CAR summary data
Habitat and noted behaviour
Sightings per Kilometre
Please note: The below charts indicate the sightings of individuals along routes where the species has occured, and NOT across all routes surveyed through the CAR project.
 
Regional Status
Global Status
IUCN Data (Global)
IUCN 2024. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2024-1
(www)Assessment year: 2016
Assessment Citation
BirdLife International 2016. Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22697706A93631820. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697706A93631820.en. Accessed on 21 December 2024.
Habitats:
Behaviour There is no evidence that this species undertakes any regular long-distance migration (Hancock
et al. 1992)
, although it is not altogether sedentary (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
as some populations make local nomadic movements to optimum foraging habitats (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
during periods of drought or when large rivers are in flood (Hancock
et al. 1992)
. Breeding starts late in the rains or in the dry season (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
, timed so that the young fledge at the height of the dry season when prey is concentrated and easier to obtain (Hancock
et al. 1992)
. The species nests in solitary pairs and usually remains solitary when not breeding (del Hoyo
et al. 1992, Hancock
et al. 1992)
, although it may occur in small family parties or in groups of up to 12 individuals (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
.
Habitat It inhabits extensive fresh, brackish or alkaline wetlands (Brown
et al. 1982, del Hoyo
et al. 1992, Hockey
et al. 2005)
in open, semi-arid areas (Hancock
et al. 1992)
and savanna (Hockey
et al. 2005)
, with relatively high abundances of fish (Brown
et al. 1982)
and with large trees nearby for nesting and roosting (Hancock
et al. 1992)
(although it avoids deeply forested areas (del Hoyo
et al. 1992, Hancock
et al. 1992))
. Suitable habitats include shallow freshwater marshes (del Hoyo
et al. 1992, Hancock
et al. 1992)
, wet grasslands (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
, the margins of large or small rivers (del Hoyo
et al. 1992, Hancock
et al. 1992)
, lake shores (del Hoyo
et al. 1992, Hancock
et al. 1992, Hockey
et al. 2005)
, pans (Hockey
et al. 2005)
and flood-plains (Hancock
et al. 1992, Hockey
et al. 2005)
.
Diet Its diet consists predominantly of fish 15-30 cm long (Hancock
et al. 1992)
up to 500 g in weight, as well as crabs, shrimps, frogs, reptiles, small mammals, young birds, molluscs and insects (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
(e.g. large water beetles, termite alates (Hockey
et al. 2005))
.
Breeding site The nest is a large flat platform of sticks (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
placed up to 20-30m (Hancock
et al. 1992)
in a tree near water isolated from other trees and sources of disturbance (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
. It may also nest on cliffs (del Hoyo
et al. 1992, Hancock
et al. 1992)
and in the abandoned nests of other bird species (Hancock
et al. 1992)
.
Population:
The population is estimated to number 1,000-25,000 individuals, roughly equating to 670-17,000 mature individuals.
Threats:
The species is vulnerable to disturbance and to wetland degradation (e.g. pesticide contamination) and conversion to agriculture (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
.
Rationale:
This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km
2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size may be small, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern.
Trend justification:
The overall trend is suspected to be decreasing (Wetlands International 2006).