feedback

Bean Goose

Anser fabalis

Abstract

Bean Goose Anser fabalis has most recently been assessed for The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in 2018. Anser fabalis is listed as Least Concern.


The Red list Assessmenti

Last assessed

09 August 2018

Scope of assessment

Global

Population trend

Decreasing

Number of mature individuals

Habitat and ecology

Shrubland, Grassland, Wetlands (inland), Artificial/Terrestrial

Geographic range

Leaflet | Powered by Esri | RJGC, Esri, FAO, NOAA, AAFC, NRCan
  • Extant (breeding)

  • Extant (non-breeding)

  • Extant (passage)

BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World (2016) 2010. Anser fabalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-1

Taxonomy

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Chordata

Class

Aves

Scientific name

Anser fabalis

Authority

(Latham, 1787)

Synonyms

Common names

English

Bean Goose

French

Oie des moissons

Taxonomic sources

Identification Information

Taxonomic notes

Assessment Information

IUCN Red List Category and Criteria

Least Concern 

Date assessed

09 August 2018

Year published

2018

Year last seen

Regional assessments

Assessor(s)

BirdLife International

Reviewer(s)

Wheatley, H.

Contributor(s)

Facilitator(s) / Compiler(s)

Ashpole, J, Butchart, S., Ekstrom, J., Malpas, L. & Symes, A.

Partner(s) / Institution(s)

Authority / Authorities

Justification

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 km2 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.

Geographic Range

Native

Extant (breeding)

Mongolia; Russian Federation (Eastern Asian Russia)

Extant (non-breeding)

Albania; Bulgaria; Croatia; Greece; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Italy; Korea, Democratic People's Republic of; Luxembourg; Montenegro; Netherlands; North Macedonia; Romania; Serbia; Slovenia; Spain; Switzerland; Turkey; United Kingdom

Extant (passage)

Belarus

Extant (resident)

Austria; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; China; Czechia; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Hungary; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea, Republic of; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Norway; Poland; Russian Federation (Central Asian Russia, European Russia); Slovakia; Sweden; Taiwan, Province of China; Tajikistan; Ukraine; Uzbekistan

Extant & Vagrant (non-breeding)

Ireland; Lebanon

Extant & Vagrant

Algeria; Bangladesh; Canada; Egypt; Hong Kong; Iceland; India; Kyrgyzstan; Mali; Malta; Mexico; Morocco; Myanmar; Nepal; Portugal; United States

Number of locations

Upper elevation limit

Lower elevation limit

Upper depth limit

Lower depth limit

Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²)

Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO)

Unknown

Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO)

No

Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²)

20500000

Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO)

Unknown

Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO)

No

Continuing decline in number of locations

Unknown

Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations

No

Range Description


Population

Current population trend

Decreasing

Number of mature individuals

Population severely fragmented

No

Continuing decline of mature individuals

Unknown

Extreme fluctuations

No

No. of subpopulations

Continuing decline in subpopulations

Unknown

Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations

No

All individuals in one subpopulation

No

No. of individuals in largest subpopulation

Description

The global population is estimated at 680,000-800,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2015). The European population is estimated at 134,000-144,000 pairs, which equates to 268,000-288,000 mature individuals (BirdLife International 2015).

Trend Justification: The overall trend is decreasing, although the west and central Siberian/north-east and south-west European population is reported to be stable (BirdLife International 2015, Wetlands International 2015).

Habitat and Ecology

Generation length (years)

11.4 years

Congregatory

Congregatory (and dispersive)

