4 Number of Mute Swa#91BF78.qxd - Wildfowl Journal

S1

© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2016) 66: S1–S33

Supporting materials

Recent changes in the abundance of CommonPochard Aythya ferina breeding in Europe

As part of the process of compiling thepublished paper on “Recent changes in theabundance of breeding Common PochardAythya ferina (hereafter Pochard) in Europe”,all of the contributing authors collaboratedin compiling an overview of breedingPochard in their respective countries. Theresultant text was rather long for fullpublication but is reproduced in alphabeticalcountry order below, with supportingliterature references, for future reference.

Austria

The Pochard was first suspected to bebreeding in the country in the early 1940sand breeding was confirmed in the early1950s. The species slowly spread fromlowland eastern Austria during the 1960s topreviously unoccupied areas in the northand southeast of the country (Bauer &Glutz von Blotzheim 1992). By the mid-1980s it was fairly widespread outside of theAlps and numbered 200–300 breeding pairs,especially associating with fish-ponds(Kraus 1984), but during the 1990s modestdeclines in overall numbers were associatedwith habitat degradation due tointensification of aquaculture, especially innorthern parts of the country (Dvorak et al.

1994). The species remains most abundantat the long-occupied strongholds ofNeusiedler See and Seewinkel (Festetics & Leisler 1968) and, despite declines of20–30% over the last 20 years, there seem to

have been no further declines in the last5–10 years, with a national total estimated at130–200 pairs.

Belarus

After the first Pochard breeding record in1926, the species remained rare until the 1960s (Fedyushin & Dolbik 1967;Vyazovich 1973). Numbers increased duringthe 1970s and 1980s as a result of thecreation of reservoirs and fish-ponds, whichwere estimated to support 78% of thenational total of breeding pairs (6,000–8,000) by the late 1980s and early 1990s(Kozulin 1998; Kozulin et al. 1998). Sincethen, numbers have been declining to reach 4,000–6,000 pairs during 1990–2002(Kozulin et al. 2002) and 3,000–4,000 in2003–2008. Most evident declines havebeen associated with eutrophication (A.Koshelev, unpubl. data), for example at LakeOsveyskoe (56°02’N 28°09’E) wherenumbers of breeding Pochard pairs fellfrom 500–550 in 1981 to 20 pairs in2005–2008, following eutrophication andsevere reductions in benthos biomass(Ostrovski et al. 2009). Elsewhere, declineshave also been associated with theprogressive eutrophication of waterbodiesas a consequence of agricultural runoff,which causes disruption to fishcommunities, loss of benthos biomass,enhanced growth of emergent macrophytesand degradation of shallow waters. In other

S2 Fox et al.


areas, the declines in breeding Pochard havebeen associated with the loss of fish-pondsat 22 large state-managed fish-farms, whichpeaked at some 21,100 ha of open water inthe mid-1980s (Shirokov & Kivel 1987), thecreation of which triggered an increase inbreeding waterbirds in Belarus at this time(Nikiforov et al. 1997). Indeed, because ofthe degree of intensive artificial feeding andlack of human presence within the fish-farms, conditions on these fish-ponds couldbe highly favourable to nesting waterbirds,despite the presence of high densities ofRed Fox Vulpes vulpes, Raccoon DogNyctereutes procyonoides and American MinkMustela vison. Fish yields from these fish-ponds declined rapidly through the 1990sfrom c. 18,000 tons in 1990 to 4,300 tons in 2014 due to economic recession andrising costs of fish food. Because the diet ofbreeding waterbirds was dominated by theprovision of artificial fish food, it is highlylikely these factors were responsible for thenumber of breeding Pochard associatedwith these waters falling from 4,100 pairsduring 1990–1995 to 1,800 pairs in 1999–2001, and with further reductions to thepresent day.

Belgium

Pochard first bred in Belgium in 1919, butthe species did not breed regularly until thelate 1950s (<10 pairs until 1962). From 1963onwards, the species shifted from exploitingfen wetlands to newly created, shallowartificial waters, probably related toincreasing nutrient concentrations and foodavailability (van Impe 1983). This shift inhabitat use was associated with a rapidexpansion of the breeding range, especially

in northern Belgium. The nationalpopulation reached 150–180 pairs by themid-1970s and 230 pairs in 1980. Despitetemporary declines at the main breedingarea caused by habitat degradation, numbersin Belgium still increased to c. 400 pairs by1990 to reach a peak of 600–800 pairs in2000–2002 (Vermeersch et al. 2004). Inmany areas, the numbers of females withducklings are considerably lower than theestimated number of potential pairs at the beginning of the breeding season,suggesting poor overall nesting success. InWallonia, the population was estimated at130–210 pairs in 2001–2007 (Jacob et al.

2010). Although it is likely that breedingnumbers steadily increased until thebeginning of the 21st century in Belgium,little information is currently available aboutthe trends during the last 5–10 years.Breeding Pochard are not well monitored,but it seems that numbers fluctuateconsiderably locally due to changes in waterquality and vegetation. Signs of increasedpredation pressure (supposedly by Red Fox Vulpes vulpes) have been recorded atseveral breeding sites. However, there is no evidence of any significant overallnationwide decreases during the last decade,as the Belgium population estimate remainsat 500–1,000 pairs in 2010–2012 (Anselin et al. 2013).

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Pochard have bred in the present territory ofBosnia and Herzegovina since the 1880s(Kotrošan & Papes 2007; Kotrošan2008/2009). Between 1885 and 1916, thespecies was present during the breedingseason in Hutovo Blato, Sarajevsko Polje,

Abundance of Common Pochard breeding in Europe S3


Bosanska Gradiška and Jajce, although therewas no proven evidence of nesting (Reiser1939; Obrati 1968). The species wasrecorded breeding during 1970–1990 in theSanicani and Bardaca fish-ponds in thenorthern part of the country and up to 40pairs continued to breed at Bardaca until2015 (Obratil 1974, 1983; Gašic 2001;Kotrošan in litt.; Gašic & Dujakovi 2008).Between 41–98 pairs bred at Livanjsko Polje(southern Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 2007and 2008 (Stumberger & Sackl 2008/2009)and the species was recorded breeding in theTisina wetlands along the river Sava from2011–2014 (Sjenicic 2013; Sjenicic in litt.).Breeding also likely occurs on the Sanicanifish-ponds, Mostarsko Blato, LakeSvitavsko, Plivska lakes and the river Bosna(Obratil 1983; Kitoni & Sackl 2008/2009;Stumberger et al. 2009; Kotrošan et al. 2012).An estimated 100–200 breeding pairs arecurrently thought to breed in Bosnia andHerzegovina, although breeding numbersare not monitored systematically (Kotrošanet al. 2012). Nesting mostly occurs onshallow lakes and ponds dominated by reed-beds, although flooded sections of the SavaRiver and its tributaries are also used. Thesehabitats continue to be threatened bydrainage, cutting of vegetation, destructionof reed-beds and fishing, such as at Hutovoblato (Obratil 1971). In recent years, thedecrease in breeding numbers has beenexacerbated by the destruction and drainage of many ponds in the Bardacasystem (Anonymous 2013), fires andpoaching in Hutovo blato (Anonymous2015) and removal of wetland vegetationalong the Tišina wetlands (Sjenicic 2013;Sjenicic in litt.).

Czech RepublicFor much of the 19th century, Pochard bredonly locally in small numbers at relativelyfew sites in what is now the present CzechRepublic. Several pairs bred on larger fish-ponds close to Hluboká and Trebon in southern Bohemia around 1870 (Fri1872) during a period when fish-pondmanagement began to develop rapidly, notjust in the present Czech Republic, butthroughout much of the Austro-HungarianEmpire of the time. Palliardi (1852) inwestern Bohemia and Kašpar (1889–1890)in Moravia both considered Pochard alocally common breeding bird, althoughDostál (1906) failed to record Pochardbreeding in southern Moravia. AlthoughSchwab (1869) collected a Pochard egg fromOstrava in 1852, Pochard did not breedregularly in Silesia until the end of the 19thcentury. In the fish-ponds close to Námešt’nad Oslavou (Czech-Moravian Highland),the first breeding was not documented until1892. However, the Pochard was numerousat some sites in southern Bohemia by theend of the 19th century and in southernMoravia by the 1920s, by which time it wasconsidered to be quite abundant as abreeding species in the Ostrava region(Silesia) and in eastern and northernBohemia. It seems likely that the most rapidexpansion in breeding Pochard in the regionoccurred in the late 19th and early 20thcenturies, especially in lowlands and mid-altitude wetlands up to 700 m a.s.l. Thespecies continued to increase, although at aslower rate, from 1945 up until the late1970s and early 1980s, as documented onfish-ponds of the Blatná region insouthwest Bohemia (Buric & Smrcek 1987)

S4 Fox et al.


and Námešt’ nad Oslavou in the Czech-Moravian Highlands (Fiala 2008).

However, since the late 1980s until thepresent, there has been a major nationwidedecline, as reported from many fish-pondregions in Bohemia and Moravia (see Musilet al. 2001; Št’astný et al. 2006 for review;Musil & Neužilová 2009; Musil et al. unpubl.data). Regional differences in changes insummer abundance have been evident since1995 (see Musil et al. 2001; Machácek et al.

2008). For example, while numbers tendedto decrease in many parts of the country,they increased at fish-ponds or fish-pondcomplexes where less intensive managementof fish stocks allowed the establishment of moulting aggregations of Pochard males,especially in late June and July. Currentestimates suggest a national population of between 9,000–17,000 breeding pairs(Št’astny et al. 2006). Increases in numbers ofadult (mostly moulting birds) in late summercontrast with detailed studies that showdeclines in numbers of birds present at thebeginning of the breeding season and in theoverall numbers of broods (Musil et al.

unpubl. data). Ringing recoveries and recaptures during

autumn show movements to wintering sites are predominantly south, southwestand west, but with some birds movingnorthwards (e.g. to Austria, Hungary,Poland, Denmark and Germany). Theparticular importance of the Ismaningmoulting site in Germany for the CzechPochard population has also been describedby Köhler & Köhler (1996). Ringingrecoveries and re-sightings of birds withnasal-saddles show the wintering quartersfor Czech breeding Pochard include Alpine

lakes and Italy, France, Spain, theNetherlands and the United Kingdom. Afew individuals have also been observedand/or recovered from Albania, Moroccoand Portugal.

Although the current breedingpopulation of the Czech Republic isthought to be between 9,000–17,000 pairs,there have been dramatic fluctuations overthe last 160 years (Musil et al. 2001; Št’astnýet al. 2006), most likely due to changes inintensive fish-pond management and theirconsequences. Increasing aquatic nutrientconcentrations have likely increased foodavailability which supported the generalexpansion in the breeding population upuntil the 1970s. Since the beginning of the1980s, numbers have declined apparentlydue to intensification of fish production andtherefore fish densities, which have beenshown to adversely affect adult diving duckdensities (Pykal & Janda 1994) and numbersof Pochard broods specifically (Musil et al.

1997; Musil 2006). Moreover, low breedingsuccess not only reduces population growth rate, but increases dispersal ofunsuccessfully breeding females (Musil et al.

unpubl. data). The decline in numbers ofnesting Black-headed Gulls Chroicocephalus

ridibundus, (whose colonies offer protectionto nesting Pochard), reductions in extent ofthe littoral zone and deaths of birds fromoutbreaks of botulism during the 1980s and the 1990s are also suspected to havecontributed to declines in breedingabundance (Musil et al. 2001).

Denmark

Pochard first colonised Denmark as abreeding species in the 1860s in Jutland, but



spread to the islands in the early 1900swhere the range continued to expand slowlyuntil the 1980s. The current strongholds aremainly in eastern Denmark where two-thirds of the national totals breed, mostly onnutrient-rich lakes. The species remainsrarer in Jutland, with a few pairs associatedwith lakes in the east, while in western andnorthern Jutland they are associated withbrackish lagoons (Meltofte & Fjeldså 2002).In the early 1960s, the population wasestimated to be 260–490 pairs distributedbetween 106 localities (Ferdinand 1971),increasing to 320–580 pairs in 1966 (Hansen1967) and 350–700 pairs during the firstbreeding atlas in 1971–1974 (Dybbro 1976).The national population was estimated to be500–600 pairs based on 430–510 pairs at152 localities in 1980 (Dybbro 1985) and370–600 pairs at 227 sites during the secondatlas during 1993–1996 (Grell 1998). Sincethen, numbers are considered to have fallento 280 pairs by 2011, the result of a gradualdecline evident in the summer point countindex to 2014/15 (Nyegaard et al. 2015).Pochard often nest in association withBlack-headed Gull colonies in Denmark,which also have been declining nationally(Nyegaard et al. 2015), although the extent towhich this factor and the roles played bychanges in water quality and predatorabundance at breeding sites affect Pochardbreeding abundance remain unknown.

Estonia

The Pochard was a rare species in Estonia in the 19th century (Kumari 1958), butcolonised and steadily increased as abreeding species from the 1870s until the1930s–1940s (Lepiksaar & Zastrov 1963),

reaching c. 400 pairs by the 1960s (Onno,1965), 800–1,000 pairs by the late 1970s(Renno 1993) and 1,000–2,000 by the early1990s (Lilleleht & Leibak 1993). Since then,regular monitoring suggests 1,000–2,000pairs during 1991–1997 (Lõhmus et al.1998), 1,000–1,500 pairs during 1998–2002(Elts et al. 2003), and 1,000–1,500 pairsduring 2003–2008 (generally declining overthe period 1991–2008; Elts et al. 2009), thenfalling more markedly to 500–1,000 pairsduring 2008–2012 (Elts et al. 2013).Although Pochard breed throughoutEstonia, their selection of highly eutrophiclakes and ponds rich in vegetation, reed-beds and river deltas makes theirdistribution patchy and uneven. Themaximum recorded nesting density onmedium-sized and large lakes is 25 pairskm–2 and in the reed-beds of the MatsaluBay c. 15 pairs km–2, but on small lakes 2pairs ha–1 of open water can be encountered(Onno 1970; Leibak et al. 1994).

