Please note, this National Red List website contains a subset of data whilst we transition to national focal point driven data uploads. We thank you for your patience with this and welcome national contributors to get in touch to update their national dataset. Terms of Use including citation guidance are found here.

The previous dataset is available via: https://archive.nationalredlist.org/. This site is no longer updated but can help with most enquiries whilst we focus on redevelopment.

VU

Assessment ID
329822
Taxon name
Eretmochelys imbricata
(Linnaeus, 1766)
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Eretmochelys imbricata
(Linnaeus, 1766)
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Reptiles
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
reptilia
Order
testudines
Family
cheloniidae
Genus
Eretmochelys
Species
imbricata
Species authority
(Linnaeus, 1766)
Taxonomic notes and synonyms listed
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).
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
United Arab Emirates (the)
Scope (of the Assessment)
National
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
United Arab Emirates (the)
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Qualifying criteria (if given)
B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv); D1
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

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.
Assessment details
Year assessed
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
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.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
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).
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
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).
Threats and conservation measures listed
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).
Publication
Els, J., Allen, D., Hilton-Taylor, C., Harding, K. (2019). UAE National Red List of Herpetofauna: Amphibians & Terrestrial Reptiles, Sea Snakes & Marine Turtles. MOCCAE, UAE
Assessment ID
329818
Taxon name
Chelonia mydas
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Chelonia mydas
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Reptiles
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
reptilia
Order
testudines
Family
cheloniidae
Genus
Chelonia
Species
mydas
Species authority
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
United Arab Emirates (the)
Scope (of the Assessment)
National
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
United Arab Emirates (the)
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Qualifying criteria (if given)
C1
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

