9 thoughts on “Speckle-chested Piculet (Picumnus steindachneri)”
You are inferring too much, and nothing based on real data except for the actual deforestation rate. Scattered records do not mean real distribution. If no evaluation is to be done in the near future, it is better to define it as Data Deficient.
Forgot: I have surveyed for at least a week in four of the areas included in the distribution map. I recorded the species only once in one of those areas, prime forested area in all of them.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now temporarily closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 6 February 2023. We will now analyse and interpret new information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 6 February 2023, when discussions will re-open.
In this forum discussion it was noted that the species is apparently rare; though no data exist on either population size or density, the population size given in the above assessment is no longer considered to be sufficiently supported by data. Consequently, Criterion C is dropped from the assessment. Moreover, despite its apparent tolerance of some secondary habitat the new information submitted here indicates that the species may be stronger reliant on mature forest than previously assumed. Therefore, while tree cover is lost at a rate of 6% over ten years the impact of forest degradation may be steeper than thought, and the rate of population decline is therefore precautionarily placed in the band 10-19% over ten years.
Nevertheless, despite some uncertainty, available data do not indicate that the species qualifies as Data Deficient. Even though the population size is not known there is adequate data to assess the species against Criteria A and B, and following IUCN Guidelines the species is categorised.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2023 Red List would be to list Speckle-chested Piculet as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold for listing as threatened under Criterion B1ab(ii,iii,iv).
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 12 February 2023, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Actually, the species do qualify as Data Deficient. There is an AOO greatly dispersed. ASSUMED an inferred EOO as close to 5,000 km2 based on joining occurrence points; However, we have no idea if any of those points was a wrong ID, or if a correctly ID individual was a stray one. The species is rarely seen, and without a survey, even a short one, targeting the species and other specific ones distributed there, it is a Data Deficient species. There is not enough data as to assume NT.
There seems some need for minor clarification on the nature of the IUCN Red List Category Data Deficient. The use of DD is rather strictly defined as the use of inference and suspicion in applying certain criteria is acceptable, and only if a taxon has been assessed against all five criteria and information is insufficient to assign a category in any can it be assessed as DD. The following quote, from the IUCN Red List Guidelines may help:
‘When data are very uncertain, the category of Data Deficient may be assigned. However, in this case the assessor must provide documentation showing that this category has been assigned because data are inadequate to determine a threat category. If the data are so uncertain that both CR and LC are plausible categories, the taxon can be listed as DD. If plausible categories range from NT to threatened categories, DD is not the appropriate category’.
This species is not Data Deficient per the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. That doesn’t mean that the precision of the assessment wouldn’t be improved with more/better stratified survey: that is true for more than 90% of bird species, and birds are ‘well-known’. But there is a comparatively high availability of data to define range and data on habitat association and evidence of encounter frequency for this species. Then there is good data on rates of habitat conversion and yes, inference that can be made on the plausible bounds of the impact this is likely to be having on the species. I strongly suspect that multiple years of high-quality survey effort wouldn’t improve the accuracy of this assessment by more than one category either way, and likely not at all. The stable, consistent, robust criteria incorporating strictly defined terms (such as Data Deficient and Location) used in the Red List are one of its great strengths and it serves no conservation purpose to seek to redefine them.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret available information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 20 February 2023.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Speckle-chested Piculet is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold for listing as threatened under Criterion B1ab(ii,iii,iv).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2023.1 GTB Forum process. The final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
You are inferring too much, and nothing based on real data except for the actual deforestation rate. Scattered records do not mean real distribution. If no evaluation is to be done in the near future, it is better to define it as Data Deficient.
Forgot: I have surveyed for at least a week in four of the areas included in the distribution map. I recorded the species only once in one of those areas, prime forested area in all of them.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now temporarily closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 6 February 2023. We will now analyse and interpret new information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 6 February 2023, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
In this forum discussion it was noted that the species is apparently rare; though no data exist on either population size or density, the population size given in the above assessment is no longer considered to be sufficiently supported by data. Consequently, Criterion C is dropped from the assessment. Moreover, despite its apparent tolerance of some secondary habitat the new information submitted here indicates that the species may be stronger reliant on mature forest than previously assumed. Therefore, while tree cover is lost at a rate of 6% over ten years the impact of forest degradation may be steeper than thought, and the rate of population decline is therefore precautionarily placed in the band 10-19% over ten years.
Nevertheless, despite some uncertainty, available data do not indicate that the species qualifies as Data Deficient. Even though the population size is not known there is adequate data to assess the species against Criteria A and B, and following IUCN Guidelines the species is categorised.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2023 Red List would be to list Speckle-chested Piculet as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold for listing as threatened under Criterion B1ab(ii,iii,iv).
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 12 February 2023, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Actually, the species do qualify as Data Deficient. There is an AOO greatly dispersed. ASSUMED an inferred EOO as close to 5,000 km2 based on joining occurrence points; However, we have no idea if any of those points was a wrong ID, or if a correctly ID individual was a stray one. The species is rarely seen, and without a survey, even a short one, targeting the species and other specific ones distributed there, it is a Data Deficient species. There is not enough data as to assume NT.
There seems some need for minor clarification on the nature of the IUCN Red List Category Data Deficient. The use of DD is rather strictly defined as the use of inference and suspicion in applying certain criteria is acceptable, and only if a taxon has been assessed against all five criteria and information is insufficient to assign a category in any can it be assessed as DD. The following quote, from the IUCN Red List Guidelines may help:
‘When data are very uncertain, the category of Data Deficient may be assigned. However, in this case the assessor must provide documentation showing that this category has been assigned because data are inadequate to determine a threat category. If the data are so uncertain that both CR and LC are plausible categories, the taxon can be listed as DD. If plausible categories range from NT to threatened categories, DD is not the appropriate category’.
Rob Martin, Senior Red List Officer
This species is not Data Deficient per the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. That doesn’t mean that the precision of the assessment wouldn’t be improved with more/better stratified survey: that is true for more than 90% of bird species, and birds are ‘well-known’. But there is a comparatively high availability of data to define range and data on habitat association and evidence of encounter frequency for this species. Then there is good data on rates of habitat conversion and yes, inference that can be made on the plausible bounds of the impact this is likely to be having on the species. I strongly suspect that multiple years of high-quality survey effort wouldn’t improve the accuracy of this assessment by more than one category either way, and likely not at all. The stable, consistent, robust criteria incorporating strictly defined terms (such as Data Deficient and Location) used in the Red List are one of its great strengths and it serves no conservation purpose to seek to redefine them.
Rob Martin, Senior Red List Officer
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret available information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 20 February 2023.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Speckle-chested Piculet is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold for listing as threatened under Criterion B1ab(ii,iii,iv).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2023.1 GTB Forum process. The final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.