Species names in all available languages
|English||South African Shelduck|
|English (United States)||South African Shelduck|
|French||Tadorne à tête grise|
|French (French Guiana)||Tadorne à tête grise|
|Lithuanian||Pilkagalvė urvinė antis|
|Spanish (Spain)||Tarro sudafricano|
|Turkish||Gri Başlı Angıt|
This account is part of the 8th edition of Roberts Birds of Southern Africa. This project is a joint collaboration between the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. David G. Allan revised the account. Peter Pyle contributed to the Plumages, Molts, and Structure page. Peter F. D. Boesman contributed to the Sounds and Vocal Behaviors page. Arnau Bonan Barfull curated the media. Huy C. Truong revised the distribution map. Qwahn Kent copyedited the account. Guy M. Kirwan reviewed the account.
Tadorna cana ("Gmelin, JF", 1789)
The Key to Scientific Names
South African Shelduck Tadorna cana Scientific name definitions
Version: 2.0 — Published February 23, 2023
Account navigation Account navigation
Conservation and Management
Red List Category: Least Concern (59). The species has benefited from the construction of the large number of artificial waterbodies, especially dams, within its range, and anthropogenic changes to wetlands are usually to its advantage, as they typically result in a reduction of vegetation cover (91, 10). Its ability to exploit fallen grain in crop fields has also benefited the species, especially due to the reliability and nutrient value of this food source, and its availability during the vulnerable period associated with molting (102, 28). This has resulted in an increase in the species’ abundance within its historical range and an expansion into previously unoccupied areas. Unlike several other waterfowl species, it has not benefited directly or indirectly from cattle feedlots in Gauteng Province (141).
The concentration of a large proportion of the total population at relatively few sites during wing molt is potentially hazardous, but many of these sites are formally protected (10). The species is nevertheless sensitive during this period and requires ongoing protection from disturbance, such as from watersport enthusiasts (23). Its reliance on Aardvark (Orycteropus afer) for nest sites is of concern as this mammal is considered threatened in South Africa (142, 3). Overall, however, its current conservation status appears healthy.
Effects of Human Activity
Habitat Loss and Degradation
The species could potentially be vulnerable to climate change through a radical, climatically induced, loss and shift in suitable habitat (143, 144).
Shooting, Hunting, and Trapping
The South African Shelduck’s exploitation of agricultural fields renders it vulnerable to shooting, and intentional and accidental poisoning (102, 28, 49). This species is easily confused by farmers with the Egyptian Goose (Alopochen aegyptiaca), a notorious crop pest, and is sometimes persecuted as a result (28). Apparently it is shot at Bloemfontein and Kimberley airports in South Africa during bird control operations to safeguard aircraft from collisions with flying birds (107).
The species’ meat is not very palatable, and this shelduck is difficult to hunt at wetland sites due to its relatively shy nature and the open nature of its preferred waterbodies (66, 91, 3). The South African Shelduck was available for legal recreational hunting under permit in the following South African provinces during 2021, with hunting season and individual daily bag limits in parentheses: North-West Province (1 January–31 March; 2), Western Cape (1 January–30 June; 5), Northern Cape (1 January–31 March; 5), and Eastern Cape (1 January–31 March; 2) (South African Wingshooters Association 2021). In Namibia it is listed under Schedule 4 of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 and cannot be hunted for recreation (Namibia Biodiversity Database 2021). It is also not available for recreational hunting in Botswana.
Pesticides and Other Contaminants/Toxics
South African Shelduck could be threatened by water contamination, especially due to its extensive reliance on artificial wetlands, with particular relevance to potential large-scale hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, which typically produces large quantities of contaminated waste water, in the Karoo biome (145).
Collisions with Stationary/Moving Structures or Objects
In flight, the species is vulnerable to mortality via collisions with overhead power lines, and is also considered potentially vulnerable to electrocution on overhead electrical infrastructure, although it rarely (if ever?) perches above ground (146, 147). Another potentially emerging threat could be in-flight collisions with blades of wind turbines, which are increasingly being installed in parts of the species’ range (148).