Assessment rationale/justification
Green turtles occur throughout UAE territorial waters as passage animals (from the primary nesting sites in Oman and Yemen) to the Arabian Gulf and in foraging habitats. Extensive nesting used to occur, on the east coast at least, however, this declined and then ceased with the commencement of extensive coastal development, however, there have been recent reports from both the Gulf of Oman coast and the Arabian Gulf coast of nesting attempts by Green turtles.Extrapolating from population surveys undertaken in protected areas in Abu Dhabi coastal waters, it is suspected that the overall number of mature individuals occurring within UAE territorial waters is likely to be less than 10,000. Whilst the current population trend is not known, a future continuing decline in the number of mature individuals is inferred from the three primary threats; ingestion of marine debris, boat strikes, entanglement (in marine debris, including abandoned and lost fishing gear), and habitat loss from a range of drivers. The scale of this population decline is uncertain, but it is reasonable to suspect a decline of at least 10% in the number of mature individuals over a 100-year time frame (one generation length = 42.8 years). As a result, the Green turtle is assessed as Vulnerable (VU C1). Whilst nesting attempts have recommenced in UAE waters, this contribution to the population is at present not significant, and the Green turtle is considered a non-breeding visitor for this national assessment. The condition of the North West Indian Ocean population is considered to still be deteriorating, and so there is no change in the category for this national assessment. Populations outside the UAE are impacted by light pollution at nesting sites in Oman (resulting in declines in recruitment), whilst the impact of other threats such as bioaccumulation of heavy metals, the long-term impacts of oil pollution, mortality of hatchlings in beach debris, and increased storm and other climatic change, require ongoing research.
Assessment details
Year assessed
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
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.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
Green turtles are by far the most abundant species of turtle in the Arabian region and the population there makes up a substantial percentage of the global population, with large populations located in Oman and Yemen (Ross and Barwani 1982, Nasher and Jumaily 2015). The species occurs throughout UAE waters in the Arabian Gulf and the Sea of Oman (<a href=""http://seamap.env.duke.edu/"" style="""">OBIS-SEAMAP</a>; Halpin et al. 2009). In the UAE, foraging aggregations are reported in waters off Abu Dhabi (EAD 2016), Ras Al Khaimah (Al-Ghais et al. 1998), Umm Al Quwain (Emirates Nature-WWF), and feed in large aggregations in the Alqurm protected area in Khor Kalba on the Gulf of Oman coast (EPAA Sharjah internal reports). Linkages between foraging areas in UAE and nesting sites in Oman have been demonstrated through a tracking project of Emirates Nature. One female has been tracked from the eastern coast of UAE to the Bay of Bengal (near the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Robinson et al. 2017).Green turtles nest in the Arabian Gulf in the waters of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran in limited numbers with the exception of Bahrain and Qatar (Pilcher et al. 2015), with extensive nesting occurring on beaches in Oman and Yemen. In the UAE, there are historical references from fishers and local communities to nesting sites in several places along the UAE coast, including on Sir Bu Na'air Island (Sharjah), and in 2010 Al Suweidi et al. (2012) reported infrequent nesting on the island, then in 2014 a single nest was found on the east coast at Khor Kalba in the Alqurm protected area (Hebbelmann et al. 2016), two years after this site was designated as a protected area and thirty years after last recording nesting. The local community at Khor Kalba had reported up to 50 nesting females using the beach each season, however, nesting had declined and then ceased in the 1980s (Hebbelmann et al. 2016).In Abu Dhabi, there are no significant wide and long sandy beaches of the kind of habitat found elsewhere in the region where animals nest, and it is likely that historically there were no extensive nesting sites on the Arabian Gulf coast of the UAE, however, the extent of previous nesting occurrence in the UAE prior to intensive development is uncertain.The Green turtle has a circumglobal distribution, occurring throughout tropical and, to a lesser extent, subtropical waters (Atlantic Ocean -“ eastern central, northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest, western central; Indian Ocean -“ eastern, western; Mediterranean Sea; Pacific Ocean -“ eastern central, northwest, southwest, western central). Green turtles are highly migratory and they undertake complex movements and migrations through geographically disparate habitats. Nesting occurs in more than 80 countries worldwide (Hirth 1997). Their movements within the marine environment are less understood but it is believed that green turtles inhabit coastal waters of over 140 countries (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989).
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Within the UAE, the main foraging areas are associated with seagrass beds along the Arabian Gulf coast from Ras Al Khaimah to Abu Dhabi. On the east coast, the species is likely to forage on algae, cephalopods, small fishes, seagrass etc (F. Yagmour pers. comm. 2018). The EPAA Sharjah is in the process of concluding a study on the diet component of green turtles from the Gulf of Oman. There has been extensive coastal habitat change within the UAE, however, the scale of impacts on turtle habitats is less well known. It is assumed that foraging habitat, especially seagrass beds have declined, but there are no precise estimates of the scale of decline. AGEDI (2013) found seagrass beds in the Arabian Gulf as a whole to be poorly represented in protected areas and considered the seagrass ecosystem to be Endangered, however extensive areas of seagrass occur in UAE waters. Within Abu Dhabi Emirate, seagrass beds are a protected critical habitat and represented within several marine protected areas (Al Dhaheri et al. 2017). Despite this, a continuing decline in habitat quality and extent is inferred based on a range of threats, including coastal development and pollution, oil spills, dredging and so on.The seagrass meadows of