6 thoughts on “Pearly Parakeet (Pyrrhura lepida): Revise global status?”
* Pyrrhura coerulescens (lepida)*
Described by the German herpetologist Johann Georg Wagler in 1832, it started to be treated as a subspecies in 1929, after a review by the ornithologist Oscar Neumann (Neumann, 1929). After a recent taxonomic revision, it was recognized as a full species and consequent nomenclatural changes were proposed (Somenzari, 2011; Somenzari & Silveira, 2015). Briefly, the extensive bibliographic survey elucidated the correct authorship of the epithet lepida/lepidus and this correction, according to the norms of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, indicated that Pyrrhura lepida is an invalid name and, therefore, for the denomination of this taxon it must be The second name available in the literature was used: Pyrrhura coerulescens Neumann, 1927 (Neumann, 1929).
Specific questions
– What is the population size?
A: Unknown.
– Has the population structure been investigated? What is the size of the largest subpopulation?
A: Unknown.
– Is the species affected by trapping, and if yes what is its impact on the population size?
A: It is little hunted and little captured for trade and there isn´t information about possible impacts on the population.
In the Brazilian fauna national extinction risk assessment carried out in 2017, the species was categorized as Vulnerable, by the A2c criterion.
Assessors: Alexandre Luis Padovan Aleixo; Carlos Martínez Ruiz; Diego Mendes Lima; Edson Varga Lopes; Pablo Vieira Cerqueira; Sidnei de Melo Dantas; Túlio Dornas de Oliveira.
* Criterion A* – The species is typically forestry and commonly observed over the canopy or in the forest interior, although it is occasionally seen in open areas and forest edges (Arndt & Roth, 1986). Despite the apparent tolerance to degraded forests, a study carried out at the Belém Endemism Center pointed out that this taxon was found only in the best and most extensive fragments of dense ombrophilous forest (Portes et al., 2011).
Habitat loss is one of the biggest threats to the species. The west of the state of Maranhão and the eastern region of Pará are among the areas that most suffer from human action throughout the Amazon (Portes et al., 2011). The state of Pará accounted for 34% of all forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon between 1988 and 2015 (INPE, 2015) and about 70% of the Belém Center of Endemism (CE) has already been deforested (Silva et al., 2005).
Calculations of loss of habitat quality, due to fires and selective logging, estimated a loss between 39-54% for the species’ distribution area (Barlow et al., 2016). Despite being tolerant to certain levels of degradation, the species is typically forested and preferentially occupies well-preserved fragments. In addition, its distribution area overlaps with the Arc of Deforestation, which has wiped out the suitable habitat for the species in many locations. Assuming that the habitat loss was reflected in a proportional population loss, a population reduction of more than 30% in the last 18 years (three generations) is suspected. 6 years generational time (BirdLife Internationa, 2017).
* Criterion B* – Not applicable, as the calculation of EOO and AOO exceeds the thresholds required by the criteria.
* Criterion C* – There are no observed, estimated, projected or inferred data on the number of mature individuals and population decline.
* Criterion D* – It does not apply, because in addition to the lack of population data, its population is not very small or restricted.
* Criterion E* – There is no PVA data.
Justification: Pyrrhura coerulescens is endemic to Brazil and occurs in the Belém and Amazônia Tocantinense Endemism Center. It is tolerant to certain levels of forest degradation and may occupy secondary forests. However, deforestation has been complete in its distribution, wiping out suitable habitat for the species in many locations. It is little hunted and little captured for trade. Population losses in three past generations, based on habitat loss, can be assumed to be between 30% and 50%. Therefore, P. lepida (coerulescens) was categorized as Vulnerable (VU) A2c.Informações adicionais
Referências
Arndt, T. Roth, P., 1986. Der Rotbauchsittich Pyrrhura rhodogaster im Vergleich mit den verschiedenen Unterarten des Blausteibsittichs Pyrrhura perlata: Vorschlag für nomenklatorische und systematische Anderungen. Verhandlungen der Ornithologischen Gesellschaft in Bayern, 24: p.313-317.
