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
IUCN Data (Global)
IUCN 2024. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2024-1
(www)Assessment year: 2016
Assessment Citation
BirdLife International 2016. Mycteria ibis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22697654A93628112. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697654A93628112.en. Accessed on 22 December 2024.
Habitats:
Behaviour This species makes irregular migratory, partially migratory or nomadic movements within Africa (del Hoyo
et al. 1992, Hockey
et al. 2005)
to areas where changing water levels increase fish availability (Hockey
et al. 2005)
. Some populations are also largely sedentary (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
. Breeding is seasonal and starts whenever food is most abundant according to local ecological conditions (e.g. when fish become concentrated in small wetlands or marshes [Hancock
et al. 1992])
, this may either be towards the end of the rains or during the dry season (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
. The species breeds colonially, often with other species (Brown
et al. 1982, del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
, usually in small groups of 10-20 pairs (Brown
et al. 1982)
(exceptionally as many as 50 pairs [Hancock
et al. 1992])
. It is a gregarious species but never aggregates into very large flocks (Brown
et al. 1982)
, being more often observed in pairs or small flocks of up to 50 individuals (Hockey
et al. 2005)
. At night it forms communal roosts in favoured roosting sites (e.g. sandbanks or trees), which may attract individuals from a wide area (Brown
et al. 1982)
.
Habitat The species inhabits a variety of wetlands (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
with shallow water 10-40 cm deep for feeding (Hancock
et al. 1992)
and sandbanks or trees for roosting (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
. It frequents large swamps, the margins of rivers and lakes, lagoons (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
, large marshes, small pools (Hancock
et al. 1992)
, flooded grassland (Hockey
et al. 2005)
, alkaline lakes, reservoirs, waterholes and rice-paddies (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
, less commonly foraging on marine mudflats (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
, in tidal pools along beaches (Hancock
et al. 1992)
or in estuaries (Hockey
et al. 2005)
. The species generally avoids areas of large-scale flooding and is rare in forested areas (although it may occur in wooded savanna [del Hoyo
et al. 1992])
.
Diet Its diet consists of small aquatic prey such as frogs, small fish (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
, aquatic insects, worms, crustaceans and occasionally small mammals and birds (Hancock
et al. 1992)
.
Breeding site The nest is constructed of sticks (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
and is positioned in small trees over water or high up in larger trees on dry land (Hancock
et al. 1992)
(e.g.
Accacia spp.,
Bombax spp. [del Hoyo
et al. 1992]
or baobabs [Brown
et al. 1982]
). The species nests colonially in single- or mixed-species groups (del Hoyo
et al. 1992)
with up to 10-20 pairs per tree (Brown
et al. 1982)
(occasionally up to 50 pairs [Hancock
et al. 1992])
, neighbouring nests usually spaced 1-3 m apart (Hockey
et al. 2005)
.
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 is very large, and hence does not 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 decreasing, although some populations may be stable (Wetlands International 2006).