the Arabian Gulf are poorly studied (Campbell et al. 2015). The most extensive seagrass meadows in the Arabian Gulf are found along the coast of Abu Dhabi Emirate, while seagrass can also be found in other Emirates; such as Al Taweelah and Jebel Ali (Erftemeijer and Shuail 2012), as well as Khor al Beidah in Umm al Qawain, and Ras Al Khaimah (Emirates Nature -“ WWF in press). The waters of the Arabian Gulf are subject to large variations in salinity and temperature (Price and Coles 1992), and these conditions contribute to the presence of the opportunistic, short-lived seagrass species in the UAE that recover quickly and rapidly recolonize open substrate. The large variations in sea surface temperature result in stress that places limits on survival and colonization (Price and Coles 1992). The presence of only three species of seagrass (Halophila ovalis, Halodule uninervis, Halophila stipulacea) in the Gulf might be related to these environmental conditions (Campbell et al. 2015). Like most sea turtles, this species is highly migratory and use a wide range of broadly separated localities and habitats during their lifetimes. Upon leaving the nesting beach, hatchlings begin an oceanic phase, perhaps floating passively in major current systems (gyres) that serve as open-ocean developmental grounds. After a number of years in the oceanic zone, these turtles recruit to neritic developmental areas rich in seagrass and/or marine algae where they forage and grow until maturity. Upon attaining sexual maturity, turtles commence breeding migrations between foraging grounds and nesting areas that are undertaken every few years. Migrations are carried out by both males and females and may traverse oceanic zones, often spanning thousands of kilometres. During non-breeding periods adults reside at coastal neritic feeding areas that sometimes coincide with juvenile developmental habitats.The generation length of the turtles found in UAE waters is estimated at 42.8 years (see <a href=""http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T4615A11037468.en"">Table 3, Supplementary material, Seminoff 2004</a>).
Threats and conservation measures listed
Threats listed in assessment
Sheppard et al. (2010) reported on the unprecedented changes to Arabian Gulf marine and coastal habitats over the past decade, which has seen rapid industrial development, large-scale land reclamation, coastal infrastructure, tourism and housing development, and long-term fisheries activities, all of which have caused widespread loss and degradation of benthic habitats. Seagrass habitats in the Arabian Gulf have suffered as a consequence though there are no published reports on the scale of these impacts or the extent and rates of decline (Erftemeijer and Shuail, 2012). The species faces a range of significant threats in UAE waters; Boat strikes In Abu Dhabi, it was found that 20% of all stranded turtles died from vessel strikes. EPAA Sharjah is in the process of concluding a three-year study on the impact of boat strikes on marine turtles, including this species (EAD 2016). Boat strike occurrence on the eastern coast of Sharjah is also frequent. Fisheries bycatch The full extent of impact on green turtle populations is not yet well understood in the UAE, but 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).On the east coast, fishers report that turtles are often caught, but that they are released alive. Entanglement and ingestion of marine debris The understanding of the level of impact of marine debris and entanglement on marine turtle is limited for the region, but recent findings of marine debris ingestion by green turtles indicate a potentially high level of interaction between these turtles and marine debris along the Gulf of Oman coast of the UAE (Yaghmour et al. 2018a,b).In Abu Dhabi, 52% of marine turtle mortalities were attributed to entanglement in abandoned fishing gear. A recent EPAA study found that sea turtles may also be caught in abandoned gargoor fish traps (EAD 2016, Yaghmour et al. 2018b). Coastal development Green turtles are typically associated with seagrass beds that grow in shallow waters and therefore are affected by coastal development. Turtles have been found within water intakes of desalination plants but it is not known if this species is impacted by this threat. Natural threats relevant to the UAE Green turtles are also subject to 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 (Robinson et al. 2017), although these threats may not be so significant to this species. At the global scale, the species may be impacted by a range of threats, however, the impact of these threats on animals found in UAE waters is not known. Pollution and pathogens Marine pollution and debris that affect marine turtles (i.e. through ingestion or entanglement, disorientation caused by artificial lights), as well as impacts of pervasive pathogens (e.g. Fibropapilloma virus causing Fibropapillomatosis) on turtle health, although there are no records at present of this virus in UAE waters.The EPAA Sharjah is in the process of concluding a three-year study on the impact of oil spills on marine turtles which include this species. Marine debris (plastics, ropes, is a significant threat to this species. A study from the east coast found 86% of dead individuals found contained marine debris. Climate change Current and future impacts from climate change on marine turtles and their habitats (e.g. increasing sand temperatures on nesting beaches affecting hatchling sex ratios, sea level rise, storm frequency and intensity affecting nesting habitats, etc.). A primary turtle foraging habitat, seagrass beds, is known to be sensitive to increasing temperatures (Arias-Ortiz et al. 2018).
Publication
Els, J., Allen, D., Hilton-Taylor, C., Harding, K. (2019). UAE National Red List of Herpetofauna: Amphibians & Terrestrial Reptiles, Sea Snakes & Marine Turtles. MOCCAE, UAE
Assessment ID
329855
Taxon name
Vulpes cana
Blanford, 1877
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Vulpes cana
Blanford, 1877
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Mammals
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
mammalia
Order
carnivora
Family
canidae
Genus
Vulpes
Species
cana
Species authority
Blanford, 1877
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
United Arab Emirates (the)
Scope (of the Assessment)
National
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
United Arab Emirates (the)
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Qualifying criteria (if given)
D1
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