Lima, D.M.; Martinez, C.M. & Raíces, D.S.L. 2014. An avifaunal inventory and conservation prospects for the Gurupi Biological Reserve, Maranhão, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22 (4): p.317-340.
Silva, J.M.C.; Rylands, A.B. e Fonseca, G.A.B. (2005). The fate of the Amazonian areas of endemism. Conservation Biology, 19(3):689-694
Portes, C.E.B.; Carneiro, L.; Schunck, F.; Silva, M.S.E.; Zimmer, K.J.; Whittaker, A.; Poletto, F.; Silveira, L.F. & Aleixo, A. 2011. Annotated checklist of birds recorded between 1998 and 2009 at nine areas in the Belém area of endemism, with notes on some range extensions and the conservation status of endangered species. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 19: p.167-184
Neumann, O., 1929. Die Formen von Pyrrhura perlata Spix. Verhandlungen der Ornithologischen Gesellschaft in Bayern, 17 (4): p.428.
Somenzari, M., 2011. Taxonomia do complexo Pyrrhura lepida (Aves: Psittacidae). Dissertação de Mestrado. Dissertação (Mestrado em Zoologia), Universidade de São Paulo. p.179.
Somenzari, M. & Silveira, L.F. 2015. Taxonomy of the Pyrrhura perlata-coerulescens complex (Psittaciformes: Psittacidae) with description of a hybrid zone. Journal of Ornithology, 158: p.1-12.
In the Brazilian assessment, this species is treated as Pyrrhura coerulescens Neumann, 1927 (Neumann, 1929) (see Somenzari, 2011; Somenzari & Silveira, 2015 for the proposed nomenclatural changes). The rate of habitat loss, due to fires and selective logging, was calculated at 39-54% for the last three generations (based on Barlow et al., 2016), but was calculated for a period of 18 years (with time of 6-year-olds, according to BirdLife International, 2017). Therefore, this calculation needs to be updated with the new generational time of 3.87 years and thus the species would be between VU and NT. Using data from Global Forest Watch 2021, it seems reasonable to consider NT species approaching VU by criteria A3 and A4. However, Brazilian assessors consider that the species is not much hunted or captured for trade, and this low capture rate does not contribute to the population decline, therefore, subcriterion d would not be used.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by so many people in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 21 February 2022. We will now analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’s Red List status on this page on 21 February 2022, when discussions will re-open.
Based on available information, it is now recognised that trapping does not present a substantial threat to the species. However, available information also indicates that the species is dependent on dense, pristine forests, and that forest fragmentation and degradation thus have a higher impact on the population trend than assumed in the initial assessment. The rate of population decline has therefore been recalculated under the assumption that forest degradation proceeds at 50% of the rate of tree cover loss. Over the past three generations, 15% of tree cover has been lost within the range; since 2016 this rate has been increasing to 23% over three generations. Adding the presumed impacts of forest degradation to the rate of tree cover loss and assuming that population declines are roughly equivalent, the species may have experienced a reduction of 20-29% over the past three generations. Since 2016, this rate appears to have been accelerating to 30-39% over three generations.
Therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2022.1 Red List would be to retain Pearly Parakeet as Vulnerable under Criteria A3c+4c.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 27 February 2022, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2022.1 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in July 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by so many people in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 7 March 2022.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Pearly Parakeet is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criteria A3c+4c.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2022.1 GTB Forum process. The final 2022.1 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in July 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
* Pyrrhura coerulescens (lepida)*
Described by the German herpetologist Johann Georg Wagler in 1832, it started to be treated as a subspecies in 1929, after a review by the ornithologist Oscar Neumann (Neumann, 1929). After a recent taxonomic revision, it was recognized as a full species and consequent nomenclatural changes were proposed (Somenzari, 2011; Somenzari & Silveira, 2015). Briefly, the extensive bibliographic survey elucidated the correct authorship of the epithet lepida/lepidus and this correction, according to the norms of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, indicated that Pyrrhura lepida is an invalid name and, therefore, for the denomination of this taxon it must be The second name available in the literature was used: Pyrrhura coerulescens Neumann, 1927 (Neumann, 1929).
