6 thoughts on “Violet-throated Metaltail (Metallura baroni)”
Dear BirdLife fellows,
We are revising the threatened species forum in order to contribute with information and/or suggestions on proposed changes to the Red List, particularly for Metallura baroni and the proposal to downgrade the species from Endangered to Vulnerable. In this letter we will present arguments that show that its current status “Endangered” is appropriate for the species. We have been working in the paramos of southern Ecuador for more than15 years, and have produced several manuscripts about the natural history, ecology and the effects of anthropogenic activities on the population of M. baroni. Those experiences are the basis for writing this letter.
M. baroni have been categorized as Endangered under the Criterium B1ab (i,ii,iii,iv), on the basis of a restricted distribution range, 5 or less locations, and a decline in habitat, range, and number of mature individuals. According to the information provided in the forum, the proposal to re categorize the species as Vulnerable is based on a reassessment of the number of locations where it is present, indicating that M. baroni is present in 6 to 10 locations. The text also mentions that “ in parts of the distribution range of the species are protected, and the species remains locally common”. However, using UICN´s definition of location, we argue the species is present in a maximum of five locations and the species is not really protected in its distribution range. The locations where the species is present are: 1) Páramos of Cañar (northern geographic range). This area does not have official protection. Agricultural activities, and fires to promote grasslands for livestock grazing are widespread and ongoing, threatening the presence of the species in this area. 2) Páramos of Labrado-Chanlud (north-center of geographic range). This area is located along the border of Cañar and Azuay provinces. The “Comité de conservación de la cuenca del río Machangara” (translated as conservation committee for rio Machangara wathershed) manages this area, and have established a series of activities for improving agricultural practices and preserving ecosystem services focused on water production. Despite the persistence of feral-livestock grazing in this area, the population of the species is likely stable there. 3) Parque Nacional Cajas (PNC) and the adjacent Mazan reserve (core area of the distribution range). These two areas are managed by a public water production company named ETAPA. Although PNC has the highest protection level according to Ecuadorian laws, it suffers from several impacts that have not been controlled by its managers. For example, the area is bisected by a main road that connects the cities of Guayaquil (second largest city in the country) and Cuenca (third largest city in the country). This road is a source of mortality for several species, including M. baroni, as it is demonstrated in our studies (Astudillo et al. 2014, Aguilar et al 2019, Carrasco 2022). Paramo burning and livestock grazing is still common every year inside PNC (particularly across the southern limit of PNC) and páramo-habitats of Mazan, especially during the dry season (August to September), which eliminates the habitat required by M. baroni. In general, the conservation status of PNC and Mazan do not warrant the maintenance of populations of M. baroni, and they both are under the same threatening event that is decreasing the habitat available for the species (Barros-Quito et al. 2020). 4) Paramos de Soldados and Can-Can (center-south of the geographic range). There is expensive cattle grazing in all this area and habitat conversion for livestock pastures is ongoing. Cattle pastures are not a habitat for M. baroni. All these are under the same impact. 5) Paramos of Quimsacocha and Rircay (southern range). Again, paramo conversion for livestock grazing and agriculture is an ongoing process in this area (Barros-Quito et al. 2020). That land use change usually implies burning the paramo grasslands. Moreover, the area has an important mining potential, and there are several projects waiting for official approval. Although the impacts of mining activities on the species has not been evaluated, it is rational to assume that they can cause habitat loss if mining companies do not implement restoration practices. There is one protected area within this area “Area Nacional de recreación Quimsacocha”. This is the least restrictive conservation category of Ecuador´s conservation national system, and most of it is composed of paramo grasslands that do not contain the shrubs that M. baroni requires because Quimsacocha is mainly composed of wetlands. Also this small area (3000 ha) is susceptible to the paramo burning that is common in the region. Moreover, our observations in those paramos indicate that the species is declining over time, and it has even disappeared from some Polylepis and shrubby patches. Therefore, this whole section of the distribution range of the species should be treated as one location.
With the arguments presented above, we kindly ask you to reevaluate the proposal to categorize the species as Vulnerable. The species does not occur in more than five locations. Metallura baroni is much needed from conservation actions and we are worried that downgrading the category of species will imperil the conservation attention on this species. We are open to provide more information to support our observations if needed.
Kind regards,
Boris Tinoco
Pedro Astudillo
Litereture cited
Astudillo, P. X., G. M. Samaniego, P. J. Machado, J. M. Aguilar, B. A. Tinoco, C. H. Graham, S. C. Latta, and N. Farwig. 2014. The impact of roads on the avifauna of páramo grasslands in Cajas National Park, Ecuador. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 49: 204–212.