Assessment rationale/justification
This species is now restricted in the UAE to upland areas within the Hajar Mountains and Jebel Hafeet. It is assessed as Vulnerable under criterion D1 because the population size is estimated to be less than 1,000 and may well be close to 250 based on the information from recent sightings. The assessment is not adjusted as there is unlikely to be any rescue effect from populations in adjoining countries.
Assessment details
Year assessed
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
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.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
The species was first confirmed in the UAE by Stuart and Stuart (1995). Subsequent research using camera traps and live traps has shown it to be common throughout the Hajar Mountains up to the Oman border on the Musandam Peninsula and on Jebel Hafeet, where a skull was found in 2009 (Llewellyn-Smith 2000, Aspinall et al. 2005, Mallon and Budd 2011). Locations include Wadi Bih, Wadi Shawka, Wadi Shuwayhah, Wadi Ziqt (Cunningham and Howarth 2002). It has been recently camera trapped in Wadi Wurayah and is quite often camera trapped in Ras Al Khaimah. However, in the mountains of Sharjah Emirate and at Hatta in Dubai there have been no records of the species in the last few years, only Red Fox, although access to the wadis in Hatta area has been restricted in recent years, hindering possible surveys. It was described as common at levels on Jebel Hafeet by Drew (2004) but There have been no records from Jebel Hafeet for the last few years where Red Foxes, feral dogs and feral cats now dominate the area. This is most likely due to transformation of the habitat due primarily to release of waste water and subsequent changes to the vegetation on the mountain, and with increased human presence, as well as residential and amenity development at the base. Globally, Blanford's Fox occurs in the mountains around the rim of the Arabian Peninsula including Sinai (Egypt), Iran, Turkmenistan and Pakistan. There is a single record from Egypt west of the Suez Canal (Hoffmann and Sillero-Zubiri 2015).
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Restricted to the mountains and avoids the foothills and plains inhabited by Vulpes vulpes. Nocturnal. Extremely agile and an exceptional jumper, this species preys on invertebrates, reptiles, small mammals and fruit. Very little is known about their social structure. In captivity, two to four young are normally born between February and April after a gestation period of approximately 50 days (Aspinall et al. 2005). One analysis of faeces (n=4) showed that the diet of this species includes a variety of insects (Mantodea, Orthoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera) and spiders, a feather, unidentified bone remains, a gerbil incisor, fur, a reptile pelvis and snail remains (Cunningham and Howarth 2002). The diet also includes fruit seeds and plant material, selection of species depending on what is available locally (Cunningham and Howarth 2002). This study also noted the difference in tail tip colour: out of ten individuals caught in the UAE, seven had black tail tips and two white tips.
Threats and conservation measures listed
Threats listed in assessment
Habitat in the Hajar Mountains is being lost, degraded and fragmented by quarrying, road building, pipelines, and residential and tourism development. On Jebel Hafeet, the available habitat has been reduced by development along the lower reaches (Drew and Tourenq 2005) and this factor now also affects the upper slopes. Blanford's Fox may be affected by generalised predator persecution but is unlikely to be targeted specifically. It may also be outcompeted by the larger and more adaptable Vulpes vulpes taking advantage of expanding developments in the mountains.
History
The backcasted 1996 assessment for this species is Vulnerable under criterion D1 which matches the listing given by Hornby (1996).
Publication
Mallon, D., Hilton-Taylor, C., Allen, D., & Harding, K. (2019). UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial. A report to the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment, United Arab Emirates (p. 41). IUCN Global Species Programme. https://bit.ly/2RdZCQR
Assessment ID
329850
Taxon name
Taphozous nudiventris
Cretzschmar, 1830
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Taphozous nudiventris
Cretzschmar, 1830
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Mammals
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
mammalia
Order
chiroptera
Family
emballonuridae
Genus
Taphozous
Species
nudiventris
Species authority
Cretzschmar, 1830
Taxonomic notes and synonyms listed
Simmons (2005) assigns four subspecies to Taphozous nudiventris: T. n. kachhensis Dobson, 1872; T. n. magnus Wettstein 1913; T. n. nudaster Thomas, 1915; and T. n. zayidi Harrison, 1955. The enigmatic taxon T. n. serratus Heuglin, 1877 has been variously referred to either Taphozous nudiventris (e.g., Allen 1939, Koopman 1993) or Scotophilus leucogaster (e.g., Allen 1939, Koopman 1975), although it might not represent either of these species. See Felten (1962), Hayman and Hill (1971), Bates and Harrison (1991, 1997) and Bates et al. (1994) for further information on this taxon.
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
United Arab Emirates (the)
Scope (of the Assessment)
National
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
United Arab Emirates (the)
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Qualifying criteria (if given)
D1
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