Movement patterns

Full Migrant

Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat

Unknown

Habitat and Ecology

Behaviour This species is strongly migratory and travels between breeding grounds in the high Arctic to wintering grounds in the temperate and subtropical zones (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Populations that breed in the taiga nest in early May, with those breeding in the tundra nesting one month later in early June (del Hoyo et al. 1992, Kear 2005). The species breeds in solitary pairs, usually with nests well-dispersed (Snow and Perrins 1998) (although it will also nest in loose groups [del Hoyo et al. 1992]). After breeding the species undergoes a moulting period when it is flightless for c.1 month between July and August (Scott and Rose 1996), with some populations undertaking extensive northward moult migrations (Kear 2005), and most congregating into large moulting flocks near open water (Scott and Rose 1996). The species departs from its breeding grounds after this post-breeding moulting period in early September, arriving in the winter quarters from late September through October (Madge and Burn 1988). It remains gregarious throughout the winter (Madge and Burn 1988) (although it occurs in smaller, looser flocks than many other goose species [Snow and Perrins 1998]) and roosts close to feeding areas (Madge and Burn 1988) in mixed-species flocks on lakes, rivers and flooded lands (Kear 2005). Habitat Breeding The species breeds near lakes, pools, rivers and streams in high Arctic tundra or the taiga forest zone (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Taiga nesting populations show a preference for scrubby birch Betula spp. forest (Madge and Burn 1988) and dense spruce forest with bogs or mires (Madge and Burn 1988), whereas tundra-based populations nest on damp tundra of moss, grass, sedge or scrub (Johnsgard 1978) near river flood-plains, but above flood levels (Madge and Burn 1988, Kear 2005), on Arctic islands and in Arctic coastal regions (Madge and Burn 1988). Non-breeding During the winter and on passage the species inhabits marshes, agricultural land (del Hoyo et al. 1992), e.g. pastures, arable fields and rice-paddies (Kear 2005), damp steppe grassland (Madge and Burn 1988), flood-lands, rivers and coastal shallows (Snow and Perrins 1998) in open country (del Hoyo et al. 1992). It also roosts on lakes, rivers and flood-lands in Europe during this season (Kear 2005). Diet The species is herbivorous (del Hoyo et al. 1992), its diet consisting of herbs, grasses, sedges (del Hoyo et al. 1992) and mosses (Johnsgard 1978), complemented during the breeding season by berries (e.g. from Empetrum or Vaccinium spp.) (del Hoyo et al. 1992). During the winter it feeds predominantly on agricultural land taking grain, beans, potatoes (del Hoyo et al. 1992) and sprouting winter cereal crops (Kear 2005). Breeding site The species builds a nest of vegetation in a shallow scrape on the ground (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Taiga breeders nest in bogs or mires within forested regions, placing nests within 400 m of open mire and within 2 km of open water, usually 50-100 cm above bog surfaces on hummocks that are safe from flooding (Kear 2005). Tundra breeders nest on dry hummocks and moss (Kear 2005). Management information An investigation carried out in one of the species's wintering areas (UK) found that it was most likely to forage on improved grassland or grasslands grazed by cattle that were a minimum of 5 ha in area, had an optimum sward height of c.20 cm and were at a distance of less than 9 km away from roosting sites (Vickery and Gill 1999).

Classification scheme

HabitatsSuitabilityMajor importance
3. Shrubland3.3. Shrubland - BorealSuitableNo
4. Grassland4.1. Grassland - TundraSuitableNo
5. Wetlands (inland)5.10. Wetlands (inland) - Tundra Wetlands (incl. pools and temporary waters from snowmelt)SuitableYes
14. Artificial/Terrestrial14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable LandSuitableYes
14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - PasturelandSuitableNo

Threats

Biological resource use

  • Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals

Climate change & severe weather

  • Habitat shifting & alteration

Threats

The species declined in the past due to hunting (resulting in mortality, injury and disturbance) (del Hoyo et al. 1992, Kear 2005, Nikolaeva et al. 2006) and habitat loss (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Habitat degradation due to oil pollution (Grishanov 2006, Nikolaeva et al. 2006), drainage, peat-extraction, changing management practices (decreased grazing and mowing in meadows leading to scrub over-growth) and forest clearance is a threat to breeding areas in Russia (Grishanov 2006), Norway and Sweden (Madge and Burn 1988). The species also suffers from human persecution (Madge and Burn 1988) and is susceptible to poisoning by pesticides used on agricultural land (Kwon et al. 2004). Climate change poses a potential threat longer term on breeding grounds, most likely particularly to tundra populations (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014).

Classification scheme

ThreatsTimingStressesScopeSeverityImpact scoreInvasive speciesVirus
5. Biological resource use5.1. Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals5.1.1. Intentional use (species is the target)Past, Unlikely to Return
2. Species Stresses2.1. Species mortality
2.2. Species disturbance
Minority (<50%)Slow, Significant DeclinesPast Impact
11. Climate change & severe weather11.1. Habitat shifting & alterationFuture
1. Ecosystem stresses1.2. Ecosystem degradation
1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects
Whole (>90%)UnknownUnknown

Conservation Actions

In-place research and monitoring

  • Action Recovery Plan : Yes
  • Systematic monitoring scheme : Yes

In-place land/water protection

  • Conservation sites identified : Yes, over entire range
  • Occurs in at least one protected area : Yes
  • Invasive species control or prevention : No

