10.2305 IUCN - UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22698320A132641638.en

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

IUCN 2008: T22698320A132641638
Scope: Global
Language: English
Phoebastria irrorata, Waved Albatross

Assessment by: BirdLife International
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: BirdLife International. 2018. Phoebastria irrorata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2018: e.T22698320A132641638. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-
2.RLTS.T22698320A132641638.en
Copyright: © 2018 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Taxonomy
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Aves Procellariiformes Diomedeidae
Taxon Name: Phoebastria irrorata (Salvin, 1883)
Synonym(s):
• Diomedea irrorata ssp. irrorata Salvin, 1883 — Collar et al. (1994)
• Diomedea irrorata ssp. irrorata Salvin, 1883 — Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993)
• Diomedea irrorata ssp. irrorata Salvin, 1883 — Stotz et al. (1996)
• Diomedea irrorata ssp. irrorata Salvin, 1883 — Collar and Andrew (1988)
Common Name(s):
• English: Waved Albatross
• Spanish: Albatros de las Galápagos
Taxonomic Source(s):
Robertson, C. J. R.; Nunn, G. B. 1998. Towards a new taxonomy for albatrosses. In: Robertson, G.; Gales,
R. (ed.), Albatross biology and conservation, pp. 13-19. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton,
Australia.
Identification Information:
90 cm. Medium-sized albatross with white head, tinged buff-yellow on crown and nape. Chestnut-brown
upperparts finely barred, coarser over rump. Brown upperwing, back and tail. Whitish breast, remainder
of underparts barred, like upperparts. Whitish underwing, browner axillaries, brown around margins.
Dull yellow bill. Bluish feet project beyond tail in flight. Juvenile like adult but with whiter head.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria: Critically Endangered B2ab(v) ver 3.1
Year Published: 2018
Date Assessed: August 7, 2018
Justification:
This species is classified as Critically Endangered because it has an extremely small breeding range,
essentially confined to one island, and evidence suggests that it has experienced a substantial recent
population decline linked to bycatch mortality in artisanal fisheries in its principal foraging grounds.
Previously Published Red List Assessments

2017 – Critically Endangered (CR)
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-1.RLTS.T22698320A112205783.en

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Phoebastria irrorata – published in 2018. 1