European Russia

The Pochard has been a regular breedingspecies in European Russia for manycenturies, though during the last century itconspicuously expanded its range to thenorth. In the Leningrad Region, the speciesbred only occasionally on the KarelianIsthmus and in the southern part of LadogaLake at the end of the 19th century, but by the beginning of 1980s it occurredthroughout the region and had become themost abundant duck on some waterbodies(Malchevsky & Pukinsky 1983). Thenorthern range expansion in the KirovRegion and contiguous territories in the eastof European Russia is well reported in

S6 Fox et al.


Sotnikov’s (1999) monograph, in whichpublished data are used to illustrate that thenorthern edge of the breeding range movedfrom c. 56°20’N in the early 20th century toc. 60°N by the 1960s. The first case ofPochard breeding in the Pechoro-IlychskyiState Nature Reserve (on the border ofmiddle and northern taiga ecoregions at62°20’N) was recorded in 1984 (Estafiev etal. 1995).

Pochard breeding sites in EuropeanRussia are concentrated within the steppe,forest-steppe and the southern part of theforest zones. Within the forested zone it isfairly common on some waterbodies andabsent at others, nesting on treeless islets ordead reed mats in lakes and man-madewaterbodies, or in tussocks on the wetmeadows and sedge swamps which arelocated near small lakes and bayou lakes infloodplains. Like the Tufted Duck Aythya

fuligula, the Pochard prefers to breed withintern (Farmily: Sternidae) and gull colonies.During the second half of the 20th century,the Pochard spread to breed on man-madewetlands (e.g. reservoirs, fish-ponds and peatquarries) and showed a correspondingincrease in numbers. In some regions themajority of the population exploits man-made wetlands, compensating for the loss of natural habitats in drained floodplains, as reported during the 1950s–1970s(Schegolev 1972; Mischenko & Sukhanova1988; Sarychev 1997; Frolov et al. 2003;Klimov et al. 2004; Sapetina et al. 2005).

A decline in breeding numbers started tobe reported at the end of the last century insome areas. For example, on Rakovye Lakesin the Leningrad Region, Pochard numbersdeclined 10 fold between the early 1970s

and the early 2000s, and 12–15 fold betweenthe early 1970s and the mid-2010s, mainlydue to unfavourable plant succession andovergrowth of aquatic plants (Ktitorov et al.2003; Kouzov 2015). Statistically significantdeclines were recorded at lakes on theKarelian Isthmus in the Leningrad Region in1992–2002 (Khrabry 2003). Conspicuousdeclines have also been reported in thenumber of migrating Pochard at RybinskReservoir during the second half of the20th century, where 200–400 individualswere usually observed in autumn during the1950s, but almost none have been seen since1992 (Kuznetsov et al. 2006). Numbers ofbroods in the Vinogradovo floodplain(Moscow Region) declined from 150–200 inthe early 1980s to 0–5 in 2000s (Zubakin et al. 1988; Mischenko & Sukhanova 2006a), although numbers recovered to 32–57 broods during 2008–2012 as a result of artificial rewetting of wetlands there(Mischenko & Sukhanova in press).

Pochard show contrasting trends inbreeding abundance in the Don and KubanDeltas. In the Kuban Delta, numbers havedeclined 3.1 fold in the period 1975–1995(Krivenko 1998), whereas in the Don Delta(within the Rostovsky Nature Reserve) a 4-fold increase occurred during the 1980sand 1990s (Minoransky & Tikhonov 2003).

Therefore, depending on the area, thespecies shows contrasting trends, but amoderate decline in numbers seems to haveoccurred in European Russia as a wholeduring 1990–2000 (Mischenko 2004). In thesouth (Rostov, Volgograd and Astrakhanregions; Kalmykia Republic, Krasnodar andStavropol territories; and the republics ofthe Northern Caucasus) the numbers have



been stable over this period (Belik et al.2003). Total numbers of Pochard breedingin European Russia during this period hasbeen estimated at approximately 95,000–265,000 pairs (Mischenko 2004; Viksne et al.

2010). Since then, it is considered that there has been a 5–10% decrease during2000–2010, falling to 90,000–120,000 pairs(based on expert estimations) in 2008–2011(Mischenko 2015; Mischenko in press).

The main adverse factors affectingbreeding Pochard in recent years are likely tohave been: 1) destruction and deteriorationin the quality of breeding wetlands partlydue to increasing drought (especially in thesteppe zone which is considered toconstitute the optimal habitat for thespecies), to reductions in water levels andunfavourable plant succession causing lossof open water; 2) loss of many importantbreeding areas due to abandonment ofgrazing and overgrowth of floodplainmeadows with tall vegetation and scrub(Mischenko & Sukhanova 2006a); 3) loss ofkey breeding sites and the abandonment of fish farming at the majority of fish-ponds, with the resulting overgrowth ofnesting islands and the loss of artificial fish food, which formerly made animportant contribution to brood diet(Mischenko & Sukhanova 2006b); 4)reductions in numbers of breeding Laridae

species (especially Black-headed Gull), with which Pochard are frequentlyassociated, in some important areas; and 5)increases in predation of clutches andducklings by American Mink (which have dramatically increased since the early 1990s)potentially having a major adverse effect onPochard.

Finland Pochard first bred in Finland in 1867, afterwhich there was a substantial increase inbreeding records during 1890–1950 (vonHaartman 1973). On some lakes, breedingnumbers continued to increase until theearly 1980s (e.g. Pöysä 1984; Kauppinen2012), but nationwide the numbers ofnesting Pochard stabilised in the late 1980s (Väisänen et al. 1998), followed by arather rapid decline in very recent years.Kauppinen (2012) documents several casesof local extinction of breeding birds onsome lakes in central Finland during the1990s. Data from standardised annualmonitoring of breeding waterfowl inFinland indicate an annual decline of 5.7%(s.e. ± 0.5) during 1986–2013 (Lehikoinen et al. 2016; see also Pöysä et al. 2013).Breeding Pochard densities have alwaysbeen highest in the south and southwest,with a marked preference for eutrophiclakes. Comparisons between the first twoFinnish bird atlas periods (1974–1979/1986–1989; Väisänen et al. 1998) and thethird atlas period (2006–2010) suggests arange contraction in Finland, with thespecies being increasingly concentrated inthe south nowadays (Valkama et al. 2011). Asa result of these declines, the Pochard(classified as “Least Concern” only 15 yearsago) is now considered “Endangered”(Tiainen et al. 2016), with the currentFinnish population estimated at 10,000–13,000 breeding pairs (Väisänen et al.

2011).Although the Finnish waterfowl

monitoring scheme includes annual broodsurveys of all common duck species,observations of Pochard broods are too few

S8 Fox et al.


for reliable estimation of reproductivesuccess. Based on brood observations fromsystematically studied lakes in centralFinland, brood size did not decrease during1936–1969 and 1970–2000 (mean broodsize = 6.4, n = 81, compared to 7.2ducklings, n = 23, respectively; Kauppinen2012). Several waterbird species breeding oneutrophic Finnish lakes, including thePochard, have however declined in recentdecades (Pöysä et al. 2013; Lehikoinen et al. 2016). The exact reasons for thesedeclines are unknown but several possibleexplanations have been put forward,including the continued eutrophication oflakes, increased food competition withcyprinid fish and the adverse effects ofinvasive predators, especially AmericanMink. Changes in breeding numbers ofother species associated with eutrophic lakesmay also have contributed to the decline ofPochard. In particular, Pochard nests areoften found within colonies of small gulls,notably those of Black-headed Gull(Väänänen 2000; Väänänen et al. 2016). Ithas been shown that nest success of divingducks, including the Pochard, is greaterwithin gull colonies than outside (Väänänen2000). The sharp decline in nesting Black-headed Gulls observed in Finland since the1970s (Kauppinen & Reinikainen 2010;Valkama et al. 2011) therefore may havecontributed to the Pochard decline, or resultfrom similar causes. To date, only 238Pochard have been ringed in Finland, most of these as ducklings (Saurola et al.

2013), and recoveries between November–February suggest that these birds wintermainly in the UK and France. Forty-threeindividuals have been recovered, 42 of them

recovered dead, the most frequent cause ofdeath being hunting (91%).

France

The Pochard probably colonised France inthe early 20th century, and the speciescertainly regularly bred in the Dombesregion during 1920–1930 (Dubois et al.

2008). Since then, breeding numbers havebeen increasing and the species hascontinued to increase its range throughoutFrance to the present day. However, while 5,000–6,000 pairs bred in the mid-1970s, present estimates amount to only3,000–3,500 pairs in 2015, although trendsdiffer between regions. The Dombes region,the most important area for breeding inFrance in the early 1980s, has experienced asharp decline, at the same time as breedingnumbers have increased dramatically inwestern France. For example, Grand-lieuLake supported only five breeding pairs inthe mid-1970s but numbers there rose to800–1,000 pairs by the 2010s. Other areas oflesser importance, such as the Mayenneregion, also in western France, have morethan doubled their breeding population overthe last 20 years, albeit breeding success isalmost always relatively low. In an attempt tostudy better the breeding ecology of thesebirds, nest counts were initiated and thesesuggest that the bird count methodunderestimates the true number of breedingpairs by a factor of up to 2 or 3.Furthermore, a GIS analysis shows that inmost cases <20% of the area suitable forbreeding could be surveyed effectively,leading to great uncertainty in the estimates.Over the past 15 years or so, trends in thenumbers of breeding pairs per surface unit



of wetland have differed markedly betweenregions (for instance, Pochard are increasingat Grand-lieu, Mayenne and Forez, stable inBrenne and decreasing slightly in theDombes). Overall, therefore, it is difficult toconclude that breeding numbers haveexperienced a recent decline in France,although the number of breeding pairscounted now may be slightly lower than inthe mid-1970s. Major differences existbetween regions, especially in the southwestwhere the species is markedly increasing.Breeding success estimates are available forfour regions (J. Broyer unpubl. data; Reeber2014). Overall, the number of broodsproduced per pair is stable in Forez andBrenne, but moderately declining in theDombes region.

Although highly variable between years,the survival of young between week 1 and 3has proven to be stable over more than 20years. In Western France, especially onGrand-lieu Lake, the number of broods hasincreased consistently from <100 broods inthe mid 1990s to >600 in 2015, more as aresult of an increase in breeding pairabundance than an improvement in nestingsuccess. Annual nest survival rates variedfrom up to 70% to less than 10% on Grand-lieu Lake, with flooding and predation beingthe main causes of failure depending onyears. However, overall 51% of 567 nestsdiscovered were depredated during 2008–2013 (A. Caizergues, unpubl. data). Thetiming of initiation of breeding is theultimate cause of nest survival (the bestyears being the earliest ones; B. Folliot,unpubl. data); delayed nesting due to poorweather in the past five years has caused asignificant decrease in nest survival at this

site. In contrast, simultaneous elevatednesting success in other areas during thesame period (for example in 2014 in theSologne region) coincided with a peak inabundance of small rodents. In such areaswhere forests dominate the landscape, nestpredation by Wild Boar Sus scrofa andmustelids are likely the main cause of annualvariations in breeding success and this mayvary with the availability and abundance ofalternate prey.

Capture-mark-recapture estimates ofannual survival rate were 69% in WesternFrance, similar to the 65% from Blums et al.

(1996) for birds ringed in Latvia, and did notdiffer between local breeders and wintervisitors (Gourlay-Larour et al. 2014),suggesting no abnormal patterns in survivalamongst these elements of the populationthat could contribute to explaining recenttrends in Pochard breeding and wintering inwestern Europe.

The major changes observed in Francethat could most likely affect breedingPochard include: 1) eutrophication andpollution of surface water due tointensification/changes in agriculture; 2)introduction of alien species and theiradverse effects on habitat quality (e.g. RedSwamp Crayfish Procambarus clarkii, MuskratOndatra zibethicus, Coypu Myocastor coypus andWater Primrose Ludwigia sp.); and 3)increased predation pressure due tooverabundance of native predators (e.g. WildBoar and corvids). The relative impact ofthese factors has not been investigated. Inthe Sologne region, Wild Boars were themajor predator of diving duck clutches in2015, destroying up to 80% of nests.Because Wild Boars have increased in

S10 Fox et al.


France since the end of the Second WorldWar, they may potentially have a significantnegative impact on ground-nesting birds,including waterfowl (e.g. Elmberg et al.

2009). Movements of broods recordedfollowing nasal-saddled females suggest thatthe availability of good (trophic) qualityponds for raising young may be the mainlimiting factor for duckling survival (<25%of the total numbers of ponds availableappear suitable for raising young), so habitatavailability and annual rainfall (which affectsthe availability and connectivity of goodquality ponds) can be major drivers of duckbreeding success.

Movements of nasal-saddled individualsshow that some French-breeding Pochardmigrate northwards to Britain and the Swissalpine lakes rather than towards the south(Iberian Peninsula, North Africa) during thefollowing winter. Unfortunately, because ofuneven sampling effort, it is not possible to quantify the proportion of individualsfollowing specific migration routes, but c.

40% of females breeding on Grand-lieuwere year-round residents under normalconditions (i.e. in the absence of prolongedcold spells; Gourlay-Larour et al. 2014).

