United Arab Emirates

Official name
United Arab Emirates
ISO alpha-2 code
AE
ISO alpha-3 code
ARE
ISO numeric-3 code
784
Continent
Asia

Hyaena hyaena | UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Occupies a wide range of habitats (Harrison and Bates 1991) where it persists globally. Solitary and nocturnal. No detailed information of its ecology in UAE is available, but presumed, based on its former distribution, to have occurred in rocky mountainous areas and in the desert.
Taxon
Taxa
Hyaena hyaena | (Linnaeus, 1758)
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Mammals
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
Striped Hyaenas are believed to have been widely distributed in former times, but there are no specimens and reports are extremely sparse. It was reported present on Jebel Hafeet by Thesiger (1949); on the Al Ain-Dubai road, in Bani Yas and Liwa in the 1980s (Duckworth 1996); one was seen crossing a track between Awhala and Khor Kalba (Gross 1987); there was a report from villagers in Wadi Helo, near Kalba, in June 1996, and there is a probable sighting between Al Ain and Sweihan in December 1996 (Hellyer 1997). Spoor thought to be that of Hyaena was seen near the Shah oil field, south of Liwa in 1999 (Aspinall et al. 2005, Drew and Tourenq 2005). Residents of the higher part of Musandam said that hyenas used to occur there (Jongbloed et al. 2001). There have been no confirmed recent records and the species is no longer considered to occur in UAE. The international borders between Saudi Arabia, Oman and UAE are fenced, except for some of the highest mountain areas, preventing or hindering movement, so natural recolonization of the UAE by the species is highly unlikely. The Striped Hyaena has a very large, albeit now patchy global distribution, extending across North, Northeast and East Africa, south to about central Tanzania, and through the Arabian Peninsula, Turkey, the Caucasus, Iran, Central Asia, and northern Indian subcontinent (AbiSaid and Dloniak 2015). It has become rare in most parts of the Arabian Peninsula, mainly because of ongoing persecution (Mallon and Budd 2011).
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Regionally extinct
Assessment status abreviation
RE
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
The Striped Hyaena is believed to have been widely distributed in former times in the UAE. It is assessed as Regionally Extinct for the UAE because there are no confirmed records and unconfirmed reports are very sparse, the last one dating from 1999. Fencing of international borders prevents or inhibits movements into UAE from neighbouring countries.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
Not_assigned
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: Not_assigned
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
All large carnivores are subject to persecution across the region by shooting, trapping and poisoning. Traditional stone predator traps in the Hajar Mountains (e.g. in Wadi Helo, Sharjah) are here called madhba, the name indicating that Hyenas were perhaps among the primary targets (Mallon and Budd 2011). The Striped Hyena also had an unjustified reputation as a grave-robber (Aspinall et al. 2005).
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Further information
History
Records of this species in UAE are extremely sparse and there are no confirmed specimens. It was assessed as Extinct in the Wild by Hornby in 1996, however, there was a probable sighting between Al Ain and Sweihan in December 1996 (Hellyer 1997) and spoor thought to be that of hyaena was seen south of Liwa in 1999 (Aspinall et al. 2005, Drew and Tourenq 2005), and it is possible that animals persisted when Hornby published his work in 1996. We, therefore, revise the 1996 assessment to Critically Endangered (Possibly Regionally Extinct) (CR(PRE)). There have been no confirmed records since 1999, and the last unconfirmed report dates from 1999.
Verified entry
Off