Assessment rationale/justification
Within the UAE, this species is known from a colony at Qarn Nazwa (Dubai) and further records from Al Ain (Sharjah) and Das Island (Abu Dhabi) in the Gulf. The resident population of this bat is assessed as Vulnerable under criterion D1 because the population in the country was estimated to number 150 in 2009, but the numbers are likely to be higher than that now, but almost certainly less than the threshold of 1,000 mature individuals. The visiting population on Das Island (which is a different subspecies) could be assessed separately, however, that is not done here as it is considered to be too marginal (only a tiny portion of the global population of the subspecies occurs within the UAE).It is not known how much movement there is of this species across the region, hence it is not possible to determine if there is any rescue effect from populations in adjoining countries.
Assessment details
Year assessed
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
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.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
There is a colony at Qarn Nazwa (Dubai; Gardner 2009) and further records from Al Ain, Sharjah, and Das Island in the Gulf (Judas et al. 2018). The subspecies recorded on Das Island is Taphozous nudiventris magnus, a winter migrant from Iraq, Bahrain or further north; the subspecies occurring in the rest of the UAE is T. n. zayidi (Judas et al. 2018). The global range extends across North Africa from Morocco to Egypt and south to northern Tanzania, the Middle East, southern Turkey, and east to the Indian subcontinent (Monadjem et al. 2017a).
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
Roosts in crevices, cliffs and buildings (Harrison and Bates 1991). The colony on Qarn Nazwa roosts in rock crevices. Migrants from farther north in the Gulf have been recorded on Das Island.
Threats and conservation measures listed
Threats listed in assessment
Unknown. The increasing extent and intensity of urban lighting may have a negative impact on nocturnal invertebrates, the main prey base.
History
Although Hornby (1996) assessed the species as Data Deficient, it is considered that the species also qualified for listing as Vulnerable (VU) under criterion D1 in 1996.
Publication
Mallon, D., Hilton-Taylor, C., Allen, D., & Harding, K. (2019). UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial. A report to the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment, United Arab Emirates (p. 41). IUCN Global Species Programme. https://bit.ly/2RdZCQR
Assessment ID
329840
Taxon name
Oryx leucoryx
(Pallas, 1777)
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Oryx leucoryx
(Pallas, 1777)
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Mammals
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
mammalia
Order
cetartiodactyla
Family
bovidae
Genus
Oryx
Species
leucoryx
Species authority
(Pallas, 1777)
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
United Arab Emirates (the)
Scope (of the Assessment)
National
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
United Arab Emirates (the)
Country ISO code(s)
ARE
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Qualifying criteria (if given)
D1
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

