Iberian Green Woodpecker Picus sharpei Scientific name definitions

31–33 cm; c. 190 g. Male has forehead to nape red, usually with some grey feather bases/tips showing; lores blackish, becoming grey in superciliary and subocular areas and on side of crown, with red malar stripe narrowly bordered black and with indistinct thin pale line above (malar appears almost wholly red); ear-coverts and side of neck grey; upperparts green, rump  and uppertail-coverts yellowish; primaries blackish with white spots, secondaries and tertials yellowish-olive with some paler spotting; tail blackish with green edges, outer feathers dark greenish with dull barring; chin and throat grey with hints of yellowish, underparts pale greenish-white or light greyish, lower flanks with some indistinct bars or chevrons, undertail-coverts washed light yellow-buff; underwing greenish-white with soft darker barring; medium-length bill slightly chisel-tipped, culmen gently curved, broad across nostrils, dark grey or blackish, paler base of lower mandible; iris white to pinkish; legs olive-grey. Female differs from male in having malar stripe all black and often with more obvious pale edge above, crown with more grey tips. Juvenile is duller than adult, has side of head to breast heavily dark-spotted, mantle and upper back with paler speckles and bars, rump barred, underparts heavily barred dark, eyes darker; sexes similar except for malar pattern  , which closer to that of respective adult but generally duller.

Usually considered conspecific with P. viridis and P. vaillantii, but differs from former in having very little or no black on face, so that face grey with red crown and red malar vs face black (on lores, supercilium to above eye, ocular area, moustachial area and in thin line around red malar) (3); red on crown narrower, allowing a grey-green supercilium (black in viridis) to continue over eye and also ear-coverts vs broader line covering postocular superciliary area and thus adjacent to ear-coverts (2); iris browner, not so white and thus much less contrasting (pale brown in grey face vs white in black face) (1); ear-coverts, neck and breast washed grey (ns[1]); black subterminal bars on grey-based red-tipped crown feathers (ns[1]); significant vocal differences involving patterns of dominant frequency and acceleration of the advertising-call (“song”) (1 Fauré, C. (2013). [Advertising-call (“song”) of the European Green Woodpecker Picus viridis viridis in south-western France and of the sharpei subspecies in north-western Spain]. Alauda 81(3): 209–225. In French with English summary. Close ) (2); narrow zone of intergradation in S France (2 Olioso, G. and Pons, J.M. (2011). [Variation of the plumage of Green Woodpecker in Languedoc-Roussillon (southern France)]. Ornithos. 18(2): 73–83. In French with English summary. Close , 3 Pons, J.M., Olioso, G., Cruaud, C. and Fuchs, J. (2011). Phylogeography of the Eurasian green woodpecker (Picus viridis). Journal of Biogeography. 38: 311–325. Close ) (2)); differs from vaillantii (geographically and morphologically closer) in its red vs black malar on male (3), blackish vs whitish area from commissure below lores back along cheek above malar (2), black-spotted red vs blackish-grey crown of female (2), little or no barring on lower underparts (ns[1]). Monotypic.

• Eurasian x Iberian Green Woodpecker (hybrid) Picus viridis x sharpei

Pyrenees, Iberia and extreme S France (irregularly from Pyrénées-Atlantiques to Hérault).

Diet consists mainly of terrestrial ants; some other small invertebrates, both ground-dwelling and arboreal, eaten, along with small amount of fruit. Forages solitarily, in pairs, and in family groups. Seeks food mostly on ground , ascending into trees  at times.

Main call  a low “kyack” and variations, sometimes repeated in series; a more explosive “kyik” note given in agonistic contexts. Distinctive laughing song  in breeding season a louder “klu-klu-klu-klu-klu-klu-…”, initially increasing in volume and then decreasing and tailing off, generally somewhat higher-pitched and faster than that of P. viridis, but differences not always obvious (1 Fauré, C. (2013). [Advertising-call (“song”) of the European Green Woodpecker Picus viridis viridis in south-western France and of the sharpei subspecies in north-western Spain]. Alauda 81(3): 209–225. In French with English summary. Close ). Drums rarely, in spring, in rapid but weak rolls.

Laying from end Mar to Jun; song from Dec–Jan. Nest excavated  at up to c. 10 m in tree. Clutch 5–8 eggs; incubation by both parents, period c. 14–17 days; chicks  fed by both parents, leave nest at c. 24–27 days; brood divided between parents, accompanied for up to c. 7 weeks.

Not globally threatened. Currently considered Near Threatened. Locally common. Population estimated at 246,000–471,000 pairs (492,000–941,000 mature individuals), of which some 236,000–420,500 in Spain (2004–2006 data) and 10,000–50,000 in Portugal (2008–2012 data) (4 BirdLife International (2015). European Red List of Birds. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Close ). Population estimated to be decreasing at a rate approaching 30% in 16·8 years (three generations) (4 BirdLife International (2015). European Red List of Birds. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Close ). Nevertheless, no serious threats have been identified for this species. Habitat loss not yet a great problem, but it is believed that in future years it could become so. Intensification of agriculture and forestry, as well as the conversion of pasture to arable land can reduce populations of ants, its principal food. Removal of wooded hedgerows, copses, isolated groves and riverine woodland can limit potential nesting sites. Wildfires may affect Mediterranean populations. Other threats include localised illegal hunting and very cold winters. Habitat management should aim to conserve old trees as nest sites in woodlands, orchards and villages; meadows, pastures, orchards and heaths should be restored and maintained as feeding areas. With concern over recent population declines, further monitoring and research are needed. Not considered of conservation concern until 2015. This European endemic is considered Vulnerable at the regional level (4 BirdLife International (2015). European Red List of Birds. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Close ).