Arabitragus jayakari | UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Inhabits mountains and mountain wadis. A recent systematic survey across the whole range used occupancy modelling to quantify habitat associations and create a predictive distribution model for the species. The results showed that Arabian Tahr preferred steep, rugged mountain habitats, and that occupancy was much higher in protected areas; occupancy decreased with proximity to villages, and with increasing numbers of domestic goats (Ross et al. 2017). Births are reported almost throughout the year, and November may be the only month when kids have not been born (Harrison and Bates 1991). Gestation is 140-“145 days. Tahr are found in small groups, consisting of a female and kid or a male and female with a kid. Males are usually solitary, and never consort with another male. The highly territorial males scrape the soil with their hooves, marking it with dung and urine and “horning' vegetation (Munton 1985). In Oman, peak occupancy occurs at approximately 1,000 m in elevation, given suitable habitat, but tahr currently occupy elevations from 81 to 2,315 m above sea level (Ross et al. 2017); the elevation range in UAE is less well-known: the two tallest peaks in Wadi Wurayah N.P. slightly exceed 1,100 m, Jebel Hatta is 1,300+ m, and Jebel Hafeet rises to 1,249 m; however, elevation per se may be less important than relative inaccessibility to predators.
Taxon
Taxa
Arabitragus jayakari | (Thomas, 1894)
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Mammals
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxonomic Notes
The Arabian Tahr was removed from the Hemitragus genus and assigned the monotypic genus Arabitragus following research by Ropiquet and Hassanin (2005), which showed a weak genetic relationship with other Hemitragus species. The Arabian Tahr is most closely allied with the Ammotragus genus which has one living member, the Aoudad Ammotragus lervia. Ancestors of the Aoudad and Arabian Tahr are thought to have diverged around 4-“7 Mya in North Africa and/or Arabia (Ropiquet and Hassanin 2005). This period coincides with the onset of Northern Hemisphere glaciations, and cooler, drier, and more variable climates (Peizhen et al. 2001).
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
The Arabian Tahr is endemic to the Hajar Mountains of Oman and UAE, extending for about 600 km from Musandam to Jebel Qahwan, south of Sur, with a small population on the outlying Jebel Hafeet (Insall 2008). The former distribution in the UAE is not known in detail and no systematic survey has ever been carried out. There are confirmed records from Jebel Hafeet in Abu Dhabi and Wadi Wurayah in Fujairah, as well as some local reports from elsewhere. A villager in Wadi Safad, Fujairah reported “wa'el' in remote parts of the wadi (Hellyer 1994). A survey of Ru'us Al Jibal in Ras al Khaimah Emirate found no signs of the Arabian Tahr and local people there did not know the species (Environment and Protected Areas Authority 2006). The latest record of tahr in Wadi Wurayah N.P. is a camera trap photo taken in October 2012 (Al Bustan Zoological Centre and Environment Agency -“ Abu Dhabi 2015, Judas 2016). Tahr may still occur in very low numbers in the national park or they may already be extinct there. Arabian Tahr are still present on Jebel Hafeet, which is shared between United Arab Emirates and Oman; nine tahr were camera-trapped there in 2015 (Al Zaabi and Soorae 2015). In 2017 the Dubai Municipality environment team obtained camera trap images of tahr inside the Hatta enclave which is surrounded on three sides by Omani territory. This population was not included in the status review that formed part of the national conservation strategy (Al Bustan Zoological Centre and Environment Agency -“ Abu Dhabi 2015) and may have moved to the area recently. Recent surveys in Oman have confirmed the presence of Arabian Tahr close to the border with UAE, but the border is now fenced in the lower part, though animals may still be able to move across the higher ridges.
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Critically endangered
Assessment status abreviation
CR
Assessment status criteria
D
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
The Arabian Tahr is endemic to the Hajar Mountains and Jebel Hafeet of Oman and UAE. The species is assessed as Critically Endangered (CR D) because the total population is suspected to be well below 50 mature individuals. The two remaining subpopulations number 10-12 and are completely isolated from each other, and none have been reported from a third location since 2012. The extent of border fencing means that there is no significant rescue effect. Conservation actions are required for this species, including the implementation of the National Conservation Strategy.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
No
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: No
Endemism specifics: Near endemic (endemic to Hajar mountains of UAE and Oman)
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
Arabian Tahr is a protected species in UAE (Article 12 of Federal Law No. (24) of 1999), but hunting remains a popular activity. The mountainous terrain that tahr inhabit makes effective patrolling difficult, but trained rangers and regular patrolling are needed to protect remaining tahr and any released animals. Overgrazing by domestic livestock reduces the quantity and quality of forage available, and therefore the number of tahr and other species that an area can support. Feral goats and donkeys are also present in many parts of the mountains, adding to the problem, and possibly also outcompeting tahr, obliging them to utilise areas with less suitable grazing, although donkeys are less likely to be found in the steep terrain preferred by Arabian Tahr. In some areas of prime habitat, there has been a steady increase in domestic livestock numbers, and new road networks make it easy to transport livestock to new pasture or to bring in supplementary food and water. The expanding network of graded secondary roads also fragments suitable habitat. In times of severe drought, Arabian Tahr have been found in poor condition. Conditions in the mountains in recent years appear to be becoming drier and hotter, with impacts on vegetation and availability of water. As tahr populations become smaller and more isolated, the movement of individuals between them is increasingly difficult, resulting in reduced genetic variation. Feral dogs have been seen chasing tahr on Jebel Hafeet (Al Bustan Zoological Centre and Environment Agency -“ Abu Dhabi 2015). Fencing of reserves and other areas in the Hajar Mountains impedes movement of animals between subpopulations and increases the negative effects of fragmentation. Escapes or releases around Jebel Hafeet, including in Wadi Tarabat, of exotic ungulates (Nubian Ibex Capra nubiana, Barbary Sheep Ammotragus lervia and Wild Sheep Ovis orientalis), which are much larger than tahr, represent potentially serious competition. Several diseases and other health issues have been reported in captive tahr populations. Infectious diseases include pasteurellosis, clostridium, E. colii, echinococcus, para-TB, PPT, FMD, (animals are routinely vaccinated against these); coccidiosis, upper respiratory tract diseases, purulent bacterial pneumonia, and malignant catarrhal fever. Non-infectious diseases include: dystocia, indigestion, chronic acidosis, capture myopathy and stress, hematoma, and abomasal obstruction. Husbandry issues include fighting among males and among females leading to injury or even death; other accidents/trauma and genetic problems related to small founder sizes (Al Bustan Zoological Centre and Environment Agency -“ Abu Dhabi 2015).
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Further information
History
The backcasted 1996 assessment for this species is Critically Endangered under criterion C2a(i) which matches the listing given by Hornby (1996). While there would have been more movement of animals between the UAE and Oman in 1996, this would not have been a significant rescue effect because of the declining population in Oman at the time plus the growing hunting pressures in the UAE.
Verified entry
Off

Grampus griseus | UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
This is a deep-water species, diving for squid and fish over underwater canyons and at the edge of the continental shelf to depths probably exceeding 1,000 m (Baldwin et al. 1999, Baldwin 2005).
Taxon
Taxa
Grampus griseus | (G. Cuvier, 1812)
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Mammals
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
This species generally lives in deep water and is apparently relatively common off the east coast of the UAE. There are no confirmed occurrences in the Arabian Gulf where the habitat is not suitable as this is a deep-water species (Baldwin 2005). Globally, this is a widely-distributed species, inhabiting deep waters of the continental slope and outer shelf, from the tropics through the temperate regions in both hemispheres (Taylor et al. 2012a).
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Data deficient
Assessment status abreviation
DD
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
Although the species is said to be relatively common off the east coast, no information is available on population size or trends. There are also no data on threats to the species, hence it is assessed as Data Deficient. No regional adjustment is made to the Data Deficient assessment.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
Not_assigned
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: Not_assigned
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
The main threats to cetaceans in UAE waters include: incidental mortality in trawl, drift and anchored gill nets, depletion of prey populations (due in part to commercial overfishing); ship and boat strikes, disturbance due to underwater noise (including that from vessel traffic, drilling, piling, military operations and seismic activity related to offshore oil and gas exploration). Inshore and shallow-water species are further potentially threatened by entanglement in abandoned fishing gear, coastal development including port and harbour construction, dredging, land reclamation, residential and tourist development, and pollution (especially hydrocarbons). A lack of information (e.g. population size and trend, the location of critical habitats, and feeding ecology) hinders the development of appropriate conservation actions, but this should be used as an excuse for inaction.
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Further information
History
Hornby (1996) assessed the species as Near Threatened. It is not clear what criteria would have been used in 1996, but likely to have been assessed under criteria different than those currently applied by IUCN, and we consider that the species would also have been Data Deficient in 1996.
Verified entry
Off