Germany

The Pochard’s breeding distribution wasrestricted to the northeast of present dayGermany in the mid-19th century, east ofthe river Elbe and along the Baltic coast ofSchleswig-Holstein. Since then, the specieshas greatly expanded its range (Bauer &Glutz Blotzheim 1992), and was recordedbreeding in northwest Germany for the firsttime in the 1930s (Bauer et al. 2005). Aremarkable increase in the number of

breeding pairs occurred in the 1950s, whichled to a range extension towards thesouthwest (Bauer & Glutz Blotzheim 1992),likely assisted by the creation of artificialwetlands at that time, such as reservoirs,gravel pits, coastal polders and fish-ponds(Litzbarski 1983; Bauer & Glutz vonBlotzheim 1992; Koop 2003). The breedingpopulation continued to increase in size inmost federal states until the late 1980s andearly 1990s, but since then the number ofPochard breeding in Germany has been indecline. The long-term trend over the past50–150 years was classified as a “significantincrease”, the past 25 year trend (1985–2009) as a moderate decline (>1–3%annually) and the last 12 year trend (1998–2009) as strong decline (>3% annually;Sudfeldt et al. 2013). The most recentestimate is of 4,000–5,500 breeding pairs(2005–2009; Gedeon et al. 2014), distributedbetween most federal states, but with a verypatchy distribution and in small numbers inwestern areas. The strongholds of Pochardnowadays are mainly parts of the northeastlowlands from Schleswig-Holstein toSaxony (where highest densities occur) andin the pond landscapes of northern Bavaria(Gedeon et al. 2014). Highest breedingdensities tend to be associated with largenumbers of lakes and fish-ponds.

Reasons put forward for the causes of therecent population declines include changesin fish-pond management (especially theirabandonment), extinction of Black-headedGull colonies in inland areas and increasedpredation by invasive predatory species such as the North American RaccoonProcyon lotor (Ryslavy et al. 2011; Steffens et al.

2013).



Birds ringed on Lake Constance in the1960s and at the Ismaning Reservoir(Bavaria) in the 1980s were recovered to thesouthwest in autumn, being reported fromSwitzerland, eastern and southeast France(Camargue) and eastern Spain. Pochardringed in southern Germany have beenreported from southern France to easternSpain in winter. Three recoveries from Italyin March suggest a spring migration via amore easterly route. Pochard ringed innorthern Germany were recovered in theNetherlands (2) and the Camargue (1) so,although the number of recoveries is small,these birds also migrate southwest inautumn and at least some winter in the sameareas as birds from southern Germany. Todate, there is no evidence for links tosoutheast European wintering areas(Bairlein et al. 2014).

Hungary

It is estimated that there were 2,000–3,000breeding pairs of Pochard in Hungaryduring 2000–2012, distributed throughoutthe country (Barabás 2013). Numbers areconsidered to have declined by 60–70%since 1980, although until recently the dataupon which this trend was assessed werecircumstantial. Recent decreases are thoughtto be due to intensification of fish-farmingactivities on freshwater fish-ponds thatconstitue an important breeding habitat forthe species in Hungary and to reductions inlake size due to water abstraction. Otherfactors, such as cessation of grazing/mowing of pastures, increasing frequency ofdrought, increasing predation pressure andadverse interactions with invasive alienspecies, were considered to be of medium

importance in contributing to declines in thecountry (Barabás 2013).

Latvia

As a breeding species in Latvia, the Pochardwas considered “not quite rare, but locallydistributed” in the 19th century (Russow1880) and rare to common in the early 20thcentury (Grosse & von Transehe 1929). Itwas described as widely, but unevenly,distributed in the 1970s by Blums (1983), apattern confirmed by the two breeding birdatlases of 1980–1984 (Priednieks et al. 1989)and 2000–2008 ( erus 2008). All theseaccounts stress the importance of the largecoastal lakes for the species (Meyer 1815;Sawitzky 1889; Blums 1983; Priednieks et al.1989). In the late 1970s and early 1980s,approximately half of the Pochard breedingin Latvia (800–1,000 pairs) was consideredto nest at Lake Engure (Blums 1983;Priednieks et al. 1989). In the 1970s, thenational breeding total was considered to be 1,500 pairs (Viksne & Mednis 1978)although Peter Blums considered that thiswas an underestimate because breedingPochard had supposedly been increasinggradually in abundance and distributionsince the beginning of 20th century (Blums1983). By the early 1990s, the still increasingLatvian breeding population was estimatedat 2,500–3,000 pairs (Strazds et al. 1994), sincewhen breeding numbers have fallen back to1,500–2,000 pairs (Viksne et al. 2010).

The species breeds mainly on eutrophiclakes and fish-ponds and nests mainly onsloughs of emergent vegetation and in thedryer parts of reed stands; less frequently on islands with meadow vegetation. Itfrequently nests in Black-headed Gull

S12 Fox et al.


colonies, where nest success and femalesurvival were found to be higher than outsidecolonies: on Lake Engure, only 1% offemales breeding in gull colonies were killedby American Mink or Marsh Harrier Circus

aeruginosus, whereas >6% were predated bythese species at sites without gulls during1960–1994 (Blums et al. 2003). Numbers ofBlack-headed Gulls breeding at Lake Engureincreased from 200 pairs in the 1940s to35,000 in the mid-1980s due to an increase in the supply of artificial food, obtained by scavenging for food at nearby mink farms and from fish catches landed at local harbours. Breeding gull numberssubsequently declined following the closureof mink farms and the small fishing harboursthat supplied such food, but also as a result ofchanges in vegetation structure whichaffected the nesting habitat of gulls and duckalike (Viksne et al. 2011). At another keyPochard breeding site, Lake Kanieris,elevated water levels from 1965 onwardscreated a mosaic of emergent vegetation thatsupported 100–150 breeding pairs during the1970s–1990s (Strazd & Kuze 2006), but as atEngure, the presence of American Mink as acommon predator since the 1970s hasaffected breeding numbers and productivity.Gatherings of moulting males have beenobserved on Lake Kanieris (regularly up toseveral thousands of birds), Lake Babite(irregularly, 1,000–1,500 birds in some years)and at some fish-ponds (Satini up to 50 birds,based on reports by J.Viksne and J.Baumanis)during the 1970s and 1980s (Blums 1983).

Lithuania

Although the Pochard had colonisedLithuania as a breeding species by the end of

the 19th century, it remained a rare andsporadic breeder until the early 20th century(Svazas 2001). Nonetheless, it became oneof the most common and abundant duckspecies in the country from the mid-20thcentury onwards, with breeding sitesconcentrated on large euthrophic lakes(Ivanauskas 1959; Logminas 1972). Thenational breeding population, which wasestimated at c. 300 pairs in the 1930s, hadrisen to c. 1,500 pairs in the 1970s andpeaked at c. 3,500 pairs in 2006 (Svazas 2001;Kurlavicius 2006). Since then, breedingnumbers have declined and by 2015 hadfallen to an estimated 2,000–2,500 pairs(Svazas et al. in press). The species colonisedmany man-made wetlands by the 1990s(particularly fish-ponds; Svazas & Kozulin,2002). Annual fluctuations in Pochardbreeding numbers have been observed atcoastal wetland sites, but the overallnationwide trend is a marked declineespecially on highly eutrophic lakes. Duringthe last decade, highest breeding densities(up to 30 pairs/100 ha) were recorded onshallow eutrophic lakes, fish-ponds and incoastal seasonally flooded meadows (Viksneet al., 2010).

The recent decline in numbers ofbreeding Pochard in Lithuania has beenattributed to: 1) loss of breeding habitats(particularly open islands with low grassyvegetation) on eutrophic lakes due toovergrowth with shrubs/tall vegetationresulting from changes in agriculture(abandonment of traditional cattle grazingand/or hay-making); 2) changes in waterquality of eutrophicated lakes leading to the extinction of stoneworts Chara sp.,pondweeds Potamogeton sp. and reduced



benthos biomass (Stanevicius 1999;Kurlavicius 2006; Viksne et al. 2010; Svazaset al. in press); 3) Increased predationpressure due to invasive mammal species,such as American Mink and Raccoon Dog(formerly abundant breeding colonies ofPochard at key sites have been documentedas being destroyed by American Mink;Kurlavicius 2006); and 4) increasedpredation pressure from avian predators(mainly corvids and Marsh Harriers), relatedto the disappearance of large Black-headedGull colonies. A rapid decline in numbers ofbreeding pairs and reproductive success ofPochard has been recently recorded inseveral monitored sites after thedisappearance of such gull colonies (Viksneet al. 2010; Svazas et al. in press).

A new and important moultingaggregation of Pochard has been observedin the shallow bays of the Curonian Lagoonand in the Nemunas River delta during thelast two decades, now numbering up to11,000 moulting ducks in mid-July–earlyAugust (Stanevicius et al. 2008). However, itseems likely that these counts underestimatethe true numbers of moulting individuals,because 41,000 Pochard have been countedin late August–early September in the samearea, albeit most individuals counted inSeptember are probably migrants, arrivingfrom Northern Europe (Stanevicius et al.

2008). The development of this newmoulting and staging site may partly resultfrom the re-distribution of Pochard fromformer key moulting sites in coastal bays ofEstonia and on large Latvian lakes (Viksne et al. 2010).

Based on recoveries from >1,600Pochard ringed in the Baltic States and in

other countries of Eastern Europe (Blums etal. 1989), Pochard breeding in this regionmostly migrate to wintering grounds in theUK and western France, as well as along thecoast of the North Sea and southern part of the Baltic Sea. More than 80% of allrecoveries were received from northwestEurope although some also come fromcentral Europe, southern France, thenorthern coast of the Black Sea andNorthern Africa. The mean recoverypositions of wintering Pochard ofLithuanian origin revealed no major changesfrom the 1950s to the 1990s, with mostrecoveries being from the UK and westernFrance (Svazas et al. 2001). With fewrecoveries reported on wintering sites nearto the breeding areas, Lithuanian breedingPochard are likely mostly long-distancemigrants (Svazas et al. 2001). Although therewere some differences in genetic structurebetween Pochard breeding in variousregions of Eastern Europe (in the BalticStates, Belarus, northwest Russia andUkraine), these were not significant (Sruogaet al. 2009). There may be considerablemixing of individuals of different breedingorigins on the main wintering and staginggrounds (Viksne et al. 2010).

Netherlands

The Pochard was already breeding in theNetherlands in the 19th century (Teixeira1979), with van der Ploeg et al. (1976)reporting egg collection around 1880. Thenext nesting reports date from 1897 whenthe species was found breeding inland nearEngelen en Vlijmen (Noord-Brabant) and inthe coastal dunes of Zwanewater from 1899(Noord-Holland). By 1906, the numbers of

S14 Fox et al.


Pochard breeding in the so-called “LowCentre of Friesland”, situated east andsoutheast of Leeuwarden, was estimated atleast at 150 pairs (van der Ploeg et al. 1976).Subsequently, numbers probably decreasedas only six pairs were found in Alde Faenennear Earnewald – the most important site inthe area – in 1933 (Bijlsma et al. 2001).Around 1940 the species spread over theNetherlands when breeding pairs could befound at several sites across the countryincluding the fen wetlands of Wormer- andJisperveld in Noord-Holland. In the late1950s and early 1960s, newly created“infiltration areas” in the coastal dunes(used to purify river water by draining itthrough the sands of the dunes) attractedmany breeding birds, peaking at 100 pairs in1980. During the national atlas periods of1973–1977 (Teixeira 1979) and 1979–1985(SOVON 1987) the majority of Pochardoccurred in the fen wetlands and lower peatsoils of Noord-Holland, Friesland andOverijssel. With an estimated 1,000–1,300(1973–1977) and 1,600–2,300 (1979–1985)pairs, the breeding population almostdoubled in around 10 years, reaching a peakat around 1980. Since then, the species mayhave declined very slightly, although the longand short-term trends from 1990–2014 and2005–2014 were stable, with an estimated1,700–2,100 breeding pairs during the mostrecent national atlas period of 1998–2000(Veldkamp 2002).

At several sites, breeding Pochardnumbers display large inter-annual variation,supposedly the result of inter-annualvariations in water levels (Bijlsma et al. 2001).Increases in breeding abundance prior to the1980s might have been related to the

eutrophication of many surface watersystems, especially the nutrient-poor acidicfens on the higher grounds of theNetherlands (e.g. Noord-Brabant, Drenthe;Arts 1990). During the 1990s, much effortwas invested to improve water quality in several water systems by preventingeutrophication (by reducing nutrient influx)and acidification. However, the Pocharddoes not seem to have benefittedsubsequently from such improvements towater quality (Veldkamp 2002). The declinesin some Dutch areas, e.g. in the coastaldunes, are probably caused by increasedpredation pressure from Red Foxes, othermammals and/or birds, improved waterquality (i.e. less eutrophic), drying of ponds,lowering water level and early cutting ofwater margin vegetation (van Ommering &Verstrael 1987; Scharringa et al. 2010), butare likely to be site dependent. Surprisingly,almost no research has been carried out onthis species in the breeding season in theNetherlands, so very little is known about itsbreeding biology or the factors affecting itsbreeding abundance.

Norway

After being increasingly observed insummer throughout the 1960s (Anfinnsen1962; Haftorn 1971), Pochard first bred inNorway in 1972 (Cleve 1973; Lund et al.

1980) on Lake Gjølsjøen, a shallow,eutrophic lake with rich emergent andaquatic vegetation in the southeast of thecountry, close to the Swedish border. Severalpairs then nested annually at LakeHellesjøvann, 28 km from the first breedingsite, from 1976 (Olsen & Lund 1980) until1987, peaking at 13–15 pairs in 1981 (Dale



et al. 2001) before Black-headed Gullsdeserted the site as a breeding area. Breedingpairs became established at LakeDjupvikvatn in western Norway in 1977 and1978, when several thousand autumnstaging Pochard were recorded for the firsttime in coastal Norway (Håland 1979).During the first breeding atlas period(1977–1990), Pochard probably also bred inthe southernmost regions of Lista andJæren. The Norwegian breeding populationpeaked during the early 1980s, mostprobably at 20–30 pairs (Størkersen 1994).

During the late 1980s and early 1990sPochard pairs were recorded at severalcoastal, lowland nutrient-rich lakes, butpermanent, local breeding populations werenever established (Størkerson 1994). From1995 to 2015, fewer than 10 breedingattempts were recorded, although scatteredpairs have been recorded every year, e.g. atLake Ergavatn, Jæren, during 2003–2007.Between 2010 and 2015, pairs have beenobserved on Lake Hellesjøvann as well asother lakes in the region. The recentcolonisation of Norway by Pochard,specifically on eutrophic lakes, has not beenconsolidated into a permanent breedingpopulation. The protective function of gullcolonies has declined as a result of themajor reduction in numbers of breedingBlack-headed Gulls in Norway in recentdecades. Mink predation constitutes a well-known pressure on breeding waterbirds inNorway, but nothing is known about theeffects of such predation on Pochardsettlement and breeding success specifically.The Pochard remains a regularly occurringspecies in Norway throughout the year,although largest numbers occur during

autumn migration, mostly on lakes in the southernmost coastal areas, and 500–800 Pochard are present during winter(Svorkomo-Lundberg et al. 2006).