Specific questions
– What is the population size?
A: Unknown.
– Has the population structure been investigated? What is the size of the largest subpopulation?
A: Unknown.
– Is the species affected by trapping, and if yes what is its impact on the population size?
A: It is little hunted and little captured for trade and there isn´t information about possible impacts on the population.
In the Brazilian fauna national extinction risk assessment carried out in 2017, the species was categorized as Vulnerable, by the A2c criterion.
Assessors: Alexandre Luis Padovan Aleixo; Carlos Martínez Ruiz; Diego Mendes Lima; Edson Varga Lopes; Pablo Vieira Cerqueira; Sidnei de Melo Dantas; Túlio Dornas de Oliveira.
* Criterion A* – The species is typically forestry and commonly observed over the canopy or in the forest interior, although it is occasionally seen in open areas and forest edges (Arndt & Roth, 1986). Despite the apparent tolerance to degraded forests, a study carried out at the Belém Endemism Center pointed out that this taxon was found only in the best and most extensive fragments of dense ombrophilous forest (Portes et al., 2011).
Habitat loss is one of the biggest threats to the species. The west of the state of Maranhão and the eastern region of Pará are among the areas that most suffer from human action throughout the Amazon (Portes et al., 2011). The state of Pará accounted for 34% of all forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon between 1988 and 2015 (INPE, 2015) and about 70% of the Belém Center of Endemism (CE) has already been deforested (Silva et al., 2005).
Calculations of loss of habitat quality, due to fires and selective logging, estimated a loss between 39-54% for the species’ distribution area (Barlow et al., 2016). Despite being tolerant to certain levels of degradation, the species is typically forested and preferentially occupies well-preserved fragments. In addition, its distribution area overlaps with the Arc of Deforestation, which has wiped out the suitable habitat for the species in many locations. Assuming that the habitat loss was reflected in a proportional population loss, a population reduction of more than 30% in the last 18 years (three generations) is suspected. 6 years generational time (BirdLife Internationa, 2017).
* Criterion B* – Not applicable, as the calculation of EOO and AOO exceeds the thresholds required by the criteria.
* Criterion C* – There are no observed, estimated, projected or inferred data on the number of mature individuals and population decline.
* Criterion D* – It does not apply, because in addition to the lack of population data, its population is not very small or restricted.
* Criterion E* – There is no PVA data.
Justification: Pyrrhura coerulescens is endemic to Brazil and occurs in the Belém and Amazônia Tocantinense Endemism Center. It is tolerant to certain levels of forest degradation and may occupy secondary forests. However, deforestation has been complete in its distribution, wiping out suitable habitat for the species in many locations. It is little hunted and little captured for trade. Population losses in three past generations, based on habitat loss, can be assumed to be between 30% and 50%. Therefore, P. lepida (coerulescens) was categorized as Vulnerable (VU) A2c.Informações adicionais
Referências
Arndt, T. Roth, P., 1986. Der Rotbauchsittich Pyrrhura rhodogaster im Vergleich mit den verschiedenen Unterarten des Blausteibsittichs Pyrrhura perlata: Vorschlag für nomenklatorische und systematische Anderungen. Verhandlungen der Ornithologischen Gesellschaft in Bayern, 24: p.313-317.
Barlow, J.; Lennox, G.D.; Ferreira, J.; Berenguer, E.; Lees, A.C.; Nally, R.M.; Thomson, J.R.; Ferraz, S.F.B.; Louzada, J.; Oliveira, V.H.F.; Parry, L.; Solar, R.R.C.; Vieira, I.C.G.; Aragão, L.E.O.C.; Begotti, R.A.; Braga, R.F.; Cardoso, T.M.; Oliveira Jr, R.C.; Souza Jr, C.M.; Moura, N.G.; Nunes, S.S.; Siqueira, J.V.; Pardini, R.; Silveira, J.M.; Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z.; Veiga, R.C.S.; Venturieri, A. & Gardner, T.A., 2016. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature, 535: p.144-147.