Gerbillus nanus | UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Lives in sand and salt flats (Aspinall et al. 2005).
Taxon
Taxa
Gerbillus nanus | Blanford, 1875
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Mammals
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxonomic Notes
G. garamantis, G. vivax and G. quadrimaculatus were previously assessed as separate species in the 2003 Red List, but are now included within Gerbillus nanus.
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
The distribution of this species in the UAE appears to be patchy and is poorly known. There are records from Al Ain, Sweihan and Sharjah (Aspinall et al. 2005, Drew and Tourenq 2005), Al Wathba (Soorae et al. 2014), Baynoonah (one record; J. Judas pers. comm. 2018). It was not recorded on recent surveys of protected areas in Abu Dhabi (R. Gubiani pers. comm 2018). There are four records from the Dubai Desert Conservation Reserve (G. Simkins pers. comm. 2018). It is regularly trapped around the Breeding Centre for Endangered Wildlife and at Dulaima in Sharjah (K. Budd and J. Pereira pers. comm. 2018). The species is similar in appearance to Gerbillus dayurus and may sometimes be misidentified (B. Howarth pers. comm. 2018). The two species cannot be distinguished on dentition (Harrison and Bates 1991). Globally, it occurs across the western and central Sahara and Sahel, as well as the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East, through Afghanistan and Pakistan to northwest India (Shenbrot 2016). It is widespread in the Arabian Peninsula (Harrison and Bates 1991).
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Data deficient
Assessment status abreviation
DD
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
The distribution of this species is poorly known in the UAE and it is known from scattered records. It is assessed as Data Deficient because the available information is too limited to assess its status. No regional adjustment is made to the Data Deficient assessment.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
Not_assigned
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: Not_assigned
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
Overgrazing, especially by camels, has caused extensive habitat degradation outside protected areas. An increase in numbers of feral cats and an increase in Red Fox range and numbers may also be having an impact on small mammals.
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Further information
History
The backcasted 1996 assessment for this species is Data Deficient which matches the listing given by Hornby (1996).
Verified entry
Off

Gerbillus dasyurus | UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
It occurs in rocky areas and mountain wadis in UAE. It occupies a wider range of habitats, including salt flats, elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula. It is strictly nocturnal. Further details of its ecology in UAE are poorly known.
Taxon
Taxa
Gerbillus dasyurus | (Wagner, 1842)
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Mammals
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
Found in the northern UAE in mountainous areas. Recorded sites span the northern emirates and include Hatta, Masafi, Jebel Hafeet (Aspinall et al. 2005) and Jebel Al Jais (Melville and Chaber 2016), Wadi Wurayah (Judas 2016), Wadi Shawka and several sites in Ras Al Khaimah , e.g., Wadi Sfai and Wadi Daynah. The species is similar in appearance to Gerbillus nanus and may sometimes be misidentified (B. Howarth, pers. comm. 2018). The two species cannot be distinguished on dentition (Harrison and Bates 1991). The species is almost endemic to Arabia, extending marginally into the eastern desert of Egypt (Harrison and Bates 1991, Amori et al. 2016c).
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Least concern
Assessment status abreviation
LC
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
Assessed as Least Concern because the species is widespread, mainly in the northern mountainous areas of the UAE, is frequently seen, and there are no indications of a decline. There is no need for any adjustment of the regional category.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
Not_assigned
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: Not_assigned
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
Over-gazing, quarrying, road construction and other development activities in the mountains result in habitat loss and degradation and increased fragmentation. Species in the mountains may also be affected indirectly by falling water tables due to over-abstraction and reduced precipitation. An increase in numbers of feral cats and Red Foxes may also pose a threat to all small mammals.
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Further information
History
Hornby (1996) assessed the species as Data Deficient, however, we consider it likely to have qualified as Least Concern in 1996.
Verified entry
Off

Gerbillus cheesmani | UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Nocturnal. Inhabits sandy and gravel deserts, but appears to prefer sandy areas.
Taxon
Taxa
Gerbillus cheesmani | Thomas, 1919
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Mammals
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
This species is widespread in all gravel and sandy desert areas of UAE (Aspinall et al. 2005). Its global range is confined to the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Jordan and Syria (one record) and Iran (Shenbrot and Amr 2016).
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Least concern
Assessment status abreviation
LC
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
This species is assessed as Least Concern because it is widespread across much of the UAE and common (especially within protected areas) and no major threats are known. There is no need for any adjustment of the regional category.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
Not_assigned
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: Not_assigned
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
Overgrazing, especially by camels, has caused extensive habitat degradation outside protected areas. An increase in numbers of feral cats and in Red Fox range and numbers may also be having an impact on small mammals.
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Further information
History
The backcasted 1996 assessment for this species is Least Concern which matches the listing given by Hornby (1996).
Verified entry
Off

