Although it is unlikely that the estimated population density is representative for the species’ range and that ~50% of the forests within that range are occupied, the lower bound for the effective population size (i.e., minimum number of mature individuals) is still quite high. Hence, based on the evidence available, this bird should be categorized as LC.
Although this species apparently has a greater tolerance to disturbed habitats or slower rates of habitat loss, in regions such as Tolima it is locally rare, difficult to see and usually only in large areas of forest with high connectivity. This assessment is confirmed by local people in areas where the species has been recorded and where it has been subject to hunting. On the other hand, if we compare the eBird records, this species has fewer records than other species that are more frequently sighted and categorized as of lesser concern, such as Chamaepetes goudotii, Ortalis columbiana, Penelope montagnii, even with species categorized as vulnerable such as Crax rubra.
Rios et al., 2005 report two types of densities, a total density of 0.87 ind/km2 and ecological density of 2.6 ind /km2. This same high ecological density, was the only one used in the study conducted by Santini et al., 2018. It is important to keep in mind that the only study on the density of this species was conducted in an area with particular characteristics, with patches of forest of different ages and urapan plantations and several añor in conservation. From my point of view it does not represent the conditions of the general area of distribution of the species.
This species is widely hunted here it occurred and threatened by habitat loss. For example, in San Lucas in 2001, we found it quite common in the highlands. When I returned to the same site in 2010, there were none left. In pristine habitat, it can be quite common – but how much of that is left and what is the status of that habitat? I wonder if the population decline criterion is not still met?
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 temporarily closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 6 February 2023. We will now analyse and interpret the 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.
Information submitted via this discussion forum indicate that the population density estimated for parts of the range is unsuitable for an extrapolation of the global population size. The number of mature individuals is therefore removed from the assessment, though it remains unlikely that the population is small given the number of observational records within the very large range. It is noted that hunting may be locally severe and impacting the population. Nevertheless, in the absence of a quantification of hunting pressure and the species’ tolerance of some degree of habitat degradation, there is currently no evidence for moderately rapid or rapid declines.
Therefore, based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2023 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion.
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 new 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. Wattled Guan is recommended to be listed as Least Concern.
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.
Although it is unlikely that the estimated population density is representative for the species’ range and that ~50% of the forests within that range are occupied, the lower bound for the effective population size (i.e., minimum number of mature individuals) is still quite high. Hence, based on the evidence available, this bird should be categorized as LC.
Although this species apparently has a greater tolerance to disturbed habitats or slower rates of habitat loss, in regions such as Tolima it is locally rare, difficult to see and usually only in large areas of forest with high connectivity. This assessment is confirmed by local people in areas where the species has been recorded and where it has been subject to hunting. On the other hand, if we compare the eBird records, this species has fewer records than other species that are more frequently sighted and categorized as of lesser concern, such as Chamaepetes goudotii, Ortalis columbiana, Penelope montagnii, even with species categorized as vulnerable such as Crax rubra.
Rios et al., 2005 report two types of densities, a total density of 0.87 ind/km2 and ecological density of 2.6 ind /km2. This same high ecological density, was the only one used in the study conducted by Santini et al., 2018. It is important to keep in mind that the only study on the density of this species was conducted in an area with particular characteristics, with patches of forest of different ages and urapan plantations and several añor in conservation. From my point of view it does not represent the conditions of the general area of distribution of the species.
This species is widely hunted here it occurred and threatened by habitat loss. For example, in San Lucas in 2001, we found it quite common in the highlands. When I returned to the same site in 2010, there were none left. In pristine habitat, it can be quite common – but how much of that is left and what is the status of that habitat? I wonder if the population decline criterion is not still met?
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 temporarily closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 6 February 2023. We will now analyse and interpret the 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
Information submitted via this discussion forum indicate that the population density estimated for parts of the range is unsuitable for an extrapolation of the global population size. The number of mature individuals is therefore removed from the assessment, though it remains unlikely that the population is small given the number of observational records within the very large range. It is noted that hunting may be locally severe and impacting the population. Nevertheless, in the absence of a quantification of hunting pressure and the species’ tolerance of some degree of habitat degradation, there is currently no evidence for moderately rapid or rapid declines.
Therefore, based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2023 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion.
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 new 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. Wattled Guan is recommended to be listed as Least Concern.
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.