2005 – Vulnerable (VU)
1994 – Lower Risk/near threatened (LR/nt)
1988 – Near Threatened (NT)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
Phoebastria irrorata is endemic to Ecuador. It breeds primarily along the southern coast of Española
Island in the Galápagos Islands, and, perhaps, a few pairs breed on La Plata Island off of Manabí
province, Ecuador (Harris 1973). Breeding adults travel to the Peruvian upwelling region to feed
(Anderson and Cruz 1998, H. Vargas and F. Cruz in litt. 2000, Awkerman et al. 2014), and in the non-
breeding season birds move mainly east and south-east into the waters of the Ecuadorian and Peruvian
continental shelf to the extreme north of Chile (Tickell 1996, Anderson and Cruz 1998, BirdLife
International 2004, K. Huyvaert pers. comm. 2016). Rarely seen north of the equator, they are
occasionally sighted off the coasts of Colombia (at least from El Choco) and Panama (Granizo 2002,
Jahncke 2007).
On Española, the overall breeding population was considered to have been stable during the 20th
Century. It was estimated at c.12,000 pairs in 1970-1971 (Harris 1973), 15,600-18,200 pairs in 1994
(Croxall and Gales 1998, Douglas 1998), and at least 34,694 adults in 2001 (Anderson et al. 2002).
Although there has not been a global population estimate since 2001, surveys at two principal breeding
sites on Española in 2007 demonstrated a decrease in the number of breeding birds since 2001, and an
overall population decrease (including non-breeders) at these sites since 1994 (Anderson et al. 2008).
The breeding distribution has changed owing in part to vegetation regrowth following the eradication of
goats (Anderson et al. 2002). Breeding no longer occurs at two inland sites, perhaps through
redistribution to the coast (Anderson and Cruz 1998, Douglas 1998). On La Plata Island, there are
probably fewer than 10-20 pairs (Anderson and Cruz 1998), and long-term data are too limited to assess
population trends (Croxall and Gales 1998). In 2001, three adults were seen there with no evidence of
breeding and a further 11 non-breeding adults were found on Isla Genovesa (Anderson et al. 2002).
Recent evidence has shown a 2-3% reduction in annual adult survival compared with that in the 1960s,
which is thought to have driven recent dramatic declines in the breeding population (Awkerman et al.
2006, J. Croxall in litt. 2006, Anderson et al. 2008). Analysis of birds caught as intentional and incidental
take in inshore fisheries has revealed that a disproportionate number of males are taken, which will
result in further decreases to the effective population size given that this species has obligate bi-
parental care (Awkerman et al. 2006). Even if immediate action was taken to curb adult mortality the
population will continue to decline for a decade or so until the current cohort of juveniles reach
breeding age (J. Croxall in litt. 2006). Breeding sites may be constrained by the extent and location of
take-off points, which are in turn limited by dense vegetation (Gibbs and Woltz 2010).
Country Occurrence:
Native: Chile; Colombia; Ecuador (Galápagos); Peru
Vagrant: Panama
Distribution Map
Phoebastria irrorata
Population
On Española, the breeding population was estimated at c. 12,000 pairs in 1970-1971, 15,600-18,200
pairs in 1994 and at least 34,694 adults in 2001. On La Plata Island, there are probably fewer than 10-20
pairs.
Trend Justification
On Española, the overall breeding population was considered to have been stable during the 20th
Century, yet Awkerman (2006) showed that adult survival declined between 1999 and 2004. These
findings were supported by Anderson et al. (2008), and there is evidence that the population has
declined between 1994 and 2007. Recent estimates at Punta Cevallos track declines in the numbers of
breeding adults at a mean of 2.3% per annum since 1994, and 6.3% per annum since 2007 (Street 2013).
Thus the species has potentially undergone rapid population decline, placed here in the range 30-49%
over the past three generations (c. 85 years). The ongoing rate of decline could be even greater, but
given the long generation lengths used these too are tentatively placed in the range 30-49% over three
generations.
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Behaviour This species breeds annually, arriving at colonies in late March (with males arriving earlier
than females and older birds earlier than younger birds) (Harris 1973, Huyvaert et al. 2006, Jahncke
2007), and laying from mid-April to late June. Chicks fledge between late December and early January.
Some pairs skip breeding in certain years (Jahncke 2007, Street 2013). The age of first breeding is at four
to six years of age or more, but individuals return to colonies, typically late in the season, from two
years of age (Hirschfeld 2008, ACAP 2009, Street 2013).
Habitat Breeding Nesting takes place on sparsely vegetated areas with lava surrounded by boulders
(Harris 1973) but also, more recently, in thick scrub vegetation (Anderson et al. 2002).
Diet It feeds on squid, fish, and crustaceans (Harris 1973), but scavenging food items disgorged by other
species (such as cetaceans and boobies) may be an important feeding strategy (Merlen 1996, Anderson
and Cruz 1998). A tracking study showed that during the breeding season, those birds that breed on
Española made foraging trips eastwards towards the continental shelf and along the coast of Peru
(Awkerman et al. 2014). The small number of birds from La Plata Island made much shorter but more
frequent foraging trips to the continental shelf (Awkerman et al. 2014).
Systems: Terrestrial, Marine
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