In-place species management

  • Successfully reintroduced or introduced benignly : No
  • Subject to ex-situ conservation : No

In-place education

  • Subject to recent education and awareness programmes : No
  • Included in international legislation : Yes
  • Subject to any international management / trade controls : No

Conservation Actions

Conservation Actions Underway
EU Directives Annex II. CMS Appendix II. Bern Convention Appendix III. The species is listed on the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement. The following information refers to the species's European range only: Compensatory payments are paid to farmers in the Netherlands; as a result research has been undertaken focusing on minimizing damage by altering land use in agricultural areas and restoring original habitats for wintering geese (Carboneras and Kirwan 2014). In many countries, counts of the species and monitoring are carried out each year. International protection of key wetland habitats for the species is provided by Special Protection Areas, Ramsar and the Bern Convention (Hearn 2004).

Conservation Actions Proposed
The following information refers to the species's European range only: Better quality and more widespread monitoring is needed for this species, particularly to assess the impact of hunting. A Flyway Management Plan is essential for international co-ordination of monitoring (Hearn 2004). More key sites should be protected and management and conservation needs should be integrated. Stricter regulation on hunting and persecution should be implemented.

Conservation actions classification scheme

Conservation Actions NeededNotes
1. Land/water protection1.1. Site/area protectionMore key sites should be protected.
5. Law & policy5.2. Policies and regulationsStricter regulation on hunting and persecution should be implemented.

Research classification scheme

Research NeededNotes
1. Research1.5. ThreatsBetter quality and more widespread monitoring is needed for this species, particularly to assess the impact of hunting.
2. Conservation Planning2.2. Area-based Management PlanA Flyway Management Plan is essential for international co-ordination of monitoring (Hearn 2004).
3. Monitoring3.1. Population trendsBetter quality and more widespread monitoring is needed for this species, particularly to assess the impact of hunting.

Bibliography

BirdLife International. 2015. European Red List of Birds. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Carboneras, C. and Kirwan, G.M. 2014. Bean Goose (Anser fabalis). In: J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D.A. Christie and E. de Juana (eds), Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive, Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

del Hoyo, J., Elliot, A. and Sargatal, J. 1992. Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.

Grishanov, D. 2006. Conservation problems of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds and their habitats in the Kaliningrad region of Russia. In: G. Boere, C. Galbraith and D Stroud (eds), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 356. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, U.K.

Hearn, R.D. 2004. Bean Goose Anser fabalis in Britain and Ireland 1960/61 – 1999/2000. Waterbird Review Series. The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust/Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Slimbridge.

IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 15 November 2018).

Johnsgard, P.A. 1978. Ducks, geese and swans of the World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London.

Kear, J. 2005. Ducks, geese and swans volume 1: general chapters; species accounts (Anhima to Salvadorina). Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.

Kwon, Y.K., Wee, S.H. and Kim, J.H. 2004. Pesticide Poisoning Events in Wild Birds in Korea from 1998 to 2002. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 40(4): 737-740.

Madge, S.; Burn, H. 1988. Wildfowl. Christopher Helm, London.

Nikolaeva, N.G.; Spiridonov, V.A.; Krasnov, Y.V. 2006. Existing and proposed marine protected areas and their relevance for seabird conservation: a case study in the Barents Sea region. In: G. Boere, C. Galbraith and D. Stroud (eds), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 743-749. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK.

Scott, D. A.; Rose, P. M. 1996. Atlas of Anatidae populations in Africa and western Eurasia. Wetlands International, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Snow, D.W. and Perrins, C.M. 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Volume 1: Non-Passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Vickery, J. A.; Gill, J. A. 1999. Managing grassland for wild geese in Britain: a review. Biological Conservation 89: 93-106.

Wetlands International. 2015. Waterbird Population Estimates. Available at: wpe.wetlands.org. (Accessed: 17/09/2015).

External Data

CITES Legislation from Species+

Data Source

The information below is from the Species+ website.

Studies and Actions from Conservation Evidence

Data Source

The information below is from the Conservation Evidence website.

Search terms: "Anser fabalis", "Anatidae"

My Account

Log in

You must log in to access advanced IUCN Red List functionality. Please enter your e-mail address and password below.

or
By registering/signing up through either Facebook, Google or Twitter account, you are hereby acknowledging that you have read, and also accept the Privacy policy
Register for an account

To save searches and access a historical view of information you have downloaded you are required to register for an account.

原文