Change
Infraspecies Rank CITES
Taxonomic Group Birds Native Status Native
Scientific Name Author Pallas, 1773 Country Distribution Myanmar
Citation Description Geographic Range [top] Countries occurrence: Native: Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; Armenia (Armenia); Austria; Azerbaijan; Bangladesh; Belarus; Belgium; Bhutan; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; China; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Egypt; Estonia; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; India; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Israel; Italy; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Moldova; Mongolia; Montenegro; Morocco; Myanmar; Nepal; Netherlands; Pakistan; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia (Serbia); Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain (Canary Is. - Vagrant); Switzerland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Ukraine; Uzbekistan Introduced: United Kingdom Vagrant: Bahrain; Finland; Ireland; Japan; Lebanon; Libya; Malta; Norway; Oman; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Sri Lanka; Sweden; Thailand; Tunisia; United Arab Emirates Additional data: ? Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Unknown ? Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No ? Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2: 3060000 ? Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Unknown ? Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No ? Continuing decline in number of locations: Unknown ? Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No Range Map: Click here to open the map viewer and explore range. Population [top] Current Population Trend: Unknown Additional data: ? Continuing decline of mature individuals: Unknown ? Extreme fluctuations: No ? Population severely fragmented: No ? Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown ? Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No ? All individuals in one subpopulation: No Habitat and Ecology [top] Habitat and Ecology: Behaviour The species is fully migratory (Snow and Perrins 1998) or locally dispersive (e.g. in Europe) (del Hoyo et al. 1992) and breeds from mid-April to early-June (Madge and Burn 1988) in single pairs or loose groups (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Males and non-breeders moult and become flightless for four weeks between June and August (females moulting one month later) (Scott and Rose 1996) prior to which they may make extensive moult migrations which take them considerable distances from the breeding waters (Madge and Burn 1988). Once this post-breeding moult is complete the species departs for its winter quarters, arriving there from October onwards (Madge and Burn 1988). The species is highly gregarious for most of the year (Snow and Perrins 1998) and although it is more commonly found in small groups (Madge and Burn 1988) it often forms large concentrations (Madge and Burn 1988, Scott and Rose 1996) of several hundred individuals (Scott and Rose 1996) in moulting and wintering areas (Madge and Burn 1988). It feeds diurnally, being most active during the early morning and evening (Kear2005b). Habitat The species inhabits inland deep fresh or brackish (del Hoyo et al. 1992) reed-fringed lakes, rivers, or saline and alkaline lagoons (Kear2005b) in open country (del Hoyo et al. 1992), also occurring (less often) on estuaries, river deltas and other sheltered coastal habitats (del Hoyo et al. 1992) on passage (Madge and Burn 1988) or during the winter (Scott and Rose 1996). Diet The diet of this species consists predominantly of the roots, seeds and vegetative parts of aquatic plants (Johnsgard 1978, del Hoyo et al. 1992) (e.g. Chara spp. (del Hoyo et al. 1992), Hippurus spp., hornworts Ceratophyllum spp., pondweeds Potamogeton spp., milfoil Myriophyllum spp. (Johnsgard 1978) and especially stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa (Ruiters et al. 1994)), although it will occasionally also take aquatic invertebrates (del Hoyo et al. 1992) (e.g. molluscs) (Johnsgard 1978), amphibians and small fish (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Breeding site The nest is constructed of roots, twigs and leaves near water (del Hoyo et al. 1992, Kear2005b) on the ground in dense vegetation or on floating mats of vegetation amidst reedbeds (Johnsgard 1978). Although the species usually breeds well-dispersed, neighbouring pairs may sometimes nest as close as 30 m apart (Snow and Perrins 1998, Kear2005b). Management information A study in the Czech Republic found that fish ponds with a fish stock density of less than 400 kg ha1, water transparency of more than 50 cm, mixed fish stocks (e.g. tench and pike or perch) rather than monospecific stocks (e.g. of carp or other herbivorous fish species), and systems that include ponds with fish fry are more likely to have high abundances of aquatic vegetation and are therefore more successful in supporting breeding pairs of this species (Musil 2006). Systems: Terrestrial; Freshwater Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Unknown Generation Length (years): 7 Movement patterns: Full Migrant Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive) Threats [top] Major Threat(s): The two main threats to this species are habitat degradation (Defos du Rau 2002) (e.g. through land-use changes) (Kear2005b) and hunting (Kear2005b) (e.g. the species is hunted in France, Portugal and Spain without any official hunting bag monitoring (Defos du Rau 2002)). The species also suffers poisoning from lead shot ingestion (Spain) (Mateo et al. 1998)and is occasionally drowned in freshwater fishing nets with mesh sizes greater than 5 cm (China) (Quan et al. 2002). Deterioration in the water quality of wetlands can reduce the abundance of stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa (which is an important part of the speciess diet) (Ruiters et al. 1994), and it is susceptible to avian influenza so may be threatened by future outbreaks of the virus (Melville and Shortridge 2006). Utilisation The species is hunted recreationally and for commercial purposes in Iran (Balmaki and Barati 2006). Citation: BirdLife International. 2012. Netta rufina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T22680348A40126364. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22680348A40126364.en. Downloaded on 01 September 2016. Disclaimer: To make use of this information, please check the . Feedback: If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided
Source

Images

         

Additional Info

Synonyms


To Manage Synonyms for Netta rufina, click this link: Synonyms.
No Synonym records in database.
Common Names


To Manage Common Names for Netta rufina, click this link: Common Names.
Localities


To Manage Localities for Netta rufina, click this link: Localities.
No Locality records in database.
Species Record Updated By: Carlos Aurelio Callangan