Altered temperature regimes associated with climate change poses a major threat. The species has
shown susceptibility to past El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, in the form of increased adult
mortality and increased negative interactions with fisheries under these conditions (Rechten 1986,
Awkerman et al. 2006). The species also suffers from both incidental and targeted capture by the
fishery (ACAP 2009). In small-scale Ecuadorian and Peruvian fisheries, Waved Albatross was the most
frequent bycatch, caught in demersal and surface longlines and shark driftnets (Mangel 2012). The
estimated bycatch rate of 0.11 birds per 1,000 hooks is sufficient to drive significant declines. Males
seem more likely to be killed in longline operations, resulting in a female-skewed sex ratio (1.188
females per male; Awkerman et al. 2007) and indicating that bycatch is likely to be a significant source of
adult mortality (Street 2013) and reduced effective population size. Avian pox was recorded in chicks on
Española, which subsequently displayed higher mortality than unaffected chicks, although the outbreak
was small and population impacts at present unlikely to be significant (Tompkins et al. 2017). Introduced
mosquitoes produces distress in birds and is the proposed cause for the observed movement of eggs by
parents (frequently resulting in the loss of the egg) and mass abandonment of eggs (Harris 1969,
Anderson and Fortner 1988). This threat may be exacerbated by climate change, as increased
abundance of mosquitoes Aedes taeniorhynchus have been recorded during warm ENSO years with
heavy rainfall. Oil spills have impacted the population in the past and may be a returning threat
(Anderson et al. 2003).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

