7 thoughts on “Santarem Parakeet (Pyrrhura amazonum): Revise global status?”
In the assessment of the risk of extinction of the Brazilian fauna 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 – in the assessment conducted in 2017, we found no long-term population estimate data to evaluate decline using observed data (a), and the decline of AOO and EOO (c) do not meet the thresholds for a threat category. The species, however, has a wide range, and is dependent on forests, which are being converted to pasture and monoculture. It is suspected that the population trend is one of decline. Calculations of habitat quality loss due to slash-and-burn and selective logging estimate a loss of 39-54% for the species’ range, over three generations (Barlow et al., 2016). Habitat loss is estimated to result in a proportional population loss, considering the sensitivity of the species. Thus, population losses, considering the time window of three generations in the past, could be greater than 30%.
Note: Now in 2022, we understand that there are better remote sensing data that allow better characterization of habitat loss. In addition, by using the new Bird et al. (2020) reference for generational time, the time window calculation will be smaller and will change the habitat loss values for the species. In this sense, I believe that in 2022 the species can be characterised as Near Threatened (NT) for this criterion.
Criterion B – The EOO calculations (665,320 km2) do not meet the thresholds for categorisation as threatened. Its AOO (is greater than 2,000 km2), does not meet the thresholds for threatened categorisation. Least Concern (LC) for this criterion.
Criterion C – No information is available on population estimates. Also at the time of assessment (2017) no observed, estimated, projected or inferred population decline data was available. Decline was only suspected. Thus, IUCN criterion C is not applicable. Least Concern (LC) for this criterion.
Criterion D – No information on population estimates available. Least Concern (LC) for this criterion.
Criterion E – in the assessment conducted in 2017, we found no PVA data.
It is reasonable to conclude that habitat loss rates for this species have been overestimated in the past. And the change in generation length contributes to the need for this adjustment in the category. The Brazilian assessment, carried out in 2017, categorized the species as VU A2c, based on 2016 habitat loss data, but will also need to adjust the category to NT due to the new generational length. However, in the Brazilian assessment, there is no information about species’ exploitation to support sub-criterion d. The experts involved in the national assessment did not include capture as a relevant threat. This issue would need to be clarified, as if the capture is not a contributing factor to the estimated population reduction, the reduction may be 5% less, and perhaps the species is LC, considering the population decline based only on the rate of tree cover loss.
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, and that its impact does not cause a decline of 5% over ten years as was assumed in the initial assessment. The rate of population decline has therefore been recalculated based only on the presumed impacts of habitat loss and degradation, resulting in slightly lower rates of decline over ten years: The rate of population decline over the past ten years is now placed in the band 10-19%. Given that habitat loss has been increasing since 2016, current population declines are likewise assumed to be accelerating to a rate equivalent to 20-29% over ten years.
Therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2022.1 Red List would be to list Santarem Parakeet as Near Threatened 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, but the account for this species has been updated to incorporate additional information from this discussion. Santarem Parakeet is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold 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.
In the assessment of the risk of extinction of the Brazilian fauna 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 – in the assessment conducted in 2017, we found no long-term population estimate data to evaluate decline using observed data (a), and the decline of AOO and EOO (c) do not meet the thresholds for a threat category. The species, however, has a wide range, and is dependent on forests, which are being converted to pasture and monoculture. It is suspected that the population trend is one of decline. Calculations of habitat quality loss due to slash-and-burn and selective logging estimate a loss of 39-54% for the species’ range, over three generations (Barlow et al., 2016). Habitat loss is estimated to result in a proportional population loss, considering the sensitivity of the species. Thus, population losses, considering the time window of three generations in the past, could be greater than 30%.
Note: Now in 2022, we understand that there are better remote sensing data that allow better characterization of habitat loss. In addition, by using the new Bird et al. (2020) reference for generational time, the time window calculation will be smaller and will change the habitat loss values for the species. In this sense, I believe that in 2022 the species can be characterised as Near Threatened (NT) for this criterion.
Criterion B – The EOO calculations (665,320 km2) do not meet the thresholds for categorisation as threatened. Its AOO (is greater than 2,000 km2), does not meet the thresholds for threatened categorisation. Least Concern (LC) for this criterion.
Criterion C – No information is available on population estimates. Also at the time of assessment (2017) no observed, estimated, projected or inferred population decline data was available. Decline was only suspected. Thus, IUCN criterion C is not applicable. Least Concern (LC) for this criterion.
Criterion D – No information on population estimates available. Least Concern (LC) for this criterion.
Criterion E – in the assessment conducted in 2017, we found no PVA data.
It is reasonable to conclude that habitat loss rates for this species have been overestimated in the past. And the change in generation length contributes to the need for this adjustment in the category. The Brazilian assessment, carried out in 2017, categorized the species as VU A2c, based on 2016 habitat loss data, but will also need to adjust the category to NT due to the new generational length. However, in the Brazilian assessment, there is no information about species’ exploitation to support sub-criterion d. The experts involved in the national assessment did not include capture as a relevant threat. This issue would need to be clarified, as if the capture is not a contributing factor to the estimated population reduction, the reduction may be 5% less, and perhaps the species is LC, considering the population decline based only on the rate of tree cover loss.
Agree that both the mapped range and population inferences based on habitat amount support NT.
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, and that its impact does not cause a decline of 5% over ten years as was assumed in the initial assessment. The rate of population decline has therefore been recalculated based only on the presumed impacts of habitat loss and degradation, resulting in slightly lower rates of decline over ten years: The rate of population decline over the past ten years is now placed in the band 10-19%. Given that habitat loss has been increasing since 2016, current population declines are likewise assumed to be accelerating to a rate equivalent to 20-29% over ten years.
Therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2022.1 Red List would be to list Santarem Parakeet as Near Threatened 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, but the account for this species has been updated to incorporate additional information from this discussion. Santarem Parakeet is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold 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.