Poland

Early remains from Pleistocene andHolocene sites identified to Aythya sp. couldbe this species, but the first definitivePochard remains are from a site during theAtlantic/Subboreal period and from threesites in the medieval settlements whichcould be winter derived (Boche ski et al.

2012). In recent times, Pochard colonisedPoland as a breeding bird in the southernpart of the country at the beginning of the19th century (Tomiałojc 1990). The speciesis now moderately widespread and abundanton fish-ponds, shallow lakes, oxbow lakes,dam reservoirs, lagoons and gravel pitsthroughout the lowlands and up to analtitude of c. 400 m. Pochard were recordedin c. 30% of 10 km squares during 1985–1993 in the breeding atlas (Sikora et al. 2007)and in the mid-1990s the Polish populationwas estimated at 20,000–30,000 pairs(Tomiałojc & Stawarczyk 2003). Largestnumbers occur in the fish-ponds in theBarycz Valley, Silesia, where 1,500–2,000pairs bred in the 1990s (average density = 25pairs/100 ha, but with up to 130 nests/ha inBlack-headed Gull colonies; Stawarczyk1995; Witkowski et al. 1995; Tomiałojc &Stawarczyk 2003). Fish-pond complexes inSilesia and Małopolska also each supportedan estimated 200–400 pairs (Czapulak et al.1998; Polak & Wilniewczyc 2001; Wiehle et al. 2002, Wilk et al. 2010). In the last twodecades, dramatic declines have beenreported from many key sites, for example,

S16 Fox et al.


in the Notec valley, where numbers fell from320–340 pairs in the mid-1980s to only15–20 in 2003–11 (Wylegała 2013). Onthirteen fish-pond complexes in easternPoland, numbers fell from a maximum of233 pairs in 1987–90 to a maximum of 15pairs in 2010–13 (Dombrowski et al. 2013).At the Lake Łuknajno Biosphere Reserve,numbers fell from 45–55 breeding pairs in1982–84 to 2–5 pairs in 1999–2002 (Osojca2005). Similar decreases have been reportedin northern Poland, e.g. on coastal lakes andthe Szczecin Lagoon (Antczak & Mohr2006; S. Guentzel & Ł. Ławicki unpubl.data). As a result, the breeding population inPoland was estimated at 2,000–11,000 pairsduring 2008–2012 (Chodkiewicz et al. 2015),based on an estimate of the annual rate of change in numbers breeding at 20waterbodies with reasonable data from themid-1990s and during 2008–2012.

In the absence of specific research, thereis only circumstantial evidence for thecauses behind these declines. Mostobservers report loss of underwatervegetation, increased water pollution,intensification of fishery management,disappearance of Black-headed Gullcolonies (with which the species showspreference for nesting) and the increase inmammalian predators (especially theAmerican Mink). There are currently >360American Mink farms with 5.5 millionindividuals in Poland and many thousandsescape every year (Zalewski & Brzezinski2014). Arguably, therefore, the mostimportant factor behind the decline ofPochard could be the substantial increase inAmerican Mink, which has colonised andspread throughout most of the country

in the early 1990s (e.g. Bartoszewicz &Zalewski 2003). This postdates the peak inbreeding numbers of Pochard in Poland inthe late 1980s/early 1990s. Mink have alsobeen implicated in the large decline inbreeding Coot Fulica atra populations inmany lakes in northeast Poland (Brzezinskiet al. 2012). Overall, large declines in breedingpopulations of most other waterbirds (suchas grebes and ducks) have been observedthroughout Poland in the last 20 years.

Romania

The breeding population of Pochard inRomania was estimated at 20,700–28,800pairs between 2008 and 2013, although thelong and shorter term trends in abundanceare unknown (BirdLife International 2015).

Serbia

During the 1830s, the Pochard was a regularbreeding species in vicinity of somesettlements in the eastern Srem region(Vojvodina Province), but by the late 19thcentury it was only a scarce migrant in thesame area and elsewhere along the DanubeRiver in eastern Serbia (Negotinska Krajinaregion). It returned as a breeding species inthe early 20th century and became quitecommon during the second half of thatcentury, mainly in Vojvodina Province, withlower densities recorded south of theDanube in Negotinska Krajina (Šciban et al.2015). Breeding numbers have increasedmodestly since 2000, but have fluctuated atbetween 840–1,200 pairs during 2008–2013(Puzovi et al. 2015). Around 90% of allbreeding pairs are confined to be inVojvodina, with the other breeders beingscattered throughout the rest of the country.



SpainExtrapolation from a sample of 3,300 birdsobserved at 157 wetlands put the number ofPochard breeding in Spain at c. 8,300 pairs in 2007, in a year with good floodingconditions (Palomino & Molina 2009),compared to national estimates of 10,000breeding birds cited by Corbacho (2003) and6,000 birds cited by Purroy (1997). Themost important breeding areas are inAndalusia, which holds half of the nationaltotal, although sites in Tagus (such asDehesa de Monreal and El Puente gravelpits) and Guardiana (Taray, Pozo, Puerta,and Villafranca) also hold a few hundredpairs. It is generally accepted that the speciesunderwent a progressive increase in rangeand abundance in Spain between 1950 and2000, although local breeding densitiesvaried considerably with water levels.Moreover, the quality of census data prior to 1990 was variable and the estimatescalculated in different ways, makingcomparisons difficult (Corbacho 2003,Velasco & Molina 2003, Mateo 2004). Sincethen, there appears to have been a majordecline in Andalusia, where an estimated87–362 pairs recorded nesting between2007–2015 represents a significant annualdecrease of 6.5% (Consejería de MedioAmbiente y Ordenación del Territorio,unpublished data) since the 3,000–5,000pairs estimated for Doñana alone during the 1980s (Corbacho 2003). In contrast,breeding Pochard in the ValenciaAutonomous Region appear to haveincreased between 1984 and 2013, peakingat >500 pairs in 2012 (Servicio de VidaSilvestre 2013). Because breeding Pochardtend to be reliant upon the highly variable

hydrological conditions of wetlands inspring, it is necessary to carry out consistentsurveys at a range of wetlands usingstandard methodologies to generate reliablebreeding abundance trends for this species(B. Molina, pers. comm.).

On the whole, the situation in Spain givescause for concern. Major hydrologicalchanges to control water for irrigation, fish-farming or water treatment have led to thecreation of many artificial or semi-artificialsites that, while good for breeding Pochardin the short term, later suffer from hyper-eutrophication (promoted by relatively hightemperatures) and a collapse in breedingnumbers. This “boom-bust” cycle has beenrepeated in many Andalusian wetlands andis also made worse by continuous expansionin the range and abundance of alien fish(particularly Common Carp) and the RedSwamp Crayfish, which have becomepresent in all permanent wetlands wherethey apparently compete with breedingwaterfowl as, as a result of their elevatedactivity promoted by high watertemperatures, they can remove mostsubmerged macrophyte biomass. Theimpact of Common Carp at Medina lagoonin Jerez de la Frontera has been particularlyclear and well-studied (Green et al., unpubl.data). Furthermore, Pochard breedingsuccess is limited by salinity, which increasesin drier years even in wetlands with stablewater levels. The collapse of theFerruginous Duck Aythya nyroca populationin Doñana prior to 1960 seems likely to befollowed by a collapse of Pochard unlessmeasures are taken to recover water supplyby reversing over-abstraction for agriculture(particularly Strawberry Fragraria x ananassa

S18 Fox et al.


farming). Lead poisoning is a seriousproblem for Pochard in winter (Mateo et al.2000), and may also affect the breedingpopulation given the abundance of spentlead shot in the sediments of some wetlands.

Sweden

During the mid-19th century, the breedingrange of the Pochard expanded in northwestEurope to colonise Sweden, with the firstbreeding attempt recorded on the island ofGotland in 1849 (Svensson 2005). Since thattime, the species has spread over southernSweden with highest densities in the easterlyprovinces, peaking in the 1950s and 1960s(Svensson 2005). Based on extensiveregional and local lake surveys, the nationalbreeding population was estimated at c. 5,000pairs in the 1970s (L. Nilsson unpubl. data)compared to c. 1,100 pairs during the 2008breeding bird survey (Ottosson et al. 2012).To date, there are no Swedish studies ofPochard reproductive success or survival.The Swedish Bird Ringing Atlas (Fransson &Petterssson 2001) reported 319 Pochardmarked in Sweden until 2000, of which 19 were recovered. Most Pochard marked in southernmost Sweden yielded localrecoveries but there are single winterrecoveries from the Netherlands, France andRussia and one bird was found in Latvia thesummer following being marked in Swedenin winter.

Switzerland

Although abundant in winter, the Pochard isa regular but rare breeder in Switzerland. Nosystematic monitoring of breeding is carriedout, but casual and regional reports arechecked for confirmed breeding attempts

which are stored at the Swiss OrnithologicalInstitute, summarised in Maumary et al.

(2007). Broods were first recorded in 1952,1959 and 1970 on Lake Neuchâtel, sincewhen breeding has been confirmed in all buttwo years, with up to 11 broods in 1989 and2003 and stable trends. Increases observedduring the 1970s and 1980s correspondedwith increased wintering numbers, but couldalso have resulted from increasing observereffort. Breeding attempts have beenreported from 20 sites, including large lakesand small ponds. All records come fromlowland areas north of the Alps, with theexception of those from the Heidsee, asmall lake at 1,480 m a.s.l. near Lenzerheidein the Canton of Grisons, which aresuspected to involve individuals of captiveorigin. The most regularly occupied sites are:Eglisauer Stau, a stretch of the Rhine on theborder between the Canton of Zurich andGermany upstream of a hydroelectric dam(76 broods in total, maximum nine in 1989);Lake Zurich (large lake, total 37 broods,maximum five in 2009); Pfäffikersee(Canton of Zurich), a medium-sized lake(total 37 broods, maximum five in 1983);Kaltbrunnerriet (Canton of St Gallen), awetland close to Lake Zurich (25 broods,maximum four in 1980); and FlachseeUnterlunkhofen (Canton of Aargau), adammed stretch of the river Reuss (21broods, maximum five in 1992). Although aregular breeder at Lake Constance(Bodensee), breeding has never beenconfirmed along the Swiss shoreline.

Ukraine

The earliest known records of Pochard inUkraine date back to the Pleistocene and



early Holocene epochs, with remains foundin the mid to lower Dnieper region(Voyinstvensky 1967). During the early 19thcentury the species was breeding regularly ineastern, central and, to some extent, inwestern parts of the country. In the late19th–early 20th century, however, therewere virtually no breeding attempts inPolissya (northern Ukraine), and also noreports of breeding from the lower reachesand deltas of the Danube, Dniester andDnieper Rivers, nor from the Don Riverdelta in Russia close to the Ukrainian border(Radakoff 1879; Brauner 1894; von Almásy1898; Alpheraky 1910; Paczosky 1911;Podushkin 1912). The basins of tributariesof the Dnieper River, rich in natural lakes,were the breeding stronghold of the speciesin the 19th and early 20th century, and thesesites remain the core area of importance forbreeding Pochard to the present day.

The expansion of the Pochard’s breedingdistribution in Ukraine occurred from themiddle of the 20th century, when thespecies colonised some parts of Polissya inthe north (Charlemagne 1936; Kistyakivskiy1952) and the lower reaches of Danube,Dniester and Dnieper Rivers in southernparts of the country (Klimenko 1950;Nazarenko 1953). Following the SecondWorld War, breeding Pochard were more orless evenly distributed throughout Ukraine,absent only from mountainous andsouthern steppe areas (e.g. in Crimea andsome coastal regions) lacking suitablewetlands. During 1950–1970, damming ofthe Dnieper River created new semi-naturalhabitats where Pochard (formerly absent)started to breed. Extensive creation ofartificial fish-ponds during this period also

provided new and important breedinghabitats throughout the country, whichcontinue to play a vital role for the breedingpopulation, especially in northern, westernand eastern Ukraine. Irrigation schemeshave transformed former salt lakes intofreshwater habitats, contributing to thespread of the species in the south of thecountry during the 1960s and 1970s.Breeding Pochard colonised the Crimea(where it was formerly only a migrant andwinter visitor, but is now the commonestbreeding duck) following the constructionof the Northern Crimean Canal andassociated freshwater habitats in the 1970s(Kostin 1983; Grinchenko 2009).

Since 1980, breeding Pochard have spreadto other parts of the northern Black Searegion, such as Babin Island in theChernomorsky State Nature Reserve(Ardamatskaya 1984). It seems likely thatnumbers peaked in the 1980s and 1990s inUkraine overall and that declines haveoccurred in some parts of the country sincethen. Total numbers are estimated at 7,000–12,000 pairs for the period 2010–2015. AtShatsky lakes in Western Polissya, numberspeaked in 1997–2001, but declines in the last5–7 years have been associated with lossesof gull colonies where Pochard preferred tobreed (I. Horban, pers. comm.; Horban2002). Similar declines have been reportedsince the mid 1990s on the Desna Riverflood-plain in Eastern Polissya, another areaof former national importance. On theother hand, numbers have increased up untilthe early 2000s in central parts of the region(Chernobyl accident zone; Gaschak et al.