Aguilar, J. M., A. Nieto, N. Espinoza, G. Loja, and B. A. Tinoco. 2019. Assessing patterns of bird roadkills in a high Andean Ecuadorian national park. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 54: 149–156.
Barros, J. S. B., P. X. Astudillo, B. O. Landázuri, P. Porras, D. C. Siddons, and S. C. Latta. 2020. Habitat heterogeneity rather than the limits of protected areas influence bird communities in an Andean biosphere reserve. Ecología Austral 30: 454–464.
Carrasco, P., P. Molina, D. Pacheco, and B. A, Tinoco NESTING BIOLOGY OF AN ECUADORIAN ENDEMIC HUMMINGBIRD, THE ENDANGERED VIOLET-THROATED METALTAIL Metallura baroni. Revista Ecuatoriana de Ornitología 8.
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.
The following comment was submitted by Juan Freile while this discussion forum was temporarily closed:
“Metallura baroni does not have more than five locations. There is NO justification for this precautionary recalculation of 6-10 locations. This change is not based on new scientific evidence, as is required for a change in IUCN category. Given the fact that Tinoco & Astudillo provide evidence, based on their extensive experience WITH the species and throughout its ENTIRE distribution range, I consider this proposed downgrading as unwarranted. Astudillo and Tinoco have published landmark scientific papers that must be used as baseline data to assess the status of this and other co-occurring species. Their information was used as baseline to rank Metallura baroni as EN in the recent Lista Roja de las Aves del Ecuador (Freile et al. 2019), under criterion B1ab(ii,iii).”
Information submitted via this discussion forum describe five sites where the species occurs: 1) páramos in Cañar, 2) páramos of Labrado-Chanlud, 3) protected areas of Cajas and Mazan, 4) páramos of Soldados and Can-Can, and 5) páramos of Quimsacocha and Rircay. These sites are facing various threats: Areas 1), 4) and 5) are threatened by agriculture, livestock grazing and fire; area 3) is under protection but may nevertheless be affected by grazing and burning, while the Cuenca-Guayaquil road may additionally lead to roadkill; and area 2) is impacted by some livestock grazing.
While all five sites are under one or a combination of threats, it needs to be specified to how many locations* these translate, bearing in mind that a location* is not defined via the existence of a threat at a site, but via the area covered by each threatening event that can rapidly affect all individuals present.
Based on the comment above, area 1) appears to be severely threatened, and a limited number of separate fire events may quickly affect the entire population present at this site. The number of locations* for area 1) is likely small.
Areas 4) and 5) are mainly suffering from livestock grazing and conversion of páramo habitat through burning. The number of locations* for each site is therefore likewise presumably low.
While area 3) is also under threat from burning events the number of locations* is likely larger than for 1), 4) and 5) given that the protected status of Cajas and Mazan offer some protection (even though it might be inadequate). The presence of the Cuenca-Guayaquil road is not considered to be a substantial threat given the very small number of individuals affected by roadkill (per Astudillo et al. 2014, Aguilar et al. 2019). The notion that the population in area 3) is not under large threat is further confirmed by the number and frequency of observational records particularly in this area (per eBird 2023).
Area 2) does not appear to be under imminent threat given that cattle grazing is described as ongoing, albeit not affecting the population present. Even though there may certainly be some habitat degradation, the number of locations* is likewise likely considerably higher than in areas 1), 4) and 5).
The concept of location* needs to be applied consistently and strictly follow IUCN’s Guidelines. Considering that the most serious plausible threat to the species is fire in its very small range, based on the evidence presented on this discussion forum the number of locations* is likely low, though considerably larger than five. From the information presented in the comment, it is not clear that all occupied sites could become extirpated by five separate fire events within the next three years. If this evidence is presented, a listing as Endangered would be justified. Based on the currently available information however, the assessment as 6-10 locations* is already strongly precautionary.
Moreover, it must be noted that following IUCN’s Guidelines a change in Red List status does not necessarily require new scientific evidence, as this is just one of several reasons why a listing can no longer be maintained. As explained in the assessment above, the proposed status change is coded as ‘Nongenuine (Knowledge of criteria)’, indicating that the previous category was applied in error because the assessors misunderstood the IUCN Red List Criteria.
Consequently, based on currently available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2023 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion. If evidence is presented that the number of locations* is not larger than five, e.g. by presenting the footprint of each threat at the occupied sites, this decision will be revisited.
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.
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. Violet-throated Metaltail is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion B1ab(iii,v).