Conservation Actions Underway
Española is part of the Galápagos National Park and Marine Reserve. Industrial, but not artisanal,
longlining is prohibited in the Galápagos Marine Reserve (Anderson et al. 2003). In 1979, the islands
were declared a World Heritage Site. Española is well protected and has no alien fauna (goats having
been eradicated in 1978; Anderson and Cruz 1998, Jiménez-Uzcátegui et al. 2007), and tourism is well-
regulated (Carboneras 1992). A tortoise breeding programme has led to the release of over 2,000
tortoises on the island in the last 30 years; as the only native herbivore these animals may play a key
role in vegetation control and maintaining suitable habitat for breeding albatrosses (Jahncke 2007). La
Plata Island is part of Machalilla National Park, but is insufficiently protected (Carboneras 1992). The
Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) organised workshops in Peru and
Ecuador in 2007 and 2008 to develop an Action Plan for Waved Albatross. There are proposals to protect
more marine key biodiversity areas within the Galápagos Marine Reserve by amending the existing
marine zoning scheme to reduce the impact from fishing (Edgar et al. 2008).
The Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF), Galapagos National Park Directorate (GNPD) and collaborators
are carrying out long-term monitoring and on-going research using mark-recapture studies to determine
changes in survival and reproduction, and investigating the relative importance of potential threats
(heavy metals, diseases, climate change and human interaction).
Conservation Actions Proposed
Enumerate the breeding population regularly and establish a baseline to ascertain trends. Further
evaluate extrinsic population threats (e.g., disease, plastic ingestion, contaminants). Further evaluate
the threat of incidental and deliberate take in fisheries within the species's range; and control levels of
hunting. Adopt appropriate interim techniques to minimise bycatch. Improve protection for the Isla de
la Plata colony.
Credits
Assessor(s): BirdLife International
Reviewer(s): Westrip, J.
Contributor(s): Allport, G., Anderson, D., Croxall, J., Cruz, F., Huyvaert, K., Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G.,
McClellan, R. & Vargas, H.
Facilitators(s) and Anderson, O., Ashpole, J, Bird, J., Butchart, S., Calvert, R., Fjagesund, T., Hermes,
Compiler(s): C., Martin, R., Moreno, R., Nel, D., Small, C., Stattersfield, A., Stuart, A., Sullivan,
B., Symes, A.
Bibliography
ACAP. 2009. ACAP Species Assessment: Waved Albatross Phoebastria irrorata. Available at:
#http://www.acap.aq/acap-species/download-document/1179-waved-albatross#.
Alava, J. J. ; Haase, B. 2011. Waterbird biodiversity and conservation threats in coastal Ecuador and the
Galapagos Islands. In: Grillo, O.; Venora, G. (ed.), Ecosystems Biodiversity, InTech.
Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mangel, J.C., Valenzuela, K., Arias-Schreiber, M. 2016. The intentional harvest of
waved albatros Phoebastria irrorata by small-scale offshore fishermen from Salaverry port, Peru.
Panamjas 11: 70-77.
Anderson, D. J. 2006. Basic science may save the Waved Albatross. Galapagos News: 8-9.
Anderson, D. J.; Cruz, F. 1998. Biology and management of the Waved Albatross at the Galápagos
Islands. In: Robertson, G.; Gales, R. (ed.), Albatross biology and conservation, pp. 105-109. Surrey Beatty
& Sons Pty Ltd, Chipping Norton, Australia.
Anderson, D.J., Fortner, S. 1988. Waved albatross egg neglect and associated mosquito ectoparasitism.
Condor 90: 727-729.
Anderson, D. J.; Huyvaert, K. P.; Apanius, V.; Townsend, H.; Gillikin, C. L.; Hill, L. D.; Juola, F.; Porter, E. T.;
Wood, D. R.; Lougheed, C.; Vargas, H. 2002. Population size and trends of the Waved albatross
Phoebastria irrorata. Marine Ornithology 30: 63-69.
Anderson, D. J.; Huyvaert, K. P.; Awkerman, J. A.; Proaño, C. B.; Milstead, W. B.; Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G.;
Cruz, S.; Grace, J. K. 2008. Population status of the critically endangered Waved Albatross Phoebastria
irrorata, 1999-2007. Endangered Species Research 5(2-3): 185-192.
Anderson, D. J.; Huyvaert, K. P.; Wood, D. R.; Gillikin, C. L.; Frost, B. J.; Mouritsen, H. 2003. At-sea
distribution of waved albatrosses and the Galápagos Marine Reserve. Biological Conservation 110: 367-
373.
Awkerman, J.A., Cruz, S., Proaño, C., Huyvaert, K.P., Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G., Baquero, A,, Wikelski, M.,
Anderson, D.J. 2014. Small range and distinct distribution in a satellite breeding colony of the critically
endangered Waved Albatross. Journal of Ornithology 155(2): 367-378.
Awkerman, J. A.; Huyvaert, K. P.; Mangel, J.; Shigueto, J. A.; Anderson, D. J. 2006. Incidental and
intentional catch threatens Galápagos Waved Albatross. Biological Conservation 133(4): 483-489.
Awkerman, J. A.; Westbrock, M. A.; Huyvaert, K. P.; Anderson, D. J. 2007. Female-biased sex ratio arises
after parental care in the sexually dimorphic Waved Albatross (Phoebastria irrorata). The Auk 124(4):
1336-1346.
BirdLife International. 2004. Tracking ocean wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and
petrels. BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K.
Carboneras, C. 1992. Diomedeidae (Albatrosses). In: del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Sargatal, J. (ed.), Handbook
of the birds of the world, pp. 198-215. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
Croxall, J. P. and Gales, R. 1998. Assessment of the conservation status of albatrosses. In: Robertson, G.