2006). The fish-ponds and reservoirs of theupper Dniester and Southern Buh Rivers

S20 Fox et al.


catchments (a stronghold in westernUkraine) supported an estimated 340–465nesting pairs during 1992 and 2001 (Bokoteyet al. 2008). Since that time, numbers havedeclined at the same time as gull colonieshave disappeared (I. Horban, pers. comm.).Some 2,500–3,000 pairs of Pochardcurrently breed along Black and Azov Seacoasts (including Crimea), preferring naturallakes in river deltas, lakes on sand flats (e.g.Kinburn Peninsula), desalinated former saltlakes, fish-ponds and, in recent years,increasingly on newly created artificialponds in small river valleys, especially wherereed-beds are present. The Ukrainian part ofthe Danube River delta held 400–450 pairsin 2000 (a poor season) but 1,430 pairs in2001 within the Stensovsko-Zhebrianskyplavni site alone (Koshelev et al. 2001, 2002).However, since the early 2000s, numbershave declined in the delta due to reedencroachment (M. Yakovlev, pers. comm.).Although numbers in western parts of theAzov-Black Sea region fluctuate betweenyears, there is no obvious negative trend (P.Panchenko pers. comm.). In the Mykolayiv andKherson regions (Southern Buh andDnieper catchment) numbers peaked in theearly 1990s but have declined by 80% duringthe early 2000s (due to prolonged drought)and have stabilised at these lower levels (Z.Petrovich & K. Redinov, pers. comm.).

In Crimea, 750–800 pairs bred in the early2010s (Grinchenko 2009, unpubl. data), 400pairs bred in eastern Syvash, 30–40 pairs inCentral Syvash (Grinchenko 2009), 115–130pairs on western Crimean lakes, 150–200pairs on fish-ponds in northwestern Crimeaand 30–40 pairs in eastern Crimea (unpubl.data). Eastern Syvash is the most important

moulting and post-breeding summeraggregation of the species in Ukraine(21,000–31,000 in early August in the mid tolate 2000s). Recent estimates suggest a 3–5-fold decline in breeding Pochard throughoutCrimea since the peak in the late 1980s toearly 1990s (Grinchenko 2009). Thedeclines of the late 1990s and early 2000swere caused by habitat change e.g. reedencroachment (Grinchenko 2009), althoughnumbers have not declined further in veryrecent years.

In eastern Ukraine the Pochard was nevera numerous species, with 450–500 breedingpairs estimated outside of the coastal part ofthe Donetsk region at present. Numbers inthe Donetsk and Lugansk regions increasedfrom the late 1980s to the present (V.V.Vetrov, L.I. Taranenko, pers. comm.) wherethe species has bred on inland waterbodieswhere formerly absent during 1950–1980.In the Kharkiv region, numbers haveprobably declined by 60–80% in the last 15years due to prolonged drought causingdesiccation of wetlands.

The Pochard remains vulnerable in manyparts of Ukraine, due especially to theeffects of climate change that has broughtspring droughts to eastern and southernparts of the country. Fish-ponds (whichrepresent important breeding habitats) andwetlands associated with freshwaterirrigation are also jeopardised by economicpressures and political change.

Few Pochard ringed in Ukraine have beenrecovered, but these include the directrecovery of a bird hatched and ringed innorthern Ukraine recovered in southernFrance in the next winter (Blums et al. 1989).The bulk of other recoveries is from adult



birds ringed in western Europe in winter(mainly France and Switzerland but also theUK and Germany), young birds originatingfrom regions further east e.g. the easternAzov Sea area, the middle Volga River basin(Tatarstan, Russia) and southern parts ofwestern Siberia in Russia, as well as adultbirds ringed when breeding or moulting ineastern Azov region and southwest Siberia(Blums et al. 1989; Korzyukov 2001; Hofer et al. 2006; Viksne et al. 2010; Kostiushyn et al. 2011). Notable exceptions include tworecoveries of birds hatched in Latvia (onerecovered in its first winter Blums et al.

1989).

United Kingdom

Pochard are known from the archaeologicalrecord from the middle Pleistocene,Mesolithic, Iron Age and Roman periods(Yalden & Albarella 2009) but suchcontinuous presence could originate fromnon-breeding birds. The Pochard seems tohave colonised Britain as a breeding speciesin recent times at the beginning of the 19thcentury; it was confined to southeastEngland up to the 1840s (Fox 1991), butspread north and westwards over the next40 years without ever being especiallycommon (Fox 1991; Brown & Grice 2005).By the early 20th century, the species had spread through England, Wales andScotland, but was nowhere common, withnumbers still being greatest in the south andeast of Britain. An attempt to census thenumber of breeding pairs via the UK RareBreeding Birds Panel commenced in 1986,when it was estimated that there were98–139 breeding pairs at 54 sites. Since then,the number of potentially and successfully

breeding pairs has increased, peaking at 700potentially breeding pairs in 2009 and 2010,with 410 successfully breeding pairs (i.e. seenwith young) recorded in 2008. Seventypercent of all recoveries of Pochard markedin the UK during summer (April–June) werefrom the UK and Ireland in winter, and 50%of the modest numbers recovered duringmoult/autumn (July–September) wereringed in the UK, which suggests littlemovement of the breeding population (Fox & Salmon 1988). However, winterrecoveries from France and Spain of birdsmarked in the UK suggest some movementonwards and recoveries within the UK ofbirds ringed in Netherlands and Belgium,Germany, Denmark, Poland and Russiaconfirm mixing with other elements of theEuropean population (Fox & Salmon 1988).

References

Alpheraky, S.N. 1910. Birds of Eastern Azovarea. Ornitologicheskiy Vestnik 1: 11–35. [InRussian.]

Anfinnsen, T. 1962. Taffelanda – en nykommer Ifaunaen vår. Naturen 86: 299–306. [InNorwegian.]

Anonymous 2013. Bardacha, or how is the birds’

reserve destroyed!? Accessible at: http://lat.rtrs.tv/vijesti/vijest/bardaca-ili-kako-je-unisten-rezervat-rijetkih-ptica-80215 (lastaccessed 27 June 2016).

Anonymous 2015. World Wide Fund for Nature:

Stop the destruction of „Hutovo blato”. Accessibleat: http://www.mccann.ba/en/cases/Hutovo-blato (last accessed 27 June 2016).

Anselin, A., Devos, K., Vermeersch, G., Stienen,E. & Onkelinx, T. 2013. Toelichting bij het

opstellen van de rapportage in het kader van artikel

12 van de Vogelrichtlijn en status van de vogelsoorten

met instandhoudings-populatiedoelen en van de

S22 Fox et al.


typische vogelsoorten van Natura 2000 habitattypes.

Rapport INBO.R.2014.1567208. Instituutvoor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek (INBO),Brussels, Belgium. [In Flemish.]

Antczak, J. & Mohr, A. (eds.) 2006. Breeding birds

of the protection areas and worth protection in the

central part of the Pomeranian Region. PomorskiejAkademil Pedagogicznej, Słupsk. [In Polishwith English abstract.]

Ardamatskaya, T.B. 1984. The dynamics of thenumbers of breeding waterfowl on islands ofTendrovsky and Yagorlytsky bays of BlackSea. In V.G. Krivenko (ed.), The current state of

waterfowl resources. Abstracts from the All-Union

Seminar 20–23 Oct. 1984, pp. 71–73. V.N.I.I.Priroda, Moscow, Russia. [In Russian.]

Arts, G.H.P. 1990. Deterioration of Atlantic soft-

water systems and their flora, a historical

account. Ph.D. thesis, Catholic University ofNijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Bairlein, F., Dierschke, J., Dierschke, V., Salewski,V., Geiter, O., Hüppop, K., Köppen, U. &Fiedler, W. 2014. Atlas des Vogelzugs. Ringfunde

deutscher Brut- und Gastvögel. AULA-Verlag,Wiebelsheim, Germany.

Barabás, L. 2013. Breeding distribution ofHungarian Duck species. Hungarian Waterfowl

Publications 23: 79–120. [In Hungarian.]Bartoszewicz, M. & Zalewski, A. 2003. American

Mink, Mustela vison diet and predation onwaterfowl in the Slonsk Reserve, westernPoland. Folia Zoologica 52: 225–238.

Bauer, H.-G., Bezzel, E. & Fiedler, W. 2005. Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas.

Nonpasseriformes – Nichtsperlingsvögel, 2.

vollständig überarbeitete Auflage. AULA-Verlag,Wiebelsheim, Germany.

Bauer, K.M. & Glutz von Blotzheim, U.N. 1992.Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Band 3

Anseriformes (2. Teil), 2. Auflage. AULA-Verlag,Wiesbaden, Germany.

Belik, V.P., Polivanov, V.M., Tilba, P.A. &Dzhamirzoev, G.S. 2003. Recent population

trends of breeding birds of southern Russia.Strepet 1: 10–30.

Bijlsma, R.G., Hustings, F. & Camphuysen, C.J.2001. Algemene en schaarse vogels van Nederland

(Avifauna van Nederland 2). GMB Uitgeverij,Haarlem and KNNV Uitgeverij, Utrecht,The Netherlands.

BirdLife International 2015. Aythya ferina

(Common Pochard) – European Red List of Birds

Supplementary Material. Accessible at: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/file/Species/erlob/supplementarypdfs/22680358_aythya_ferina.pdf (last accessed 27 June2016).

Blums, P. 1983. Aythya ferina (L.) In: J. Viksne(ed.), Ptici Latviji, territorialnoje pazmescenije i

cislennostj, pp. 41–42. Zinatne, Riga, Latvia.Blums, P., Kozellek, K. & Hudec, K. 1989. Pochard

Aythya ferina. In: Pavlov, D.S. (ed.), Migrations

of birds of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia.

Anseriformes, pp. 63–135. Nauka, Moscow,Russia. [In Russian.]

Blums, P., Mednis, A., Bauga, I., Nichols, J.D. &Hines, J.E. 1996. Age-specific survival andphilopatry in three species of European ducks:a long-term study. The Condor 98: 61–74.

Blums, P., Nichols, J.D., Lindberg, M.S., Hines,J.E. & Mednis, A. 2003. Factors affectingbreeding dispersal of European ducks onEngure Marsh, Latvia. Journal of Animal

Ecology 72: 292–307.Bochenski, Z., Bochenski, Z.M. & Tomek, T.

2012. A History of Polish Birds. Institute ofSystematics and Evolution of Animals PolishAcademy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland.

Bokotey, A., Dzyubenko, N. & Kuchinska, I.2008. The fauna and population of breedingwaterfowl in the fish-ponds of Upper Dneister river basin. Proceedings of the Scientific Society,

Schevchenko 23: 196–207. [In Ukranian.]Brauner, A. 1894. Notes on the Birds of Kherson

Government. Schulze, Odessa, Ukraine. [InRussian.]



Brown, A & Grice, P. 2005 Birds in England. T. &A.D. Poyser, London, UK.

Brzezinski, M., Natorff, M., Zalewski, A.,Zmihorski, M. 2012. Numerical andbehavioural responses of waterfowl to theinvasive American mink: a conservationparadox. Biological Conservation 147: 68–78.

Buric, K. & Smrcek, M. 1987. Populacní trendyvodních ptáku na Blatensku a hnízdní ekologienekterých druh kachen. In: South BohemianOrnithological Club (eds.), Proceedings of

Avifauna jižních Cech a její zmeny. Sborník referátu,

Ceské Budejovice, pp. 46–55. Ceské Budejovice,

Czech Republic. [In Czech.]Charlemagne, N. 1936. Materials on the fauna

of mammals and birds of Chernigiv region.Vydavnytstvo Ukrainskoy Akademii Nauk,Kyiv, Ukraine. [In Ukrainian.]

Chodkiewicz, T., Kuczynski, L., Sikora, A.,Chylarecki, P., Neubauer, G., Ławicki, Ł. &Stawarczyk, T. 2015. Population sizes ofbirds breeding in Poland in 2008–2012. Ornis

Polonica 56: 149–189. [In Polish with Englishabstract.]

Cleve, A. 1973. Har taffeland hekket i Norge?Sterna 12: 57–60. [In Norwegian.]

Corbacho, C. 2003. Porrón europeo, Aythya ferina.

In: R. Martí & J.C. del Moral (eds.), Atlas de

las aves reproductoras de España, pp. 148–149.Dirección General de Conservación de laNaturaleza-SEO/BirdLife, Madrid, Spain.[In Spanish.]

Czapulak, A., Adamski, A., Cieslak, M. &Zawadzki, L. 1998. Waterfowl of the reserve‘Przemków ponds’ in the 1990s. Ptaki Slaska

12: 81–112. [In Polish with English abstract.]Dale, S., Andersen, G.A., Eie, K., Bergan, M. &

Stensland, P. 2001. Guide til fuglelivet i Oslo og

Akershus. Norsk Ornitologisk Forening,Oslo, Norway. [In Norwegian.]

Dombrowski, A., Stolarz, P. & Goławski, A.2013. Changes in numbers of waterbirdsbreeding on fish-ponds in central part of the

South-Podlasian Lowland between 1966 and 2013. Kulon 18: 57–68. [In Polish withEnglish summary.]

Dostál, J. 1906. Ptactvo okolí lanštorfského.Casopis Moravského musea 6, F-Zprávy pro pr ír.

prozk. Moravy, odd. zool. c . 4: 1–13. [In Czech.]Dubois, P.J., Le Maréchal, P., Olioso, G., Yesou,

P. 2008. Nouvel Inventaire des Oiseaux de France.Delachaux et Niestlé, Neuchâtel, France. [InFrench.]

Dvorak, M., Winkler, I., Grabmayer, C. & Steiner E. 1994. Stillgewässer Österreichs als

Brutgebiete für Wasservögel. Monographien 44.Umweltbundesamt, Wien, Germany. [InGerman.]

Dybbro, T. 1976. De danske ynglefugles udbredelse.

Dansk Ornitologisk Forening, Copenhagen,Denmark. [In Danish.]

Dybbro, T. 1985. Status for Danske Fuglelokalitater.

Dansk Ornitologisk Forening, Copenhagen,Denmark. [In Danish.]

Elmberg, J., Folkesson, K., Guillemain, M. &Gunnarsson, G. 2009. Putting densitydependence in perspective: nest density,nesting phenology and biome all matter to survival of simulated Mallard Anas

platyrhynchos nests. Journal of Avian Biology 40:317–326.