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.
Dear BirdLife fellows,
We are revising the threatened species forum in order to contribute with information and/or suggestions on proposed changes to the Red List, particularly for Metallura baroni and the proposal to downgrade the species from Endangered to Vulnerable. In this letter we will present arguments that show that its current status “Endangered” is appropriate for the species. We have been working in the paramos of southern Ecuador for more than15 years, and have produced several manuscripts about the natural history, ecology and the effects of anthropogenic activities on the population of M. baroni. Those experiences are the basis for writing this letter.
M. baroni have been categorized as Endangered under the Criterium B1ab (i,ii,iii,iv), on the basis of a restricted distribution range, 5 or less locations, and a decline in habitat, range, and number of mature individuals. According to the information provided in the forum, the proposal to re categorize the species as Vulnerable is based on a reassessment of the number of locations where it is present, indicating that M. baroni is present in 6 to 10 locations. The text also mentions that “ in parts of the distribution range of the species are protected, and the species remains locally common”. However, using UICN´s definition of location, we argue the species is present in a maximum of five locations and the species is not really protected in its distribution range. The locations where the species is present are: 1) Páramos of Cañar (northern geographic range). This area does not have official protection. Agricultural activities, and fires to promote grasslands for livestock grazing are widespread and ongoing, threatening the presence of the species in this area. 2) Páramos of Labrado-Chanlud (north-center of geographic range). This area is located along the border of Cañar and Azuay provinces. The “Comité de conservación de la cuenca del río Machangara” (translated as conservation committee for rio Machangara wathershed) manages this area, and have established a series of activities for improving agricultural practices and preserving ecosystem services focused on water production. Despite the persistence of feral-livestock grazing in this area, the population of the species is likely stable there. 3) Parque Nacional Cajas (PNC) and the adjacent Mazan reserve (core area of the distribution range). These two areas are managed by a public water production company named ETAPA. Although PNC has the highest protection level according to Ecuadorian laws, it suffers from several impacts that have not been controlled by its managers. For example, the area is bisected by a main road that connects the cities of Guayaquil (second largest city in the country) and Cuenca (third largest city in the country). This road is a source of mortality for several species, including M. baroni, as it is demonstrated in our studies (Astudillo et al. 2014, Aguilar et al 2019, Carrasco 2022). Paramo burning and livestock grazing is still common every year inside PNC (particularly across the southern limit of PNC) and páramo-habitats of Mazan, especially during the dry season (August to September), which eliminates the habitat required by M. baroni. In general, the conservation status of PNC and Mazan do not warrant the maintenance of populations of M. baroni, and they both are under the same threatening event that is decreasing the habitat available for the species (Barros-Quito et al. 2020). 4) Paramos de Soldados and Can-Can (center-south of the geographic range). There is expensive cattle grazing in all this area and habitat conversion for livestock pastures is ongoing. Cattle pastures are not a habitat for M. baroni. All these are under the same impact. 5) Paramos of Quimsacocha and Rircay (southern range). Again, paramo conversion for livestock grazing and agriculture is an ongoing process in this area (Barros-Quito et al. 2020). That land use change usually implies burning the paramo grasslands. Moreover, the area has an important mining potential, and there are several projects waiting for official approval. Although the impacts of mining activities on the species has not been evaluated, it is rational to assume that they can cause habitat loss if mining companies do not implement restoration practices. There is one protected area within this area “Area Nacional de recreación Quimsacocha”. This is the least restrictive conservation category of Ecuador´s conservation national system, and most of it is composed of paramo grasslands that do not contain the shrubs that M. baroni requires because Quimsacocha is mainly composed of wetlands. Also this small area (3000 ha) is susceptible to the paramo burning that is common in the region. Moreover, our observations in those paramos indicate that the species is declining over time, and it has even disappeared from some Polylepis and shrubby patches. Therefore, this whole section of the distribution range of the species should be treated as one location.
With the arguments presented above, we kindly ask you to reevaluate the proposal to categorize the species as Vulnerable. The species does not occur in more than five locations. Metallura baroni is much needed from conservation actions and we are worried that downgrading the category of species will imperil the conservation attention on this species. We are open to provide more information to support our observations if needed.
Kind regards,
Boris Tinoco
Pedro Astudillo
Litereture cited
Astudillo, P. X., G. M. Samaniego, P. J. Machado, J. M. Aguilar, B. A. Tinoco, C. H. Graham, S. C. Latta, and N. Farwig. 2014. The impact of roads on the avifauna of páramo grasslands in Cajas National Park, Ecuador. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 49: 204–212.