and Gales, R. (eds), Albatross biology and conservation, pp. 46-65. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping
Norton, Australia.
Douglas, H. D. 1998. Changes in the distribution and abundance of Waved Albatrosses at Isla Española,
Galápagos islands, Ecuador. Condor 100: 737-740.
Edgar, G. J.; Banks, S.; Bensted-Smith, R.; Calvopiña, M.; A.; Garske, L. E.; Henderson, S.; Miller, K. A.;
Salazar, S. 2008. Conservation of threatened species in the Galapagos Marine Reserve through
identification and protection of marine key biodiversity areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 955-968.
Gibbs, J. P.; Woltz, H. W. 2010. A pilot survey of the central colony of the Waved Albatross Phoebastria
irrorata on Española Island. Galapagos Research: 18-21.
Granizo, T. 2002. Libro rojo de las aves del Ecuador. SIMBIOE, Quito.
Guillén, A.; Jahncke, J.; Goya, E. 2000. Seabird bycatch by small-scale longline fisheries in northern Peru:
a first approach.
Harris, M. P. 1969. Age at breeding and other observations of the Waved Albatross (iDiomedea irrorata.
Ibis 111: 97-98.
Harris, M.P. 1973. The Galápagos avifauna. Condor 75: 265-278.
Harris, M.P. 1979. Survival and ages of first breeding of Galapagos seabirds. Bird-banding 50: 56-61.
Hirschfeld, E. 2008. Rare Birds Yearbook 2009: the world's 190 most threatened birds. MagDig Media
Ltd., Shrewsbury, UK.
Huyvaert, K. P.; Anderson, D.J.; Parker, P. G. 2006. Mate opportunity hypothesis and extrapair paternity
in Waved Albatrosses (Phoebastria irrorata). The Auk 123: 524-536.
iménez-Uzcátegui, G., Carrión, V., Zabala, J., Buitrón, P., Milstead, B. 2007. Status of introduced
vertebrates in Galápagos. . In: Galápagos Report 2006-2007. FCD, PNG & INGALA. Puerto Ayora,
Ecuador: 136-141.
IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 15 November 2018).
Jahncke, J. 2007. Action plan for Waved Albatross Phoebastria irrorata.
Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G., Harris, M.P., Sevilla, C., Huyvaert, K.P. 2016. Longevity records for the waved
Albatross Phoebastria irrorata. Marine Ornithology 40(133-134).
Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G., Mangel, J., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Anderson, D.J. 2006. Fishery bycatch of the waved
albatros P. irrorata, a need for implementation of agreements. Galápagos Research 64(2): 7-9.
Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G., Sarzosa, S.M., Encalada, E., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, R., Celi-Erazo, M., Sevilla, C.,
Huyvaert, K.P. 2015. Gastrointestinal Parasites in the Waved Albatross (Phoebastria irrorata) of
Galápagos. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 51(3): 784-786.
Mangel, J.C. 2012. Interactions of Peruvian small-scale fisheries with threatened marine vertebrate
species.
Merlen, G. 1996. Scavenging waved albatross around the Galapagos Archipelago: at risk from longlines.
Seabird Group Newsletter 74: 2-5.
Ramírez, J., Reyes, H. 2015. Evaluation of the high seas fisheries of pelagic fishes in the Galpapagos
Marine Reserve. In Galápagos Report 2013-2014. GNPD, GCREG, CDF and GC. Puerto Ayora, Galápagos,
Ecuador: 118-124.
Rechten, C. 1986. Factors determining the laying data of the waved albatross (Diomedea irrorata). Ibis
182: 492-501.
Street, P.A. 2013. Abundance, survival and breeding probabilities of the critically endangered Waved
Albatross. MSc thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. 116 pp.
Tickell, W. I. N. 1996. Galápagos albatrosses at sea. Sea Swallow 45: 83-85.
Wiedenfeld, D.A.; Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G.A. 2008. Critical problems for bird conservation in the Galápagos
Islands. Cotinga: 22-27.
Citation
BirdLife International. 2018. Phoebastria irrorata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018:
e.T22698320A132641638. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22698320A132641638.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Major
Habitat Season Suitability
Importance?
3. Shrubland -> 3.5. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry Breeding Suitable Yes
0. Root -> 6. Rocky areas (eg. inland cliffs, mountain peaks) Breeding Suitable Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic Breeding Suitable Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic Non- Suitable Yes
breeding
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.2. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs Breeding Suitable No
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.2. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs Non- Suitable No
breeding
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.3. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel Breeding Suitable No
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.3. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel Non- Suitable No
breeding
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.4. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy Breeding Suitable No
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.4. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy Non- Suitable No
breeding
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.5. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy-Mud Breeding Suitable No
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.5. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy-Mud Non- Suitable No
breeding
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.7. Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp Breeding Suitable No
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.7. Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp Non- Suitable No