Elts, J., Kuresoo, A., Leibak, E., Leito, A.,Lilleleht, L., Luigujõe, L., Lõhmus, A., Mägi,E. & Ots, M. 2003. Status and numbers ofEstonian birds, 1998–2002. Hirundo 2: 58–83.[In Estonian.]

Elts, J., Kuresoo, A., Leibak, E., Leito, A., Leivits,A., Lilleleht, L., Luigujõe, L., Mägi, E., Nellis,R., Nellis, R. & Ots, M. 2009. Status andnumbers of Estonian birds, 2003–2008.Hirundo 22: 3–31. [In Estonian.]

Elts, J., Leito, A., Leivits, A., Luigujõe, L., Mägi,E., Nellis, R., Nellis, R., Ots, M. & Pehlak, H. 2013. Status and numbers of Estonianbirds, 2008–2012. Hirundo 26: 80–112. [InEstonian.]

S24 Fox et al.


Estafiev, A., Voronin, R.N., Mineev, Yu.V.,Kochanov, S.K. & Beshkarev, A.B. 1995.Fauna of European North-East of Russia.

Avifauna. Vol. 1, part 1. Nauka, St.Petersburg, Russia. [In Russian.]

Fedyushin, A.V. & Dolbik, M.S. 1967. The Birds

of Byelorussia. Nauka i tekhnika, Minsk,Byelorussia. [In Russian.]

Ferdinand, L. 1971. Større danske fugle lokaliteter: en

landsdækkende undersøgelse af 669 lokaliteters

fugleliv I årene 1960–1969 og deres

beskyttelsesvilkår. Dansk OrnitologiskForening, Copenhagen, Denmark. [InDanish.]

Festetics, A. & Leisler, B. 1968. Ecology ofwaterfowl in the region of Lake Neusiedl,Austria, particularly in the World WildlifeFund Seewinkel Reserve. Wildfowl 19: 83–95.

Fiala, V. 2008. Námešt’ské rybníky a jejich ptactvo

1885–2008. Pobocka CSO na Vysocine,Jihlava, Czech Republic. [In Czech.]

Fox, A.D. 1991. History of the Pochard nestingin Britain. British Birds 84: 83–98.

Fox, A.D. & Salmon, D.G. 1988. Changes in thenon-breeding distribution and habitat ofPochard in Britain. Biological Conservation 46:303–316.

Fransson, T. & Pettersson, J. 2001. Svensk

ringmärkningsatlas, Vol. 1. NaturhistoriskaRiksmuseet och Sveriges OrnitologiskaFöreninga, Stockholm, Sweden. [In Swedish.]

Fric, A. 1872. Evropské ptactvo. Vesmír 2:201–202. [In Czech.]

Frolov, V.V., Korkina, S.A., Gomzin, D.V. &Frolov, A.V. 2003. Nesting Anseriformes ofthe Penza Oblast. Casarca 7: 344–361. [InRussian.]

Gaschak, S.P., Vyshnevsky, D.O. & Zalysky, O.O.2006. The Fauna of Vertebrates of the Chornobyl

Accident Zone (Ukraine). Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste andRadioecology, Slavutych, Ukraine. [InUkrainian.]

Gašic, B. 2001. Supplement to studies on birdfauna of Republic of Srpska. Ciconia 10:108–127.

Gašic, B. & Dujakovic, G., 2008. Birds of Barda

a. Institute for Protection of Cultural,Historical and Natural Heritage of Republic ofSrpska, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Gedeon, K., Grüneberg, C., Mitschke, C.,Sudfeldt, Eikhorst, W., Fischer, S., Flade, M.,Frick, S., Geiersberger, I., Koop, B., Kramer,M., Krüger, T., Roth, N., Ryslavy, T., Stübing,S., Sudmann, S.R. Steffens, R., Vökler F. &Witt, K. 2014. Atlas Deutscher Brutvogelarten.

Atlas of German Breeding Birds. StiftungVogelmonitoring Deutschland undDachverband Deutscher Avifaunisten,Münster, Germany. [In German.]

Gourlay-Larour, M.-L., Pradel, R., Guillemain,M., Guitton, J.-S., L’Hostis, M., Santin-Janin,H. & Caizergues, A. 2014. MovementPatterns in a Partial Migrant: A Multi-EventCapture-Recapture Approach. PLoS ONE 9:e96478.

Grell, M.B. 1998. Fuglenes Danmark Gads Forlag/Dansk Ornitologisk Forening, Copenhagen,Denamrk. [In Danish.]

Grinchenko, A.B. 2009. Changes in breedingavifauna of Anseriformes of the Crimeaconnected with anthropogenic succession ofSyvash and steppe part of the peninsula.Branta 12: 59–70. [In Russian.]

Grosse, A. & von Transehe, N. 1929. Verzeichnis

der Wirbeltiere des Ostbaltischer Gebietes.Arbeiten des Naturforscher-Vereinszu Riga.Neue folge Heft XVIII. Deubner, Riga,Latvia. [In German.]

Haftorn, S. 1971. Norges Fugler. Universitetsforlaget,Oslo-Bergen-Trondheim, Norway. [InNorwegian.]

Håland, A. 1979. Invasjonsartet opptreden avtaffeland. Krompen 8: 87–93. [In Norwegian.]

Hansen, L. 1967. Taffelands (Aythya ferina)nuværende udbredelse som ynglefugl. Dansk



Ornitologisk Forenings Tidsskrift 61: 138–142.[In Danish with English summary.]

Hofer, J., Korner-Nievergelt, F., Korner-Nievergelt, P., Kestenholz, M. & Jenni L.2006. Herkunft und Zugverhalten von in der Schweiz überwinternden oderdurchziehenden Tafelenten Aythya ferina.Ornithologische Beobachter 103: 65–86. [InGerman.]

Horban, I. 2002. Rare and disappearing speciesof birds of Shatsk national park. Visnyk of

L’viv University, Biology Series 29: 127–137. [InUkrainian.]

Ivanauskas, T. 1959. Birds of Lithuania. Anatidae.

Vol. 2. State Publishers of ScientificLiterature, Vilnius, Lithuania. [In Lithuanian.]

Jacob, J.P., Dehem, C., Burnel, A., Dambiermont,J.-L., Fasol, M., Kinet, T. van der Elst, D. &Paquet, J-Y. 2010. Atlas des Oiseaux Nicheurs de

Wallonie 2001–2007. Série ‘Faune-Flore-Habitats’

N°5. Aves et Région Walonne, Gembloux,France. [In French.]

Kašpar, R. 1889–1890. Ptactvo moravské. as.

muz. Olom. 6: 20–26, 59–63, 106–111, 148–153; 7: 64–68, 116–121, 166–172. [In Czech.]

Kauppinen, J. 2012. The pochard and tufted duckin central Finland – from winners to losers.Suomen Riista 58: 42–49. [In Finnish withEnglish summary.]

Kauppinen, J. & Reinikainen, A. 2010. Long-termvariation of the breeding Black-headed Gullpopulations in eutrophic lakes in NorthernSavo, Finland. Linnut-vuosikirja 2010: 117–121. [In Finnish with English summary.]

Kerus, V. 2008. Latvian Breeding Bird Atlas

2000–2008. Latvian Ornithological Society,Riga, Latvia. Accessible at: http://www.lob.lv/lv/atlants/sugu_kartes.php?kods=ayfer lastaccessed 27 June 2016). [In Latvian.]

Khrabry, V.M. 2003. Summer dynamics ofwaterfowl numbers on some lakes of theKarelian Isthmus, the Leningrad Oblast. In:V.B. Zimin, E.E. Syroechkovskiy & A.B.

Popovkina, (eds.), Abstracts of the International

Symposium: Management and Conservation of

Waterfowl Populations in Northern Eurasia, pp.195–197. Goose, Swan and Duck StudyGroup of Northern Eurasia, Petrozavodsk,Russia. [In Russian.]

Kistyakivskiy, O.B. 1952. The fauna of gamebirds of Polissya of Ukrainian SSR. Collected

papers of Zoological Museum of the Academy

of Sciences of Ukrainian SSR. 25: 11–34. [InUkrainian.]

Kitonic, D. & Sackl, P. 2008/2009. WaterbirdCounts and Spring Migration in Mostarskoblato in April 2008. The Bulletin of the

Birdwatchers Network in Bosnia and Herzegovina.4–5: 90–92.

Klimenko, M.I. 1950. The data on bird fauna ofthe surroundings of Chernomorsky statenature reserve. Proceedings of the Chernomorsky

State Nature Reserve 1: 3–52. [In Russian.]Klimov, S.M., Sarychev, V.S., Melnikov, M.V. &

Zemlyanukhin, A.I. 2004. Bird fauna of Upper

Don Basin. Lipetsk Pedagogical UniversityPress, Lipetsk, Russia. [In Russian.]

Köhler, P. & Köhler, U. 1996. Eine Auswertungvon Ringfunden der Tafelente (Aythya

ferina) angesichts der zusamenbrechendenMausertradition im Ismaninger Teichgebiet.Vogelwarte 38: 225–234. [In German.]

Koop, B. 2003. Tafelente – Aythya ferina. In: R.K.Berndt, B. Koop & B. Struwe-Juhl (eds.),Vogelwelt Schleswig-Holsteins. Band 5: Brutvogelatlas, pp. 102–103. Wachholtz Verlag, Neumünster,Germany.

Korzyukov, A.I. 2001. Geographical links ofbirds of Danube water bodies in Ukraine.Branta 4: 101–108. [In Russian.]

Koshelev, A.I., Koshelev, V.A., Zhmud, M.E.,Pokusa, R.V., Chichkin, V.N., Fedorenko,A.V. 2001. The numbers and distribution ofwaterfowl in the Stensovsko-ZhebriyanskyPlavni of the Danube River in 2001. Branta 4:79–100. [In Russian.]

S26 Fox et al.


Koshelev, A.I., Popenko, V.M., Koshelev, V.A.,Chichkin, V.N. 2002. The distribution andnumbers of waterfowl during the periodafter breeding in Stensovsko-ZhebriyanskyPlavni of the Danube delta in 2000. Branta 5:58–69. [In Russian.]

Kostin, Y.V. 1983. Birds of Crimea. Nauka,Moscow, Russia. [In Russian.]

Kostiushyn, V.A., Chernichko, I.I., Poluda, A.M. & Chernichko, R.N. 2011. Analysis of

Information Sources on Waterbird Migration in the

Azov-Black Sea Region of Ukraine: Bibliography,

Count Results and Ring Recoveries. WetlandsInternational Black Sea Programme, Kiev,Ukraine.

Kotrošan, D. 2008/2009. Updates and correctionsto the Bird Checklist of Bosnia andHerzegovina for the species registered form1888 to 2006. The Bulletin of the Birdwatchers

Network in Bosnia and Herzegovina 4–5: 72–86. Kotrošan, D. & Papes, M. 2007. Bird checklist of

Bosnia and Herzegovina registered from1888 to 2006. The Bulletin of the Birdwatchers

Network in Bosnia and Herzegovina 3(3): 9–38.

Kotrošan, D., Drocic, N., Šimic, E., Trbojevic, S.& Dervovic, I. 2012. IBA Programme Report

(Important Bird Areas) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Ornithological Society “Our birds”, Sarajevo,Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Kouzov, S.A. 2015. The Common Pochard(Aythya ferina) in Leningrad Oblast: currentpopulation status and major long-termtrends in abundance. In: E.E. Syroechkovskyet al. (eds.), Waterfowl of Northern Eurasia:

Research, Conservation, and Sustainable use.

Abstract Book, pp. 143–144. Goose, Swan andDuck Study Group of Northern Eurasia,Salekhard, Russia.

Kozulin, A. 1998. Habitat area changes, recentpopulation estimates and trends of waterfowl in Belarus. Acta Zoologica Lituanica 8 (Suppl.1): 125–132.

Kozulin, A., Yourko, V., Pareiko, O., Pavlushchick,T. & Tcherkas, N. 1998. Waterfowl in Belarus– population estimates and habitat changes.Acta Ornithologica 33: 113–126.

Kozulin, A., Ostrovski, O., Tanneberger, F.,Pareiko, O. & Jurko, V. 2002. Waterbirds oflarge fish-ponds of Belarus. In: S. Švažas &A. Kozulin (eds.), Waterbirds of Large Fish-

ponds of Belarus and Lithuania, pp. 7–51.Akstis, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Kraus, E. 1984. Die Bedeutung derTeichlandschaft im nördlichen Waldviertel für die Wasservogelwelt Österreichs.Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen Niederösterreichisches

Landesmuseum 3: 99–135. [In German.]Krivenko, V.G. (ed.) 1998. Wetlands in Russia,

Volume 1: Wetlands of International Importance.Wetlands International Publication No. 47.Wetlands International, Moscow, Russia. [InRussian.]

Ktitorov, P.S., Iovchenko, N.P., Dinkelaker, N.V. & Chuiko, V.P. 2003. The impact ofsuccession on number dynamics in ducksbreeding at Rakovye Lakes. In: V.B. Zimin,E.E. Syroechkovskiy. & A.B. Popovkina(eds.), Abstracts of the International Symposium on

the Management and Conservation of Waterfowl

Populations in Northern Eurasia, pp. 205–207.Goose, Swan and Duck Study Group ofNorthern Eurasia, Petrozavodsk, Russia. [InRussian.]

Kumari, E. 1958. Basic features of the latesttrends in the distribution of the bird fauna ofthe East Baltic area. Ornitoloogiline Kogumik 1:7–20. [In Estonian with English summary.]

Kurlavicius, P. (ed.). 2006. Lithuanian Breeding

Bird Atlas. Lutute, Kaunas, Lithuania. [InLithuanian.]

Kuznetsov, A.V., Nemtsev, V.V. & Kuznetsov,I.A. 2006. Trends of migrating waterfowl onthe Rybinsk Water Reservoir in the secondhalf of XX century. In.: A.V. Kuznetsov (ed.)Proceedings of Darwinsky State Nature Reserve



XVI, pp. 84–112. Cherepovets PublishingHouse, Cherepovets, Russia. [In Russian.]