Assessment rationale/justification
The Arabian Oryx was reportedly once common in parts of western UAE, but declined due to uncontrolled hunting and it became Extinct in the Wild in the UAE sometime in the 1960s or early 1970s. The species has recovered as a result of intensive conservation efforts. There are now currently an estimated 1,480-1,630 mature individuals in the UAE at the four main reintroduction sites. The lower estimate would qualify listing the species as Near Threatened under criterion D1. However, these estimates may be high as a result of supplementary feeding. Assuming conservatively that 20% of the oryx would survive for ten years if the feeding ceased (as required by the Red List Guidelines) the number of mature individuals surviving would be around 300-360 (the number surviving might be higher but would probably be less than 1,000 mature individuals); therefore the Arabian Oryx is assessed as Vulnerable under criterion D1. There is no rescue effect because the nearest subpopulation in Saudi Arabia is small (c.100) and the international border is now completely fenced.
Assessment details
Year assessed
2018
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
UAE National Red List Workshop
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
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.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
Taxon distribution as listed in assessment
The Arabian Oryx was reportedly common in the Manasir area of western UAE, ranging into the Rub Al Khali (Philby 1933) but declined due to uncontrolled hunting and it became Extinct in the Wild in the UAE sometime in the 1960s or early 1970s. It has since been reintroduced to several sites: the Arabian Oryx Protected Area at Umm al Zumoul in southeast Abu Dhabi; Qasr Al Sarab Protected Area, which lies adjacent to the AOPA to the west; Dubai Desert Conservation Reserve (DDCR), and Al Marmoom Conservation Area and adjacent desert in Dubai. Oryx are also present in government and private collections, some of which are extensive, and managed under a range of different conditions. The Arabian Oryx formerly occurred through most of the Arabian Peninsula, north to Kuwait and Iraq. The species' range had already contracted by the early years of the 20th century and the decline accelerated thereafter. Before 1920, oryx distribution was separated into areas over 1,000 km apart: a northern subpopulation in and around the Nafud (Saudi Arabia), and a larger southern subpopulation in the Rub Al Khali and the plains of central-southern Oman. Oryx disappeared from the north in the 1950s. In the south, their range steadily decreased due to hunting, and by the 1960s Oryx were restricted to parts of central and southern Oman. The last wild individuals were probably shot in 1972 on the Jiddat al Harasis, Oman. Arabian Oryx have been reintroduced to several sites across the Arabian Peninsula in addition to the sites in the United Arab Emirates. There is an introduced subpopulation on Hawar Island, Bahrain and large semi-managed subpopulations at several sites in Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia (Harrison and Bates 1991, IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2017c).
Is there a map available in assessment?
Yes
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
Habitat
Habitat details as listed in assessment
The species inhabits sand and gravel deserts and avoids mountains. Arabian Oryx feed at night during the summer months, resting under shady trees during the heat of the day, while in winter they feed during the daytime, sheltering from cool desert winds at night (Aspinall et al. 2005). In high ambient temperatures, their body temperature increases, excess heat being lost later by radiation during the cooler night hours. Oryx meet almost all their water needs by eating plants with high water content and by feeding at a time when water from fog and dew is at its maximum. Oryx rarely run but can walk long distances at a steady pace, covering up to 50 km in a night (Aspinall et al. 2005).
Threats and conservation measures listed
Threats listed in assessment
Uncontrolled hunting from motor vehicles is believed to be the principal cause of the disappearance of the oryx from the wild. Released populations and those in private collections are now safe from this threat, but the security of animals outside these sites cannot be guaranteed. Drought and overgrazing have reduced habitat quality in places and limited the choice of potential release sites. Fenced sites are also subject to the risk of density-dependent mortality especially in cases of prolonged drought: e.g. 560 oryx died in such conditions in Mahazat as Sayd reserve in west-central Saudi Arabia over the period 1999-2008 (Islam et al. 2010).
History
Hornby (1996) assessed the species Extinct in the Wild and this status is used as the backcasted assessment for the species in 1996.
Publication
Mallon, D., Hilton-Taylor, C., Allen, D., & Harding, K. (2019). UAE National Red List of Mammals: Marine and Terrestrial. A report to the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment, United Arab Emirates (p. 41). IUCN Global Species Programme. https://bit.ly/2RdZCQR
Assessment ID
326603
Taxon name
Vespertilio murinus
Linnaeus, 1758
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Vespertilio murinus
Linnaeus, 1758
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Mammals
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
mammalia
Order
chiroptera
Family
vespertilionidae
Genus
Vespertilio
Species
murinus
Species authority
Linnaeus, 1758
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
Bosnia And Herzegovina (Bosnia & Herzegovina)
Scope (of the Assessment)
Subnational
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Country ISO code(s)
BIH
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