Aguilar, J. M., A. Nieto, N. Espinoza, G. Loja, and B. A. Tinoco. 2019. Assessing patterns of bird roadkills in a high Andean Ecuadorian national park. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 54: 149–156.
Barros, J. S. B., P. X. Astudillo, B. O. Landázuri, P. Porras, D. C. Siddons, and S. C. Latta. 2020. Habitat heterogeneity rather than the limits of protected areas influence bird communities in an Andean biosphere reserve. Ecología Austral 30: 454–464.
Carrasco, P., P. Molina, D. Pacheco, and B. A, Tinoco NESTING BIOLOGY OF AN ECUADORIAN ENDEMIC HUMMINGBIRD, THE ENDANGERED VIOLET-THROATED METALTAIL Metallura baroni. Revista Ecuatoriana de Ornitología 8.
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.
The following comment was submitted by Juan Freile while this discussion forum was temporarily closed:
“Metallura baroni does not have more than five locations. There is NO justification for this precautionary recalculation of 6-10 locations. This change is not based on new scientific evidence, as is required for a change in IUCN category. Given the fact that Tinoco & Astudillo provide evidence, based on their extensive experience WITH the species and throughout its ENTIRE distribution range, I consider this proposed downgrading as unwarranted. Astudillo and Tinoco have published landmark scientific papers that must be used as baseline data to assess the status of this and other co-occurring species. Their information was used as baseline to rank Metallura baroni as EN in the recent Lista Roja de las Aves del Ecuador (Freile et al. 2019), under criterion B1ab(ii,iii).”
Preliminary proposal
Information submitted via this discussion forum describe five sites where the species occurs: 1) páramos in Cañar, 2) páramos of Labrado-Chanlud, 3) protected areas of Cajas and Mazan, 4) páramos of Soldados and Can-Can, and 5) páramos of Quimsacocha and Rircay. These sites are facing various threats: Areas 1), 4) and 5) are threatened by agriculture, livestock grazing and fire; area 3) is under protection but may nevertheless be affected by grazing and burning, while the Cuenca-Guayaquil road may additionally lead to roadkill; and area 2) is impacted by some livestock grazing.
While all five sites are under one or a combination of threats, it needs to be specified to how many locations* these translate, bearing in mind that a location* is not defined via the existence of a threat at a site, but via the area covered by each threatening event that can rapidly affect all individuals present.
Based on the comment above, area 1) appears to be severely threatened, and a limited number of separate fire events may quickly affect the entire population present at this site. The number of locations* for area 1) is likely small.
Areas 4) and 5) are mainly suffering from livestock grazing and conversion of páramo habitat through burning. The number of locations* for each site is therefore likewise presumably low.
While area 3) is also under threat from burning events the number of locations* is likely larger than for 1), 4) and 5) given that the protected status of Cajas and Mazan offer some protection (even though it might be inadequate). The presence of the Cuenca-Guayaquil road is not considered to be a substantial threat given the very small number of individuals affected by roadkill (per Astudillo et al. 2014, Aguilar et al. 2019). The notion that the population in area 3) is not under large threat is further confirmed by the number and frequency of observational records particularly in this area (per eBird 2023).
Area 2) does not appear to be under imminent threat given that cattle grazing is described as ongoing, albeit not affecting the population present. Even though there may certainly be some habitat degradation, the number of locations* is likewise likely considerably higher than in areas 1), 4) and 5).
The concept of location* needs to be applied consistently and strictly follow IUCN’s Guidelines. Considering that the most serious plausible threat to the species is fire in its very small range, based on the evidence presented on this discussion forum the number of locations* is likely low, though considerably larger than five. From the information presented in the comment, it is not clear that all occupied sites could become extirpated by five separate fire events within the next three years. If this evidence is presented, a listing as Endangered would be justified. Based on the currently available information however, the assessment as 6-10 locations* is already strongly precautionary.
Moreover, it must be noted that following IUCN’s Guidelines a change in Red List status does not necessarily require new scientific evidence, as this is just one of several reasons why a listing can no longer be maintained. As explained in the assessment above, the proposed status change is coded as ‘Nongenuine (Knowledge of criteria)’, indicating that the previous category was applied in error because the assessors misunderstood the IUCN Red List Criteria.
Consequently, based on currently available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2023 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion. If evidence is presented that the number of locations* is not larger than five, e.g. by presenting the footprint of each threat at the occupied sites, this decision will be revisited.
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.
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. Violet-throated Metaltail is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion B1ab(iii,v).
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.