Gazella marica | UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Occurs in deserts, including sand dunes and areas of sand and gravel as well as coastal flats; it avoids steep and rocky areas.
Taxon
Taxa
Gazella marica | Thomas, 1897
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Mammals
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxonomic Notes
Gazella marica was formerly included in Gazella subgutturosa. DNA evidence revealed that these represent separate lineages (Wacher et al. 2010) and G. marica is now regarded as a separate, though closely related species. Hassanin et al. (2012) found that pairwise distances between G. cuvieri, G. leptoceros and G. marica were very low ((<) 1.5%) and suggested that G. leptoceros and G. marica should be regarded as subspecies of G. cuvieri. This would have significant implications for conservation and more research to further clarify the situation is a priority.
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
This species was recorded on rocky headlands among coastal flats and offshore islands west of Abu Dhabi by Thesiger (1949) and it also occurred in the Rub Al Khali (Harrison and Bates 1991). A wild subpopulation was still present in the Abu Dhabi desert (Jongbloed et al. 2001). The species also occurs on several near-shore islands, with at least one subpopulation, on Futaisi, reported to be at least partly of native coastal stock. During the lowest spring tides, individuals cross to neighbouring islands. Some island subpopulations likely relate to released animals, although the founder stock may have been obtained from inland desert areas. Others are clearly of captive origin and remain in a semi-captive state, with food and water being provided (Aspinall et al. 2005). Arabian Sand Gazelles are present in the Arabian Oryx Reserve and Delaika protected area (Abu Dhabi), Dubai Desert Conservation Reserve and Al Marmoom Conservation Area and adjoining areas of desert (Dubai) some smaller reserves, and on islands, in private collections and forestry plantations.Based on the known habitat preferences, it is assumed that historically G. marica occupied desert areas and G. arabica the mountains and their fringes, but releases may now have obscured the origianl pattern. Arabian Sand Gazelle is assumed to have formerly occurred in suitable habitat across most of the Arabian Peninsula. The current range is now restricted to protected areas and a few small scattered populations in Oman, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. Very small numbers survive in the eastern desert of Jordan. The species was present in Kuwait, Qatar, Syria and Yemen, but the current status there is unclear. It is still believed to occur in western Iraq but little recent information is available. Animals from the Ceylanpinar State Farm in southeast Turkey have been released into the surrounding region (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2017b).
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Least concern
Assessment status abreviation
LC
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
This species is found throughout much of the UAE and some near-shore islands. Although the population is much reduced from former times, conservation efforts, captive breeding and releases have resulted in the population stabilising and now increasing. As a conservative estimate, there are over 1,500 mature individuals and the population is stable or increasing, so the species does not qualify for a threatened category or Near Threatened and is assessed as Least Concern. No regional adjustment is made to the Least Concern assessment.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
Not_assigned
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: Not_assigned
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
The main threats are illegal hunting (recently brought under more strict control) and in parts of the range, habitat degradation due to overgrazing.
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Further information
History
Over the last 15-25 years, captive breeding, releases and reinforcement and the establishment of a network of protected areas has resulted in a large and stable population. Although Hornby (1996) listed Gazella subguttarosa marica as Critically Endangered, the backcasted 1996 assessment for this species is Endangered under criterion C2a(i).
Verified entry
Off

Felis margarita | UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
The Sand Cat is a specialist of vegetated sandy desert, sand dunes and sand/gravel plains. It is nocturnal. Few details of the ecology and biology are known (Mallon and Budd 2011). All UAE records are from sandy and gravel desert areas. One animal was observed near a den on the western side of a small calcrete hill at 235 m altitude (Cunningham 2002). Sand Cats prey on small mammals reptiles and invertebrates. One was observed feeding on a jird Meriones sp. (J. Judas pers. comm. 2016) and they may feed on locusts when they swarm (Cunningham 2002). Dens can be found in open areas, beneath rocks and in vegetation. Generally reported to be nocturnal, but there are a few records of diurnal activity in Arabia, especially in cooler conditions (Banfield et al. 2014).
Taxon
Taxa
Felis margarita | Loche, 1858
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Mammals
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxonomic Notes
Taxonomy is currently under review by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2014). Placed in the genus Felis according to genetic analysis (Johnson et al. 2006, O'Brien and Johnson 2007). Four subspecies have been classically described: F. m. margarita in North Africa, F. m. harrisoni in Arabia, F. m. thinobia in Central Asia and F. m. scheffeli in Pakistan (Sliwa 2013, Banfield et al. 2014), but genetic analysis is needed to confirm subspecific partitioning, especially in light of possible large gaps in the species distribution.
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
There are a few confirmed records and some additional anecdotal reports of this species in the UAE. Carcasses were obtained from south of Wutayd in 1987 and Ghayathi in western Abu Dhabi Emirate (Cunningham 2002). A dead but largely intact specimen was photographed and collected near a Little Owl perch on a calcrete terrace in the western desert of Abu Dhabi, 3 km W of the track to Mukhayriz prison, in April 1997 (G. Feulner, pers. comm. 2018). The specimen was deposited with M. Jongbloed, then Director of Sharjah Desert Park, but was subsequently misplaced. The first live sighting was in 2001 about 35 km northwest of Al Ain, when an animal was found near a den with tracks and prey remains (Cunningham 2002). One individual was found for sale in a pet shop in 2002, having been caught south of Al Ain; one was seen in the Sweihan area in autumn 2004 and more recently in 2017, and a further individual was observed in the Baynoonah area of western Abu Dhabi in 2005 (Drew and Tourenq 2005). Between 1995 and 2005 there were only four confirmed records despite intensive surveys in areas of suitable habitat (Drew and Tourenq 2005). All records and reports to date were summarised in Banfield et al. (2014). Presence in Baynoonah was confirmed in 2015 when 46 photographs of Sand Cat were obtained during a camera trap survey (Ahmed et al. 2016), and surveys in protected areas of Abu Dhabi in 2017-2018 have recorded Sand Cat at 12 new localities, in addition to Baynoonah. These new records may indicate that the species is more widely distributed than previously suspected. There are no recent records from the Dubai or Sharjah deserts. It is assumed that formerly it was sparsely and patchily distributed across the UAE, except for the mountains. Globally, the Sand Cat has an extensive but very patchy distribution in North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Pakistan and Central Asia (Sliwa et al. 2016). In the Arabian Peninsula records are widely but sparsely distributed in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia north to Iraq, Jordan and Syria (Banfield et al. 2014).
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Endangered
Assessment status abreviation
EN
Assessment status criteria
D
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
There are fewer than 100 records from the past 25 years in the EAD database, which implies that the population size must be small. It seems reasonable to estimate a population size of smaller than 250 mature individuals. Given that it is a sparsely distributed species, and with the recent new records from Abu Dhabi, it is difficult to say if the population is declining at present. It is therefore assessed as Endangered under criterion D. It appears to have undergone some declines since the assessment of Vulnerable made in 1996 and this is probably due to loss of habitat in parts of its range due to overgrazing and increasing infrastructure. There might also have been some persecution; the species is not specifically targeted but would be killed if caught and could fall victim to poisoning. There is unlikely to be any significant rescue effect as the the species is widely scattered and declining across the Arabian Peninsula. Furthermore, the fenced border with Saudi Arabia may be a barrier to movement.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
Not_assigned
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: Not_assigned
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
Habitat loss and degradation are likely to represent the major threat to the Sand Cat through overgrazing by camels and other livestock and expansion of roads and settlements. “Dune bashing' may further damage fragile sand dune habitat. Sand Cats are vulnerable to indiscriminate trapping and poisoning of predators, but they are unlikely to be directly targeted. In view of the widely scattered known localities, fragmentation may also be a factor, but this requires further investigation (Mallon and Budd 2011). Fencing may impede movement, and depending on mesh size, cause injury or death (cases of Sand Cat mortality in fence lines in Saudi Arabia were reported by Sher Shah and Cunningham 2008).
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Further information
History
The information collected since 1996 indicates a population (<) 250 mature individuals and it appears to have undergone some declines, probably due to loss of habitat in parts of its range due to overgrazing and increasing infrastructure. There might also have been some persecution. Hornby (1996) assessed the species as Endangered, however, we consider that there would likely have been more than 250 mature individuals back then, so backcasted it to be Vulnerable (VU D).
Verified entry
Off