Assessment details
Year assessed
2013
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
Sofradžija, Lelo, Trožić-Borovac, Korjenić, Lukić-Bilela, Mitrašinović-Brulić, Šljuka, Gajević, Karačić
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iv + 32pp.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
Is there a map available in assessment?
Not_assigned
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
Publication
EU Greenway Sarajevo. (2013). Crvena Lista Faune Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine. U saradnji sa: Prirodno-matematički fakultet Sarajevo. Federalno Ministarstvo Okoliša i Turizma, Bosnia & Herzegovina.
Assessment ID
326602
Taxon name
Ursus arctos
Linnaeus, 1758
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Ursus arctos
Linnaeus, 1758
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Mammals
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
mammalia
Order
carnivora
Family
ursidae
Genus
Ursus
Species
arctos
Species authority
Linnaeus, 1758
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
Bosnia And Herzegovina (Bosnia & Herzegovina)
Scope (of the Assessment)
Subnational
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Country ISO code(s)
BIH
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

Assessment details
Year assessed
2013
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
Sofradžija, Lelo, Trožić-Borovac, Korjenić, Lukić-Bilela, Mitrašinović-Brulić, Šljuka, Gajević, Karačić
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iv + 32pp.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
Is there a map available in assessment?
Not_assigned
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
Publication
EU Greenway Sarajevo. (2013). Crvena Lista Faune Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine. U saradnji sa: Prirodno-matematički fakultet Sarajevo. Federalno Ministarstvo Okoliša i Turizma, Bosnia & Herzegovina.
Assessment ID
326601
Taxon name
Rhinolophus ferrumequinum
(Schreber, 1774)
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Rhinolophus ferrumequinum
(Schreber, 1774)
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Mammals
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
mammalia
Order
chiroptera
Family
rhinolophidae
Genus
Rhinolophus
Species
ferrumequinum
Species authority
(Schreber, 1774)
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
Bosnia And Herzegovina (Bosnia & Herzegovina)
Scope (of the Assessment)
Subnational
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Country ISO code(s)
BIH
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

Assessment details
Year assessed
2013
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
Sofradžija, Lelo, Trožić-Borovac, Korjenić, Lukić-Bilela, Mitrašinović-Brulić, Šljuka, Gajević, Karačić
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iv + 32pp.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
Is there a map available in assessment?
Not_assigned
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
Publication
EU Greenway Sarajevo. (2013). Crvena Lista Faune Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine. U saradnji sa: Prirodno-matematički fakultet Sarajevo. Federalno Ministarstvo Okoliša i Turizma, Bosnia & Herzegovina.
Assessment ID
326600
Taxon name
Rhinolophus blasii
Peters, 1866
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Rhinolophus blasii
Peters, 1866
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Mammals
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
mammalia
Order
chiroptera
Family
rhinolophidae
Genus
Rhinolophus
Species
blasii
Species authority
Peters, 1866
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
Bosnia And Herzegovina (Bosnia & Herzegovina)
Scope (of the Assessment)
Subnational
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Country ISO code(s)
BIH
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

Assessment details
Year assessed
2013
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
Sofradžija, Lelo, Trožić-Borovac, Korjenić, Lukić-Bilela, Mitrašinović-Brulić, Šljuka, Gajević, Karačić
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iv + 32pp.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
Is there a map available in assessment?
Not_assigned
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
Publication
EU Greenway Sarajevo. (2013). Crvena Lista Faune Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine. U saradnji sa: Prirodno-matematički fakultet Sarajevo. Federalno Ministarstvo Okoliša i Turizma, Bosnia & Herzegovina.
Assessment ID
326599
Taxon name
Plecotus austriacus
(Fischer, 1829)
Uploaded by
National Red List Database
Taxonomic information
Scientific name
Plecotus austriacus
(Fischer, 1829)
Assessed taxon level
Species
Higher level taxonomic groupings
Vertebrates
Mammals
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
chordata
Class
mammalia
Order
chiroptera
Family
vespertilionidae
Genus
Plecotus
Species
austriacus
Species authority
(Fischer, 1829)
Location and scope
Specific locality or subnational name or regional name
Bosnia And Herzegovina (Bosnia & Herzegovina)
Scope (of the Assessment)
Subnational
Countries included within the scope of the assessment
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Country ISO code(s)
BIH
Does the assessment cover a marine EEZ area(s)?
Not_assigned
Conservation Status
Assessed as
Vulnerable
Abbreviated status
VU
Criteria system used
IUCN

(see Assessment details)

Assessment details
Year assessed
2013
Assessors/contributors/reviewers listed
Sofradžija, Lelo, Trožić-Borovac, Korjenić, Lukić-Bilela, Mitrašinović-Brulić, Šljuka, Gajević, Karačić
Criteria system used
IUCN
Reference for methods given
IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iv + 32pp.
Further information
Endemism (according to assessment)
Endemic to region
Not assigned
Is there a map available in assessment?
Not_assigned
Habitat and systems
Ecological system type
Terrestrial
Not_assigned
Freshwater
Not_assigned
Marine
Not_assigned
Publication
EU Greenway Sarajevo. (2013). Crvena Lista Faune Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine. U saradnji sa: Prirodno-matematički fakultet Sarajevo. Federalno Ministarstvo Okoliša i Turizma, Bosnia & Herzegovina.