Lehikoinen, A., Rintala, J., Lammi, E. & Pöysä, H. 2016. Habitat-specific populationtrajectories in boreal waterbirds: alarmingtrends and bioindicators for wetlands. Animal

Conservation 19: 88–95.Leibak, E., Lilleleht, V. & Veromann, H. (eds.)

1994. Birds of Estonia. Status, Distribution and

Numbers. Estonian Academy Publishers,Tallinn, Estonia.

Lepiksaar, J. & Zastrov, M. 1963. Die VögelEstlands. – Annales Societatis Tartuensis adres naturae investigandas constitutae. Ser

Nova in exsilio condita. Lund 3: 1–168. Lilleleht, V. & Leibak, E. 1993. List, status and

numbers of Estonian Birds. Hirundo 1(12):3–50.

Litzbarski, H. 1983. Tafelente – Aythya ferina (L.,1758). In: E. Rutschke (ed.) Die Vogelwelt

Brandenburgs, pp. 143–145. Gustav FischerVerlag, Jena, Gemany. [In German.]

Logminas, V. 1972. Ducks. Mintis, Vilnius,Lithuania. [In Lithuanian.]

Lõhmus, A., Kuresoo, A., Leibak, E., Leito, A.,Lilleleht, V., Kose, M., Leivits, A., Luigujõe,L. & Sellis, U. 1998. Status and number ofEstonian birds. Hirundo 11: 63–83 (InEstonian with English summary.)

Lunde, Ø., Hardeng, G. & Pettersen, J.C. 1980.Taffeland Aythya ferina hekkende i Norge. –Østfoldornitologen 7: 64–68. (In Norwegian.)

Machácek, P., Pykal, J. Ševcík, J. & Chobotská, H.2008. Výsledky dlouhodobého monitoringu vodních

ptáku na jižní Morave a v jižních Cechách. MŽPR, Praha. (In Czech.)

Malchevsky, A.S. & Pukinsky, Yu. B. 1983. Birds

of the Leningrad Region and contiguous territories.Vol. 1. Leningrad University Press, Leningrad. (In Russian.)

Mateo, R. 2004. Morell de cap roig, Aythya ferina.In: Estrada, J., Pedrocchi, V., Brotons, L. &Hernando, S. (Eds.): Atles dels ocells nidificants

de Catalunya 1999–2002. Pp. 102–103. InstitutCatalà d’Ornitologia (ICO)/Lynx Edicions.Barcelona. (In Spanish.)

Mateo, R., Guitart, R. & Green, A.J. 2000.Determinants of lead shot, rice, and gritingestion in ducks and coots. Journal of

Wildlife Management 64: 939–947.Maumary, L., Vallotton, L. & Knaus, P. 2007. Les

oiseaux de Suisse. Station ornithologique suisseet Nos Oiseaux, Sempach & Montmollin. (InFrench.)

Meltofte, H. & Fjeldså, J. (eds.) 2002. Fuglene

I Danmark. Gyldendal, Copenhagen. (InDanish.)

Meyer, B. 1815. Kurze Beschriebung der Vo″gel Liv- und Esthlands. Nu″ rnberg, Germany. (InGerman.)

Minoransky, V.A. & Tikhonov, A.V. 2003.Characterization of the Nature Reserve“Rostovskyi” and guidelines of protectionand increase of its biota. News of institutes of

North Caucasian Region. Natural sciences 4:80–88. (In Russian.)

Mischenko, A.L. (ed.) 2004. Estimation of numbers

and trends for birds of the European part of Russia

(Birds in Europe II). RBCU, Moscow. (InRussian.)

Mischenko, A.L. 2015. Results of the BirdLife project

“European Red List of Birds” 2013–2014.

European Russia. Unpublished Report,BirdsRussia, Moscow, Russia.

Mischenko, A.L. (ed.) (in press) Estimation of

Numbes and Trends for Birds of the European Part

of Russia (European Red List of Birds).BirdsRussia, Moscow, Russia. [In Russian.]

Mischenko, A.L. & Sukhanova, O.V. 1988. Fish-ponds of Moscow Region – promisingwetlands for waterfowl. In: AmirkhanovA.M. (ed.-in-chief) Protection of hunting

territories and use of game birds, pp. 22–36. CNILGlavokhoty RSFSR, Moscow. (In Russian.)

Mischenko, A.L. & Sukhanova, O.V. 2006a.Changes in agricultural land-use in Russia

S28 Fox et al.


and their impacts on wildfowl: an overview.OMPO Newsletter : Migratory Birds of the

Western Palearctic 26: 33–39.Mischenko, A.L. & Sukhanova, O.V. 2006b. Fish-

ponds as the main refuges of waterbirds in the Moscow region. OMPO Newsletter:

Migratory Birds of the Western Palearctic 26: 47–50. Mischenko, A.L. & Sukhanova, O.V. (in press)

Results of the long-term monitoring ofbreeding ducks’ numbers in the VinogradovoFloodplain (Moscow Region). Casarca. Inpress. (In Russian.)

Musil, P. 2006. A review of the effects ofintensive fish production on waterbirdbreeding populations. In: G.C. Boere, C.A.Galbraith & D.A. Stroud (Eds): Waterbirds

around the world, pp. 520–521. The StationeryOffice, Edinburgh, UK.

Musil, P., Cepák, J., Hudec, K. & Zárybnický, J.2001. The Long-term Trends in the Breeding

Waterfowl Populations in the Czech Republic.OMPO & Institute of Applied Ecology,Kostelec nad Cernými lesy, Czech Republic.

Musil, P. & Neužilová, Š. 2009. Long-termchanges in duck inter-specific nest parasitismin South Bohemia, Czech Republic. Wildfowl

(Special Issue No. 2): 176–183.Musil, P., Pichlová, R., Veselý, P. & Cepák, J. 1997.

Habitat selection by waterfowl broods onintensively managed fish-ponds in SouthBohemia (Czech Republic). In: S. Faragó & J.Kerekes (eds.), Proc. Limnology and Waterfowl,

Monitoring, Modelling and Management Workshop,

Sarród/Sopron, Hungary, 21–23 November, pp.169–175. Wetlands International PublicationNo. 43. Wetlands International, Wageningen,The Netherlands.

Nazarenko, L.P. 1953. Ecological and faunisticanalysis of the avifauna of the lower reachesof the Dniester River and prospects for itseconomic use. Collected papers of Biological

Faculty of Odessa State University 6: 139–155.[In Russian.]

Nikiforov, M., Kozulin, A., Grichik, V. &Tishechkin, A. 1997. Birds of Belarus on the

Edge of the XXI Century. N. KorolevPublishers, Minsk, Belarus.

Nyegaard, T., Larsen, J.D., Brandtberg, N. &Jørgensen, M.F. 2015. Overvågning af de

almindelige fuglearter i Danmark 1975–2014.

Årsrapport for Punkttællingsprogrammet. DanskOrnitologisk Forening, Copenhagen,Denmark. [In Danish.]

Obratil, S. 1968. A review of research ofornitofauna in Bosnia and Herzegovina II (Gaviiformes, Podicipediformes,Pelacaniformes, Ciconiiformes, Anseriformes).Journal of the National Museum of Bosnia and

Herzegovina 6: 227–254. Obratil, S. 1971. Birds of Hutovo blato. Journal of

the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina

8: 87–143.Obratil, S. 1974. Ornithofauna of fish-ponds

Bardaca near Srbac. Journal of the National

Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina 11–12:153–193.

Obratil, S. 1983. Avifauna of northern Bosnia.Journal of the National Museum of Bosnia and

Herzegovina 22: 115–176.Olsen, O. & Lund, O. 1980. Forekomst og hekking

hos taffeland Aythya ferina i Hellesjøvannet,1974 – 1979. Vår Fuglefauna 3: 102–105. [InNorwegian, English summary.]

Onno, S. 1965. The numbers of waterfowl inEstonia. Wildfowl 16: 110–114.

Onno, S. 1970. The numbers and distribution of Estonian waterfowl during the nestingseason. In: E. Kumari (ed.) Waterfowl in

Estonia, pp. 18–46. Valgus, Tallin, Estonia.Osojca, G. 2005. Changes in the breeding

avifauna of the ‘Lake Łuknajno’ BiosphereReserve in 1982–2002. Notatki Ornitologiczne

46: 77–88. [In Polish with English abstract.]

Ostrovski, O., Natykanets, V. & Zhurauliou, D.2009. Species composition and numbers of



waterfowl of Lake Osveiskoye during thepast 30 years. In: A. Dorofeev (ed.), Abstracts

of the 3rd International Conference on “Protected

natural territories and objects of Belarussian

Poozierje: current status and prospects”, pp. 66–67.UO VGU Masherova, Vitebsk, Belarus.

Ottosson, U., Ottwall, R., Elmberg, J., Green, M.,Gustafsson, R.. Haas, F., Holmqvist, N.,Lindström, Å., Nilsson, L., Svensson, M.,Svensson, S. & Tjernberg, M. 2012. Fåglarna

i Sverige – antal och förekomst. SverigesOrnitologiska Förening, Halmstad, Sweden.

Paczosky, I.K. 1911. Ducks of the lower reachesof Dnieper river. Ptitsevedenie i ptitsevodstvo 2:1–20. [In Russian.]

Palliardi, A.A. 1852. Systematische Uebersicht der

Vögel Böhmens. Carl Wilhelm Medau,Leitmeritz, Germany. [In German.]

Palomino, D. & Molina, B. (Eds.) 2009. Aves

acuáticas reproductoras en España. Población en

2007 y método de censo. SEO/BirdLife, Madrid,Spain. [In Spanish.]

Podushkin, D.A. 1912. Notes on migration andbreeding of birds in outskirts of Dnieperliman. Bulletin de la Société des Naturalistes et des

Amis de la Nature en Crimée 2: 72–121. [InRussian.]

Polak, M. & Wilniewczyc, P. 2001. Breeding birdsof the Nidy valley. Notatki Ornitologiczne 42:89–102. [In Polish.]

Pöysä, H. 1984. Temporal and spatial dynamicsof waterfowl populations in a wetland area – a community ecological approach. Ornis

Fennica 61: 99–108.Pöysä, H., Rintala, J., Lehikoinen, A. & Väisänen,

R.A. 2013. The importance of huntingpressure, habitat preference and life historyfor population trends of breeding waterbirdsin inland. European Journal of Wildlife Research

59: 245–256.Priednieks, J., Strazds, M., Strazds, A., Petrinš, A.

1989. Latvian breeding Bird Atlas 1980–1984.

Zinatne, Riga, Latvia. [In Latvian.]

Purroy, F. (ed.) 1997. Atlas de las Aves de España.SEO/BirdLife y Lynx Edicions, Barcelona,Spain. [In Spanish.]

Puzovic, S., Radiši , D., Ružic, M., Rajkovic, D.,Radakovic, M., Pantovic, U., Jankovic, M.,Stojnic, N., Šciban, M., Tucakov, M., Gergelj,J., Sekulic, N., Agošton, A. & Rakovic, M.2015. Birds of Serbia: Estimations of Breeding

Population between 2008–2013; Estimations of

Population Trends 1980–2013. Serbian Societyfor Bird Protection and Study, Novi Sad,Serbia.

Pykal, J. & Janda, J. 1994: Pocetnost vodníchptáku na jihoceských rybnících ve vztahu krybnicnímu hospodarení. Sylvia 30: 3–11. [InCzech with English summary.]

Radakoff, W.N. 1879. OrnithologischeBemerkungen ber Bessarabien, Moldau,Walachei, Bulgarien und Ost-Rumelien.Bulletin de la Société Imperialé des Naturalistes de

Moscou. 54 (1): 150–178. [In German.]Reeber, S. 2014. Suivi ornithologique du lac de Grand-

lieu. Société Nationale de Protection de laNature, Paris, France. Accessible at: http://en.calameo.com/read/002231090173b1a63dce1(last accessed 27 June 2016). [In French.]Reiser, O. 1939. Materialien zu einer Ornis

Balcanica I. Bosnisch-HerzegowinischenLandsmuseum, Sarajevo, Bosnia andHerzegovina. [In German.]

Renno, O. (ed.) 1993. Eesti haudelindude levikuatlas

(Estonian Bird Atlas). Valgus, Tallinn, Estonia.[In Estonian, with English summary.]

Russow, V. 1880. Die Ornis Ehst-, Liv- und Curlands

mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zug- und

Brutverhältnisse. Laakmann, Tartu, Estonia. [InGerman.]

Ryslavy, T., Haupt, H. & Beschow, R. 2011. DieBrutvögel in Brandenburg und Berlin –Ergebnisse der ADEBAR-Kartierung 2005–2009. Otis 19 (Special Issue): 448.

Sapetina, I.M., Sapetin, Ya. V., Ivanchev, V.P.,Kashentseva, T.A., Lavrovsky, V.V. &

S30 Fox et al.


Priklonsky, S.G. 2005. Birds of the Oksky State

Nature Reserve and Contiguous Territories (Biology,

Numbers and Protection). Centrokhotkontrol,Moscow, Russia. [In Russian.]

Sarychev, V.S. 1997. Bird fauna and population ofindustrial wetlands at the eastern part ofMiddle-Russian upland. In: A.V. Scherbakov(ed.), Birds of Industrial Wetlands of the Central

Russia, pp. 71–85. Vertebrate ZoologyDepartment, Moscow State University,Moscow, Russia. [In Russian.]

Saurola, P., Valkama, J. & Velmala, W. 2013. The

Finnish Bird Ringing Atlas. Vol. I. FinnishMuseum of Natural History and Ministry ofEnvironment, Helsinki, Finland.

Sawitzky, W. 1899. Beiträge zur kenntnis derBaltischen Ornis. Die Vogelwelt der StadtRiga und Umgegend. Korrespondenzblatt des

Naturforscher-Vereins zu Riga 62: 191–218. [InGerman.]