Eretmochelys imbricata | UAE National Red List of Herpetofauna: Amphibians & Terrestrial Reptiles, Sea Snakes & Marine Turtles

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Within the UAE the species uses sandy beaches for nesting. Whilst several of the nesting sites are within protected areas, they are often in near proximity to developed areas.No new nesting sites are likely due to extensive development.A four-year research project monitoring post-nesting Hawksbill turtles in the Gulf identified foraging habitats that were spread over vast areas but at the individual turtle level they typically ranged over only 40-60 km<sup>2</sup> with core areas of only 3-5 km<sup>2</sup> in size (Pilcher et al. 2014a). Based on the project ground-truthing surveys, the feeding areas were found to be limited to small reef mounds only a few 100s of metres across. In addition, the project revealed short-term migrations that were related to temporal climatic shifts during the summer months. The results indicate that Gulf Hawksbills employ thermoregulatory responses moving to northern and cooler areas during the summer. This type of behaviour is presumably taking them out of high temperature and potentially physiology-threatening conditions. Growth and reproduction are integrally linked to foraging ecology (Bjorndal 1997) and limitations to foraging or food availability can impact the productivity of individuals and populations. Similarly, exposure to temperatures which exceed normal tolerances can lead to a decrease in nutritional uptake and growth. Gulf turtles are amongst the smallest adult turtles worldwide, in comparison to Omani turtles which are an average of 10 cm larger in carapace length as nesting adults, suggesting that growth in Gulf turtles is nutrient-limited.Hawksbills mainly feed on corals, sponges and crustaceans. In the water, the species is reef-associated, and reefs are undergoing a continuing decline in extent and quality. In the western Arabian Gulf, the species was found using more fragmented feeding sites (and females were &lt;10 cm shorter than females from Oman).Hawksbills in the UAE may nest up to six times in a season with an average of three nests per turtle (Pilcher et al. 2014a), with 2-3 nests per female noted locally, however, recent genetic analysis found lower numbers of nests per female, at least in Dubai and Sir Bu Nair (A. Natoli pers. comm. 2018). The distribution of foraging habitat in the Gulf region has been described by Pilcher et al. (2014a) based on satellite tracking of 90 post-nesting female Hawksbills from nesting sites in Iran, Oman, Qatar and the UAE. In this study most of the turtles tagged in Qatar, Iran and the UAE migrated to southern and southwestern waters in the Gulf shared by the UAE and Qatar. A smaller number of turtles migrated northward towards Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Turtles spent 68% of the time in foraging grounds with home ranges of 40-“60 km<sup>2</sup> and small core areas of 6 km<sup>2</sup> were found to be larger than those used by Omani turtles (core areas ~3 km<sup>2</sup>). In addition, adult female turtles from the Arabian Gulf were significantly smaller than Omani turtles (by ~11 cm CCL). Arabian Gulf turtles spend an average of 20% of time undertaking summer migration loops, a thermoregulatory response to avoid elevated sea surface temperatures, as the Arabian Gulf regularly experiences sustained sea surface temperatures of over 30 '°C (Pilcher et al. 2014b).Genetic analyses revealed differences in mating behaviour between Sir Bu Na'air, Dubai and Abu Dhabi nesting sites, with a high level of single paternity in Dubai and Abu Dhabi nests and high multiple paternity in Sir Bu Na'air nests. Across the time of the study (2008 -2010) no females were detected to nest in more than one nesting site and males rarely sired at different nesting sites, further supporting the presence of different breeding grounds in UAE (Natoli et al. 2017).In the Arabian region, Hawksbill turtles deposit multiple clutches and nest during the short summer seasons, typically between April/May and July (Pilcher et al. 2014a).Hawksbills nest on insular and mainland sandy beaches throughout the tropics and subtropics. Newly emerged hatchlings enter the sea and are carried by offshore currents into major gyre systems where they remain until reaching a carapace length of some 20 to 30 cm (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). However, recent studies (Vargas et al. 2015, Natoli et al. 2017) have found the species to have more distinct sub-populations, including a clade restricted to the Gulf. One in the sea, they move into foraging habitat that may comprise coral reefs or other hard bottom habitats, seagrass, algal beds, or mangrove bays and creeks (Musick and Limpus 1997) or mud flats. As they increase in size, immature turtles typically inhabit a series of habitats, with some tendency for larger turtles to inhabit deeper sites (van Dam and Diez 1997, Bowen et al. 2007). Once sexually mature, they undertake breeding migrations between foraging grounds and breeding areas at intervals of several years (Witzell 1983, Dobbs et al. 1999). Global population genetic studies have demonstrated the tendency of female sea turtles to return to breed at their natal rookery (Bowen and Karl 1997), even though as juveniles they may have foraged at developmental habitats located hundreds or thousands of kilometres from the natal beach. While Hawksbills undertake long migrations, some portion of immature animals may settle into foraging habitats near their beaches of origin (Bowen et al. 2007). Generation Length (from Mortimer and Donnelly 2008)Generation length is defined here as the age to maturity plus one half the reproductive longevity (Pianka 1974). Hawksbills mature very slowly, taking 20 to 40 years, and so are long-lived (Chaloupka and Musick 1997). Age to maturity in the Indo-Pacific requires a minimum of 30-35 years (Limpus 1992, Limpus and Miller 2000, Mortimer et al. 2002, 2003).Data on reproductive longevity in Hawksbills are limited, but becoming available with increasing numbers of intensively monitored, long-term projects on protected beaches. During the last decade, numerous individual Caribbean Hawksbills have been recorded actively nesting over a period of 14-22 years (Parrish and Goodman 2006). In the Indo-Pacific Mortimer and Bresson (1999) and Limpus (1992) have reported nesting over 17-20 years, comparable to other Chelonid turtles which range from 20 to 30 years (Carr et al. 1978, FitzSimmons et al. 1995).Given estimated ages to maturity of 25 years in the Caribbean and 35 years in the Indo-Pacific, with half of reproductive longevity estimated at ten years, a conservative generation length of 35 years (25 + 10 years) is calculated for the Caribbean and Western Atlantic, and 45 years (35 + 10 years) in the Indo-Pacific. In analyzing the data, declines over three generations are therefore measured for up to 135 years in the Indo-Pacific. In fact, generation length may well have been longer in the days when population density was higher (Bjorndal et al. 2000).
Taxon
Taxa
Eretmochelys imbricata | (Linnaeus, 1766)
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Reptiles
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxonomic Notes
Genetic analyses in the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific indicate that nesting populations comprise separate and identifiable stocks that should be treated as separate management units (Bass et al. 1996, Bowen et al. 1996, Bowen and Karl 2007). Hawksbill aggregations on foraging grounds comprise animals from multiple nesting populations and often include animals from distant rookeries (Broderick et al. 1994, Bowen et al. 2007).
