5 thoughts on “Red-headed Flameback (Chrysocolaptes erythrocephalus): Revise global status?”
Within its range the species is rare or absent from montane and the stunted types of ultrabasic forests; the latter covers large lowland areas in N Puerto Princesa. There is no recent published record from Balabac, and the species is apparently absent from Pandanan Island (satellite of Balabac), despite suitable habitat. The upper bracket of occupied habitat of 40% within the range seems therefore to be too optimistic, with 30% probably being more realistic. Montane and stunted ultrabasic forest are also proportionately less affected by deforestation, so that woodpecker habitat loss over time is likely higher than 20-29% over three generations. We do not yet have more refined data on lowland forest types to quantify this, but initially a better approximation could be to omit forest above 900m in the calculations of actual habitat and habitat loss.
We do not have population estimates, but systematic nest searches indicate overall low densities, e.g., one nest only found in Rasa Island Wildlife Sanctuary which is extensively patrolled (0.12nests/km2) and only two in Dumaran Island Critical Habitat (also 0.13 nests/km2, compared to 0.44 nests/km2 of Spot-throated Flameback). Three out of four nests found were built in dead trees which may partly explain its rarity. The majority of feeding records are from dead wood as well. Although still protected, cutting of standing but dead trees is often tolerated by local authorities, leading to shortages of nest trees for this and other cavity nesters.
Encounter rates during our fieldwork are similar or lower than for Great Slaty Woodpecker (for which population density estimates exist for other regions; Lammertink et al. 2009).
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, our preliminary proposal for the 2022.1 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion. The population size includes 30% occupancy as a plausible boundary and this does not affect the inferred population size estimated. Restricting the forest loss calculation to 900 m only fractionally increases the percentage of loss (to c.22-23% over three generations) within this species’s range. These figures have now been incorporated into SIS, however the overall assessment of the species remains unchanged.
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. Red-headed Flameback is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds for listing as threatened 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.
Within its range the species is rare or absent from montane and the stunted types of ultrabasic forests; the latter covers large lowland areas in N Puerto Princesa. There is no recent published record from Balabac, and the species is apparently absent from Pandanan Island (satellite of Balabac), despite suitable habitat. The upper bracket of occupied habitat of 40% within the range seems therefore to be too optimistic, with 30% probably being more realistic. Montane and stunted ultrabasic forest are also proportionately less affected by deforestation, so that woodpecker habitat loss over time is likely higher than 20-29% over three generations. We do not yet have more refined data on lowland forest types to quantify this, but initially a better approximation could be to omit forest above 900m in the calculations of actual habitat and habitat loss.
We do not have population estimates, but systematic nest searches indicate overall low densities, e.g., one nest only found in Rasa Island Wildlife Sanctuary which is extensively patrolled (0.12nests/km2) and only two in Dumaran Island Critical Habitat (also 0.13 nests/km2, compared to 0.44 nests/km2 of Spot-throated Flameback). Three out of four nests found were built in dead trees which may partly explain its rarity. The majority of feeding records are from dead wood as well. Although still protected, cutting of standing but dead trees is often tolerated by local authorities, leading to shortages of nest trees for this and other cavity nesters.
Encounter rates during our fieldwork are similar or lower than for Great Slaty Woodpecker (for which population density estimates exist for other regions; Lammertink et al. 2009).
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, our preliminary proposal for the 2022.1 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion. The population size includes 30% occupancy as a plausible boundary and this does not affect the inferred population size estimated. Restricting the forest loss calculation to 900 m only fractionally increases the percentage of loss (to c.22-23% over three generations) within this species’s range. These figures have now been incorporated into SIS, however the overall assessment of the species remains unchanged.
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. Red-headed Flameback is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds for listing as threatened 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.