breeding
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.9. Marine Neritic - Seagrass (Submerged) Breeding Suitable No
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.9. Marine Neritic - Seagrass (Submerged) Non- Suitable No
breeding
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.1. Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m) Breeding Suitable Yes
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.1. Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m) Non- Suitable Yes
breeding
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.2. Marine Oceanic - Mesopelagic (200-1000m) Breeding Suitable Yes
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.2. Marine Oceanic - Mesopelagic (200-1000m) Non- Suitable Yes
breeding
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.1. Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline Breeding Suitable Yes
Threats
Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.3. Ongoing Whole (>90%) Causing/could Medium
Temperature extremes cause fluctuations impact: 7
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is 90%) declines impact: 6
the target)
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
2.3.6. Skewed sex ratios
5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium
aquatic resources -> 5.4.3. Unintentional effects: 90%) declines impact: 6
(subsistence/small scale) [harvest]

5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting Ongoing Majority (50- Negligible declines Low impact: 5
aquatic resources -> 5.4.4. Unintentional effects: 90%)
(large scale) [harvest]

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & Ongoing Majority (50- Negligible declines Low impact: 5
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien 90%)
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species

(Unspecified CULICIDAE)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & Ongoing Majority (50- Negligible declines Low impact: 5
diseases -> 8.5. Viral/prion-induced diseases -> 8.5.2. 90%)
Named species
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
9. Pollution -> 9.2. Industrial & military effluents -> Past, likely Majority (50- Slow, significant Past impact
9.2.1. Oil spills to return 90%) declines
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Conservation Actions in Place


In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
Action Recovery plan: No
Systematic monitoring scheme: Yes
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
Invasive species control or prevention: Yes
In-Place Species Management
Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: 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 Needed

Conservation Actions Needed

2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.3. Sub-national level
Research Needed
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields

Distribution
Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²): 9
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 2280000
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Distribution
Number of Locations: 1
Continuing decline in number of locations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
Upper elevation limit (m): 50
Population
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: No
Population severely fragmented: No
No. of subpopulations: 1
Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No
All individuals in one subpopulation: Yes
No. of individuals in largest subpopulation: 100
Habitats and Ecology

Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Unknown
Generation Length (years): 28.3
Movement patterns: Full Migrant
Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive)
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

10.2305 IUCN - UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22698320A132641638.en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.2305 IUCN - UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22698320A132641638.en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™

ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

Phoebastria irrorata, Waved Albatross

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Animalia Chordata Aves Procellariiformes Diomedeidae

Taxon Name: Phoebastria irrorata (Salvin, 1883)

Year Published: 2018

Date Assessed: August 7, 2018

Previously Published Red List Assessments

2016 – Critically Endangered (CR)

2015 – Critically Endangered (CR)

2014 – Critically Endangered (CR)

2013 – Critically Endangered (CR)

2012 – Critically Endangered (CR)

2010 – Critically Endangered (CR)

2009 – Critically Endangered (CR)

2008 – Critically Endangered (CR)

2007 – Critically Endangered (CR)

2005 – Vulnerable (VU)

2004 – Vulnerable (VU)

2003 – Vulnerable (VU)

2000 – Vulnerable (VU)

1994 – Lower Risk/near threatened (LR/nt)

1988 – Near Threatened (NT)

Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

Conservation Actions Proposed

Harris, M.P. 1973. The Galápagos avifauna. Condor 75: 265-278.

Jahncke, J. 2007. Action plan for Waved Albatross Phoebastria irrorata.

Tickell, W. I. N. 1996. Galápagos albatrosses at sea. Sea Swallow 45: 83-85.

3. Shrubland -> 3.5. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry Breeding Suitable Yes

9. Marine Neritic -> 9.7. Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp Breeding Suitable No

9. Marine Neritic -> 9.7. Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp Non- Suitable No

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

(subsistence/small scale) [harvest]

(large scale) [harvest]

species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

Conservation Actions in Place

Conservation Actions in Place

Action Recovery plan: No

Systematic monitoring scheme: Yes

In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management

Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range

Invasive species control or prevention: Yes

In-Place Species Management

Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: No

Subject to ex-situ conservation: No

Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: No

Included in international legislation: Yes

Subject to any international management/trade controls: No

Conservation Actions Needed

Conservation Actions Needed

3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends

Additional Data Fields

Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Unknown

Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No

Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 2280000

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