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
This species is found throughout the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates (<a href=""http://seamap.env.duke.edu/species/173833"">OBIS-SEAMAP</a>; Halpin et al. 2009), although feeding areas are concentrated, based on a study of tracked post-nesting females, in central and western areas of the Arabian Gulf, with lesser numbers found in eastern parts of the Arabian Gulf and along the Gulf of Oman (Pilcher et al. 2014a). The species has been found to forage and nest along the mainland coast and on the islands of Abu Dhabi Emirate (Al-Ghais 2013, EAD 2016). The EOO, based on confirmed, active, nesting sites, is 30,351 km<sup>2</sup>.The extant sites known to support successful annual nesting attempts were used to estimate the AOO for this species, and are listed below;<ul><li> Abu Dhabi more than ten nesting sites with an average of 180 nests per year<u>Marawah Marine Biosphere Reserve</u>: 5-14 nests/year (Bu Tinah); &lt;5 nests/year (Jinanah).<u>Al Yasat Protected Area</u>: &gt;15 nests/year (Al Yasat Al Ulya); 5-15 nests/year (Um Al Hatab); &lt;5 nests/year (Ghaghah, Muhayyimat, Al Yasat Al Sufla).<u>Other islands</u>: &gt;15 nests/year (Zarkuh, Arzanah, Diyenah, Qarnen); 5-14 nests/year (Ghasha); &lt;5 nests/year (Um al Kurkum, Abu Al Abyad, Ras Ghanada, Saadiyat Island (but no successful nesting in 2017-2018)). No recent nesting recorded from Das Island.</li><li> Sharjah Sir Bu Na'ir (229 nests in 2018, with an annual average of c.300 per year (H. Das pers. comm. 2019).</li><li> Dubai Jebel Ali: 45 nests (in 2018) and increasing, however, this nesting beach is at high risk if work on Palm Jebel Ali recommences.</li></ul>The AOO, based on the known active nesting sites, is restricted, estimated at &gt;100 km<sup>2</sup> (assessment workshop data, and Abu Dhabi nesting site map via H. Das pers. comm. 2019.) using a 2 x 2 km grid (IUCN 2017), and whilst this may be an underestimate, the AOO will not exceed 500 km<sup>2</sup>. The species occurs in 9-11 locations, according to the IUCN Red List Guidelines (IUCN 2017), based on the currently known nesting sites and the threats that they face and the protected area management regimes within which they occur.A single nest was reported on the east coast at Khor Kalba in 2015 (Hebbelmann et al. 2016), probably by a turtle of Omani origin as there seems to be no movement between turtles from nesting sites in Oman and those in the Arabian Gulf (N. Pilcher pers. comm. 2018). Although significant given the rarity of nesting on the east coast of the UAE, this nest is excluded from the AOO estimate until repeated nesting occurs there.Within the Arabian Gulf, the species is known to nest on Saudi Arabian islands, at three minor sites in Kuwait, at a small number of sites in Iran, and on islands off the UAE (Pilcher et al. 2014a), and Qatar (c.200 Hawksbills nest annually at Fuwairit, Ras Laffan and Halul), with some additional sites known (Pilcher et al. 2015). The species undertakes summer northeasterly migrations into the deeper parts of the Gulf from July to August, followed by returns from September to October (Pilcher et al. 2014b). It is important to note that these migrations have been found to be a unique and adaptive behavioural response to high water temperatures in the Gulf during the summer months.The species has a circumglobal distribution throughout tropical and, to a lesser extent, subtropical waters of the Atlantic, Indian, and the Pacific oceans. However, Vargas (et al. 2015) found separation between populations inhabiting different oceans (Atlantic vs Indo-Pacific), as well as different clades within the Indo-Pacific region, one of which is defined by the Gulf subpopulation.Globally, Hawksbill nesting occurs in at least 70 countries, although much of it now only at low densities (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008, incl. Supplementary Material). Their movements within the marine environment are less understood, but Hawksbills are believed to inhabit coastal waters in more than 108 countries (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008).
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Vulnerable
Assessment status abreviation
VU
Assessment status criteria
B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv); D1
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
This species is found throughout the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates, although feeding areas are concentrated in the central and western areas of the Arabian Gulf, with very few found in eastern parts of the Arabian Gulf and along the Gulf of Oman. The species nests within the Arabian Gulf, and in the UAE nesting is primarily occurs on off-shore islands, although nesting also currently occurs on the mainland coast at Jebel Ali. A single recent occurrence at Khor Kalba on the east coast is excluded from the assessment until repeated annual nesting occurs. Some historical nesting sites, both on the islands and on the mainland, are no longer used. The extent of occurrence (EOO), based on known active nesting sites within the UAE exceeds 30,000 km<sup>2</sup>. The area of occupancy (AOO), based on the known nesting sites, is restricted, estimated at very much less than 500 km<sup>2</sup> using a 2 x 2 km grid (IUCN 2017). The species occurs in ten locations (with those within Marawah Marine Biosphere Reserve and the Al Yasat MPA considered a single location in each case), again based on the currently known nesting sites.With the currently available information, the species is assessed as Vulnerable (VU B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv); D1) on the basis of the restricted AOO and number of locations, with an observed continuing decline in the quality and extent of habitat, especially of nesting beaches, and an inferred continuing decline in the number of locations, with some sites not experiencing regular nesting activity (e.g., Al Siniyah) and others at risk (e.g., Jebel Ali). The species also qualifies as VU under criterion D1 given that there are estimated to be fewer than 1,000 mature individuals.Although natal homing imprecision means that some individuals originating outside the UAE may nest within the UAE, the potential rescue effect is not considered significant, and there is no regional adjustment to the assigned category.The ongoing conservation actions and research for this species within the UAE need to be maintained and expanded. In particular, monitoring and research are essential to the understanding of long-term future population trends, and actions are needed to protect nesting sites, especially those not currently within protected areas. This species should be reassessed for the UAE National Red List if new data become available on population size or trend, or on the impact of the known threats.Even though most currently-utilised nesting habitat for Hawksbill turtles is currently under some level of protection, we cannot assume that nesting and feeding habitats within Protected Areas are not at risk, as different activities with the potential to impact on the quality of these habitats may still take place within or near the boundaries of these areas. Therefore, monitoring and implementation of management plans should be exercised and assessed to infer the potential level of impact and risks to Hawksbill turtle populations, and to assess the efficacy of both management plans and protected area management for this species.The evidence of fine-scale population structure within the UAE and between the UAE and other nesting colonies in the Arabian Gulf provided by the study of Natoli et al. (2017) is relevant, even though based on a small sample size, as it provides an overall picture of the metapopulation dynamic for hawksbill turtles, where restricted gene flow between northern and southern areas of the Gulf, and between the inshore and offshore nesting colonies in the UAE, particularly Sir Bu Nair and Dubai nesting areas, exist. From these findings, one could infer that the known threats may have differential effects across subpopulations, and impacts may be particularly significant on those with a reduced number of nesters, as is the case of Dubai (the Jebel Ali nesting colony), with implications for the entire UAE subpopulation. As a result, future assessments would have to assess this impact carefully, and the species might well qualify for the Endangered category on the basis of actual or future declines in the numbers of mature individuals.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1 + Regional Guidelines v4.0