BirdLife International 2017. Species factsheet: Pyrrhura lepida. Disponível em: http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/pearly-parakeet-pyrrhura-lepida/details.
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). Projeto Prodes: Amazon deforestation database. Available at http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes (2015).
Lima, D.M.; Martinez, C.M. & Raíces, D.S.L. 2014. An avifaunal inventory and conservation prospects for the Gurupi Biological Reserve, Maranhão, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22 (4): p.317-340.
Silva, J.M.C.; Rylands, A.B. e Fonseca, G.A.B. (2005). The fate of the Amazonian areas of endemism. Conservation Biology, 19(3):689-694
Portes, C.E.B.; Carneiro, L.; Schunck, F.; Silva, M.S.E.; Zimmer, K.J.; Whittaker, A.; Poletto, F.; Silveira, L.F. & Aleixo, A. 2011. Annotated checklist of birds recorded between 1998 and 2009 at nine areas in the Belém area of endemism, with notes on some range extensions and the conservation status of endangered species. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 19: p.167-184
Neumann, O., 1929. Die Formen von Pyrrhura perlata Spix. Verhandlungen der Ornithologischen Gesellschaft in Bayern, 17 (4): p.428.
Somenzari, M., 2011. Taxonomia do complexo Pyrrhura lepida (Aves: Psittacidae). Dissertação de Mestrado. Dissertação (Mestrado em Zoologia), Universidade de São Paulo. p.179.
Somenzari, M. & Silveira, L.F. 2015. Taxonomy of the Pyrrhura perlata-coerulescens complex (Psittaciformes: Psittacidae) with description of a hybrid zone. Journal of Ornithology, 158: p.1-12.
In the Brazilian assessment, this species is treated as Pyrrhura coerulescens Neumann, 1927 (Neumann, 1929) (see Somenzari, 2011; Somenzari & Silveira, 2015 for the proposed nomenclatural changes). The rate of habitat loss, due to fires and selective logging, was calculated at 39-54% for the last three generations (based on Barlow et al., 2016), but was calculated for a period of 18 years (with time of 6-year-olds, according to BirdLife International, 2017). Therefore, this calculation needs to be updated with the new generational time of 3.87 years and thus the species would be between VU and NT. Using data from Global Forest Watch 2021, it seems reasonable to consider NT species approaching VU by criteria A3 and A4. However, Brazilian assessors consider that the species is not much hunted or captured for trade, and this low capture rate does not contribute to the population decline, therefore, subcriterion d would not be used.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by so many people in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 21 February 2022. We will now analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’s Red List status on this page on 21 February 2022, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
Based on available information, it is now recognised that trapping does not present a substantial threat to the species. However, available information also indicates that the species is dependent on dense, pristine forests, and that forest fragmentation and degradation thus have a higher impact on the population trend than assumed in the initial assessment. The rate of population decline has therefore been recalculated under the assumption that forest degradation proceeds at 50% of the rate of tree cover loss. Over the past three generations, 15% of tree cover has been lost within the range; since 2016 this rate has been increasing to 23% over three generations. Adding the presumed impacts of forest degradation to the rate of tree cover loss and assuming that population declines are roughly equivalent, the species may have experienced a reduction of 20-29% over the past three generations. Since 2016, this rate appears to have been accelerating to 30-39% over three generations.
Therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2022.1 Red List would be to retain Pearly Parakeet as Vulnerable under Criteria A3c+4c.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 27 February 2022, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2022.1 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in July 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by so many people in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 7 March 2022.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Pearly Parakeet is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criteria A3c+4c.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2022.1 GTB Forum process. The final 2022.1 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in July 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.