Scharringa, C.J.G., Ruitenbeek, W. & Zomerdijk, P. 2010. Atlas van de Noord-Hollandse

broedvogels 2005–2009. SamenwerkendeVogelwerkgroepen Noord-Holland/Landschap Noord-Holland, The Netherlands.

Schegolev, V.I. 1972. Dynamics of waterfowlnumbers in the Tambov oblast. In: Yu.A.Isakov & A.A. Kischinsky (eds.), Waterfowl

resources of the USSR, their Reproduction and Use.Proc. of the 3rd All-Union meeting. Part 1, pp.61–63. Moscow University Press, Moscow,Russia. [In Russian.]

Schwab, A. 1869. Vogel-Fauna von Mistek unddessen weiterer Umgebung. Verhandlungen des

naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn 7 (A): 3–160.[In German.]

Šciban, M., Rajkovic, D., Radišic, D., Vasic, V. &Pantovic, U. 2015. Birds of Serbia – Critical List

of Species. Institute for Nature Conservationof Vojvodina Province and Bird Protectionand Study Society of Serbia, Novi Sad, Serbia.

Servicio de Vida Silvestre 2013. Aves Acuáticas

Nidificantes en las Zonas Húmedas de la

Comunidad Valenciana: 30 años de censos

ininterrumpidos (1984–2013). DirecciónGeneral de Medio Natural UnpublishedReport. Dirección General de MedioNatural, Valencia, Spain. [In Spanish.]

Shirokov, V.M. & Kivel, I.I. 1987. Ponds of Belarus.Uradzhai, Minsk, Belarus.

Sikora, A., Rodhe, Z., Gromadzki, M., Neubauer,G., & Chylarecki, P. (eds.) 2007. The Atlas of

Breeding Birds in Poland 1985–2004. BoguckiWydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznan, Poland. [InPolish with English abstract.]

Sjenicic, J. 2013. Report on the Field Research of

Ornithofauna of Swamp Tišina near Šamac.Institute for Protection of Cultural, Historicaland Natural Heritage of Republic of Srpska,Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Sotnikov, V.N. 1999. Ptitsy Kirovskoi Oblasti, Vol. 1

Nevorob’inye. Kirov: Triada-S Press, Kirov,Russia. [In Russian.]

SOVON. 1987. Atlas van de Nederlandse

Vogels. Samenwerkende Organisaties VogelOnderzoek Nederland, Arnhem, TheNetherlands.

Sruoga, A., Rashal, I., Butkauskas, D., Viksne, J.,Zalakevicius, M., Svazas, S., Kaminskaite, M.2009. Haplotypic variability and populationgenetic structure of Garganey Anas

querquedula and Common Pochard Aythya

ferina in the Western Palearctic. Proceedings of

the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Section B, Vol.63: 104–110.

Stanevicius, V. 1999. Nonbreeding avifauna andwater ecosystem succession in the lakes ofdifferent biological productivity in southLithuania. Acta Zoologica Lituanica 9 (1): 90–118.

Stanevicius, V., Svazas, S., Raudonikis, L.,Grazulevicius G. 2008. Staging and moultingconcentrations of the Common PochardAythya ferina in Lithuania. Acta Zoologica

Lituanica 18 (4): 273–282.Št’astný, K., Bejcek, V. & Hudec, K. 2006. Atlas of

Breeding Bird Distribution in the Czech Republic



Slovak Republic, Avicenum, Praha, the CzechRepublic [In Czech with English summary.]

Stawarczyk, T. 1995. Reproductive strategy ofducks breeding at high densities in Miliczfish-ponds. Prace Zoologiczne Acta Univerisitatis

Wratislaviensis 1790 31: 1–110. [In Polish withEnglish abstract.]

Steffens, R., Nachtigall, W., Rau, S., Trapp, H. &Ulbricht, J. 2013. Brutvögel in Sachsen. SächsischesLandesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft undGeologie, Dresden, Germany.

Størkerson, Ø.R. 1994. Taffeland Aythya ferina.Pp. 86. In: J.O. Gjershaug, P.G. Thingstad, S.Eldøy & S. Byrkjeland (eds.) Norsk Fugleatlas.Norsk Ornitologisk Forening, Klæbu,Norway. [In Norwegian.]

Strazds, M., Priednieks J. & Vaverins G. 1994.Bird numbers in Latvia. Putni daba 4: 3–18.[In Latvian.]

Strazds, M. & Kuze, J. (eds.) 2006. Birds of the

Kemeri National Park. Jumava, Rıga, Latvia.[In Latvian.]

Stumberger, B. & Sackl, P. 2008/2009. Results ofWaterbird Counts and the breeding status ofWaterbirds in Livanjsko polje, 2007–2009.The Bulletin of the Birdwatchers Network in

Bosnia and Herzegovina 4–5: 38–54. Stumberger, B., Matic, S., Kitonic, D., Vernik, M.,

Knaus, P., Schneider Jacoby, M., Petras Sackl,T., Sackl, P. 2009. Results of waterbird countsin Hutovo blato and in adjoining wetlands2007–2009. The Bulletin of the Birdwatchers

Network in Bosnia and Herzegovina 4–5: 30–37.

Sudfeldt, C., Dröschmeister, R., Frederking, W.,Gedeon, K., Gerlach, B., Grüneberg, C.,Karthäuser, J., Langgemach, T., Schuster, B.,Trautmann, S. & Wahl, J. 2013. Vögel in

Deutschland – 2013. DDA, BfN and LAG-VSW, Münster, Germany. [In German.]

Svazas, S. 2001. Possible impacts of climaticconditions on changes in numbers anddistribution of certain breeding and staging

wildfowl species in Lithuania. Acta Zoologica

Lituanica 11 (2): 163–182.Svazas, S., Patapavicius, R. & Dagys, M. 2001.

Recent changes in distribution of winteringpopulations of waterfowl established on thebasis of Lithuanian ringing recoveries. Acta

Zoologica Lituanica 11 (3): 235–242.Svazas, S. & Kozulin, A. 2002. Waterbirds of Large

Fish-ponds of Belarus and Lithuania. OMPOVilnius, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Svensson, M. 2005. Brunand. Artfakta.Artdatabanken, Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Accessible at: http://artfakta.artdatabanken.se/taxon/102107 (last accessed 19 July 2016).

Svorkmo-Lundberg, T., Bakken, V., Helberg, M., Røer, J.E. & Sæbø, S. 2006. Norsk

vinterfuglatlas. Fuglenes utbredelse, bestandsstørrelse

og økologi vinterstid. Norsk Ornitologisk Forening,Trondheim, Norway. [In Norwegian.]

Teixeira R.M. 1979. Atlas van de Nederlandse

Broedvogels. Vereniging tot Behoud vanNatuurmonumenten, ’s-Gravenzande, TheNetherlands.

Tiainen, J., Mikkola-Roos, M., Below, A.,Jukarainen, A., Lehikoinen, A., Lehtiniemi,T., Pessa, J., Rajasärkkä, A., Rintala, J., Sirkiä,P. & Valkama, J. 2016. The 2015 Red List of

Finnish Bird Species. Ministry of theEnvironment and Finnish EnvironmentInstitute, Helsinki, Finland.

Tomiałojc, L. 1990. The Birds of Poland. Their

Distribution and Abundance. Polish ScientificPress, Warsaw, Poland. [In Polish withEnglish abstract.]

Tomiałojc, L., & Stawarczyk, T. 2003. The

Avifauna of Poland: distribution, numbers and

trends. PTPP proNatura, Wrocław, Poland.[In Polish with English abstract.]

Väänänen, V.-M. 2000. Predation risk associatedwith nesting in gull colonies by two Aythya

species: observations and an experimentaltest. Journal of Avian Biology 31: 31–35.

S32 Fox et al.


Väänänen, V.-M., Nummi, P., Rautiainen, A.,Asanti, T., Huolman, I., Mikkola-Roos, M.,Nurmi, J., Orava, R. & Rusanen, P. 2007. Theeffect of raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides

removal on waterbird breeding success.Suomen Riista 53: 49–63. [In Finnish withEnglish summary.]

Väänänen, V.-M., Pöysä, H. & Runko, P. 2016.Nest and brood stage association betweenducks and small colonial gulls in borealwetlands. Ornis Fennica 93: 47–54.

Väisänen, R.A., Lammi, E., & Koskimies, P.1998. Distribution, Numbers and Population

Changes of Finnish Breeding Birds. FinnishMuseum of Natural History, University ofHelsinki, Otava, Finland. [In Finnish withEnglish summary.]

Väisänen, R.A., Hario, M. & Saurola, P. 2011.Population estimates of Finnish birds. In: J.Valkama, V. Vepsäläinen, A. Lehikoinen(eds.) The Third Finnish Breeding Bird Atlas.Finnish Museum of Natural History andMinistry of Environment, Helsinki, Finland.Accessible at http://atlas3.lintuatlas.fi/english (last accessed 18 June 2015).

Valkama, J., Vepsäläinen, V. & Lehikoinen, A.(eds) 2011. The Third Finnish Breeding Bird

Atlas. Finnish Museum of Natural Historyand Ministry of Environment, Helsinki,Finland.

Van Impe, J., 1983. Increasing breeding ofPochard Aythya ferina, Tufted Duck A. fuligula

and Gadwall Anas strepera as an indicator ofthe water quality in Belgium. De Giervalk-Le

Gerfaut 73: 433–448. [In Dutch with Englishsummary.]

Van Ommering, G. & Verstrael, T. 1987. Vogels

van Berkheide. 10-jaar vogelpopulatie-onderzoek

in het duingebied Berkheide. WerkgroepBerkheide/Stichting Publicatiefonds Duinen, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Van der Ploeg, D.T.E., de Jong, W., Swart, M.J., deVries, J.A., Westhof, J.H.P., Witteveen, A.G. &

van der Veen, B. 1976. Vogels in Friesland Deel 1.

De Tille, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.Velasco, T. & Molina, P. 2003. Aves acuáticas

nidificantes en los humedales de la provincial de

Cuenca. Resultados del periodo 1993–2003.Náyade Editorial,Valladolid, Spain.

Veldkamp, K. 2002. Tafeleend Aythya ferina.

In: SOVON Vogelonderzoek Nederland 2002.

Atlas van de Nederlandse broedvogels 1998–

2000. (Nederlandse Fauna 5) NationaalNatuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis, KNNVUitgeverij & European Invertebrate Survey-Nederland, Leiden, The Netherlands. [InDutch.]

Vermeersch, G., Anselin, A., Devos, K.,Herremans, M., Gabriels, J., Stevens, J. & vander Krieken, B. 2004. Breeding bird atlas of

Flanders (Belgium) 2000–2002. Mededelingenvan het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud 23,Brussels, Belgium. [In Dutch with Englishsummary.]

Viksne, J. & Mednis, A. 1978. The future of Latvian

waterfowl. Zinatne, Riga. (In Latvian.)Viksne, J., Svazas, S., Czajkowski, A., Janaus, M.,

Mischenko, A., Kozulin, A., Kuresoo, A.,Serebryakov, V. 2010. Atlas of Duck Populations

in Eastern Europe. Akstis, Vilnius, Lithuania.Viksne, J., Janaus, M. & Mednis, A. 2011. Factors

influencing the number of breeding waterbirds in lake Engure, Latvia. Proceedings of

the Latvian Academy of Sciences B65: 127–137.

Von Almásy, G.V. 1898. OrnithologischeRecognoscirung der rumänischen Dobrudscha. Aquila 5(1): 1–206. [In German.]

Von Haartman, L. 1973. Changes in the breedingbird fauna of North Europe. In: D.S. Farnes(ed.), Breeding Biology of Birds, pp. 448–481.National Academy of Sciences, WashingtonDC, USA.

Voyinstvensky, M.A. 1967. Fossil bird fauna ofUkraine. The Natural Environment and Fauna of

the Past 3: 3–92. [In Russian.]



Vyazovich, Y.A. 1973. Wild Ducks of Belarus.Vysheyshaya Schola, Minsk, Belarus.

Wiehle, D., Wilk, T., Faber, M., Betleja J. &Malczyk, P. 2002. Avifauna of the upperVistula River Valley – Part 1. Birds of the Ziemia Oswiecimsko-Zatorska region.Notatki Ornitologiczne 43: 227–253. [In Polishwith English abstract.]

Wilk, T., Jujka, M., Krogulec, J. & Chylarecki, P. (eds.) 2010. Important Bird Areas of

International Importance in Poland. OTOP, Marki,Poland. [In Polish with English abstract.]

Wilniewczyc, P., Szczepaniak, W., Ziecik, P. &Jantarski, M. 2001. Birds of fish-ponds atGórki and adjacent areas. Kulon 6: 3–61. [InPolish with English abstract.]

Witkowski, J., Orłowska, B., Ranoszek, E. &Stawarczyk, T. 1995. The avifauna of theBarycz River valley. Notatki Ornitologiczne 36:5–74. [In Polish with English abstract.]

Wylegała, P. 2013. Breeding avifauna of the ice-marginal section of the Note River valley –current state and changes in abundance.Ptaki Wielkopolski 2: 3–17. [In Polish withEnglish abstract.]

Yalden, D.W. & Albarella, U. 2009. The History

of British Birds. Oxford University Press,Oxford, UK.

Zalewski, A. & Brzezinski. M. 2014. The American

Mink. The Biology of the Invasive Species. InstytutBiologii Ssaków PAN, Białowieza, Poland.[In Polish.]

Zubakin, V.A., Morozov, V.V., Kharitonov, S.P.,Leonovich, V.V. & Mischenko, A.L. 1988.The birds of the Moscow-river meadowlandnear Vinogradovo, Moscow Region. In: V.E.Flint & P.S. Tomkovich (eds.) Birds of

Reclaiming Territories, pp. 126–167. MoscowUniversity Press, Moscow, Russia. [InRussian.]

4 Number of Mute Swa#91BF78.qxd - Wildfowl Journal

Documents

Transcript of 4 Number of Mute Swa#91BF78.qxd - Wildfowl Journal