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
Not_assigned
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: Not_assigned
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
In the Arabian region, the impact of human activities remains largely unchecked and present the primary threat to Hawksbill turtles in UAE waters. The following threats have been described, with boat strike, fishing gear entanglement, marine debris ingestion, and nesting habitat destruction resulting from rapid coastal development representing the primary threats. Destruction of nesting habitat Coastlines in the UAE have undergone very rapid urban, industrial and tourism development, which has led to the destruction of nesting habitat, especially on the mainland. some island nesting sites have been less impacted, for example, those occurring within the Marawah Biosphere Reserve. Because Hawksbills prefer to nest under vegetation they are particularly impacted by beach-front development and the clearance of dune vegetation. Gas and oil refineries may seriously disrupt nesting habitat.Nesting habitat destruction has been rapid and extensive in the UAE, and has not yet ceased. For example, the Jebel Ali nesting site is likely to be severely impacted or lost if the development of Palm Jebel Ali recommences. Fisheries bycatch Hawksbills are particularly susceptible to entanglement in gill nets and capture on fishing hooks (Mortimer 1998). The full extent of the impact of fisheries bycatch on Hawksbill turtle populations is not yet well understood in the UAE. It is considered that increasing numbers of adults are stranding with evidence of drowning in fishing gear (Pilcher et al. 2008). Recent assessments in the Gulf region raise concerns about the potentially high impact that fisheries bycatch may have on turtles (83.6% of bycatch composition, representing ~4,726 captures year (Abdulqader et al. 2017). Boat strike, entanglement and ingestion of marine debris Ingestion of marine debris by Hawksbills is significant (White 2004). Recent research found that the majority of turtle strandings (including Hawksbill) in Abu Dhabi showed evidence of human interaction (boat strike 20% and entanglement 58%) (EAD 2016). Oil pollution There is evidence oil pollution has a greater impact on Hawksbills than on other species of turtle (Meylan and Redlow 2006). In some parts of the world (especially the Middle East) oil pollution is a major problem. Natural threats relevant to the UAE Hawksbill turtles are also subject to a range of natural threats. The Arabian Gulf undergoes extreme water and air temperature fluctuations, which present climate-related challenges to species diversity and distribution. Many smaller turtles strand in the Arabian Gulf from cold-stunning in the winter months (Pilcher et al. 2014b, 2015). Shell, egg and meat trade and consumption Despite listing of all Hawksbill populations on Appendix I of CITES since 1977, trade continued at high levels, with Japan continuing to import shell under a CITES reservation (exception) until 1993. Illegal trade continues, but there is no information on how this trade impacts the populations found in UAE waters. Intense levels of egg exploitation continue in many parts of the world., and adult and juvenile Hawksbills are still killed for meat in many areas, and in some areas turtle meat is used by fishermen as shark bait (J. Mortimer and C. Lagueux unpubl. data 2008). Again, there is no evidence of consumption in the UAE at present. Destruction of foraging habitat Hawksbills are typically associated with coral reefs, which are among the world's most endangered marine ecosystems. Climate change has led to massive coral bleaching events with permanent consequences for local habitats.In the Arabian Gulf, corals exist in a naturally extreme environment (Sheppard et al. 1992) at the absolute limit of their environmental tolerances (Riegl et al. 2011). Sea surface temperatures can fluctuate by more than &gt;20'°C over the course of a single year, with summer daily-mean temperatures of &gt;35'°C, while winter winds can chill water to &lt;12'°C (Sheppard et al. 1992, 2010). Corals in the Arabian Gulf also survive in a hypersaline environment year round with salinities regularly &gt;42 ppt (Sheppard et al. 1992) with significant seasonal insolation fluctuations (Sheppard et al. 2010). Partly as a result of these conditions, marine macrobenthos in the Arabian Gulf is limited in diversity and distribution (Basson et al. 1977, Al-Yamani et al. 2009). Corals in the Arabian Gulf are not only subject to natural stressors, but are also subject to increasing pressure from anthropogenic impacts such as overfishing, large-scale coastal development (Sheppard et al. 2010, Sale et al. 2011) and bleaching events as a result of human-induced climate change (Riegl et al. 2011).Coral reefs in the Arabian Gulf were severely affected by thermal bleaching in both 1996 and 1998 (Riegl 2002), and to a lesser extent in 2002 and 2010 (Foster et al. 2012), causing extensive loss of coral cover from patch reefs located along the coastline in the UAE (Riegl 1999, Sheppard and Loughland 2002). A shift in dominance towards faviids and poritids was also noted as well as spatial variation of coral communities with some areas showing low species richness (Burt et al. 2011). The loss of acroporid dominated communities and the shift to poritid and faviid dominated communities was reported by Bauman et al. (2012) to have occurred more widely than previously thought.The knock-on effect on other reef-dependent organisms is largely unknown, although Buchanan et al. (2015) identified 23 coral-dependent fishes of the Arabian Gulf and determined that, due to the limited area and degraded and fragmented nature of coral assemblages in the Arabian Gulf, all coral-dependent fishes were at elevated risk of extinction as defined by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species' Categories and Criteria. Hybridisation and population constraints At certain sites where Hawksbill numbers are particularly low, they regularly hybridise with other species of sea turtles.A recent study (Natoli et al. 2017) raised concerns over the genetic viability of the UAE - and the wider Arabian Gulf - population of this species. The study found UAE individuals to have low genetic variability, with differences between populations both within the Arabian Gulf and between the Gulf and Indian Ocean populations, and that the Gulf population overall experienced a bottleneck/founder event. Predation Nest disturbance and the predation of eggs and young turtles by native and non-native (e.g., domestic dogs) is an unquantified threat but may be significant at some sites. For example, the single known nesting attempt on the east coast of the UAE was predated by an Arabian red fox (Hebbelmann et al. 2016).
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Verified entry
Off

Rhyneptesicus nasutus | UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial

Location
Scope (Assessment)
National
Countries in Assessment
United Arab Emirates
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Off
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Ecological system type
Terrestrial system
No
Freshwater system
No
Marine system
No
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Occupies a diverse range of habitats: open desert, oases, coastal outcrops, and mountain wadis (Judas et al. 2018).
Taxon
Taxa
Rhyneptesicus nasutus | (Dobson, 1877)
Taxonomic Group
Vertebrates
Taxonomic Group Level 2
Mammals
Assessed taxon level
Species
Taxonomic Notes
Juste et al. (2013) reassigned this taxon to the genus Rhyneptesicus Bianchi, 1917 based molecular phylogenetics. Four subspecies -“ R. n. nasutus (Southwest Pakistan, Afghanistan and Southeast Iran), R. n. matschiei (Southwest Arabia), R. n. pellucens (Iran and Iraq), and R. n. batinensis (Eastern Arabia including Oman and Saudi Arabia), are recognised (Benda and Gaisler 2015, Juste et al. 2013).
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
This species is widespread across the UAE from the western border to the Hajar Mountains and south to the edge of the Rub Al Khali. There are records from Abu Dhabi (Ras Ghanadha, Ruwais, Shah oilfield south of Liwa); Dubai (Bab al Shams); Fujairah (Wadi Wurayah National Park) and Sharjah (Judas et al. 2018). The species is widely but patchily recorded in the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Sharifi et al. 2008).
Assessed status
Asessment status in full
Least concern
Assessment status abreviation
LC
About the assessment
Assessment year
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Affliation of assessor(s)/contributors/reviewers listed on assessment
Government
IGO
Assessor affiliation specific
Government|IGO
Assessment rationale/justification
This species is widespread across the UAE from the western border to the Hajar Mountains and south to the edge of the Rub Al Khali. It is assessed as Least Concern because it is widespread and there is no evidence of a decline and no major threats. No regional adjustment is made to the Least Concern assessment.
Criteria system
Criteria system specifics
IUCN v3.1
Criteria system used
IUCN
Criteria Citation
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 32pp pp. And IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Endemism
Endemic to region
Not_assigned
Endemism Notes
Is an endemic?: Not_assigned
Conservation
Threats listed in assessment
Unknown. The increasing extent and intensity of urban lighting may have a negative impact on nocturnal flying invertebrates, the main prey base. Species in the mountains may be affected indirectly by falling water tables due to over-abstraction and reduced precipitation.
Conservation Measures

Conservation measures:
Conservation measures notes:
Required conservation measures:

Further information
History
Hornby (1996) assessed the species as Data Deficient, however, we consider it likely that the species would have qualified as Least Concern in 1996.
Verified entry
Off