6 thoughts on “Blue-bearded Helmetcrest (Oxypogon cyanolaemus)”
It might be useful to talk to ProAves Colombia about this assessment. My understanding is not that 11% of its habitat has been lost but that more like 99% has been lost. It’s really important to clarify this.
The population size has not been quantified and I don’t think there is a good assessment of available or occupied habitat.
It is plausible that the population numbers less than 1,000 mature individuals.
Looking at eBird data, there are observations from only three clusters. The first cluster of Lagunas de Sevilla and Laguna del Colibri appear to hold somewhere in the range of 7-14 birds based on max counts from eBird checklists in this area. It is difficult to aggregate these checklists with confidence, but the highest single checklist record 7 birds. Two more clusters (Laguna Venado; and Steve Ogles camps at 3800 m and 4000 m) have max counts of 8 more birds. Adding these together yields a crude estimate of 13-22 individuals. This seems reasonable and conservative for a known population that was only recently rediscovered. More importantly, there is no evidence of further individuals surviving elsewhere. Other populations may yet be discovered within the Santa Marta mountains, but until such evidence is gathered I think BirdLife’s population guestimate of 250-999 is very likely an over-estimate and it would be a mistake to down-list the Blue-bearded Helmetcrest from CR to EN. The threat of human-set wildfires remains for known sites such as Lagunas de Sevilla.
BirdLife’s data cites Renjifo et al from the Colombian Red Book volume 2 get their population estimate. They say their population estimates are NOT robust. A google translation says
“The population size is unknown (Collar and Salaman 2013). Apparrently the species was abundant in the years from 1940 to 1946, where 62 individuals were collected from some areas of the SNSM, among which the Mamancanaca Páramo stands out, where 17 specimens (of the 62) were collected in a single field trip (Biomap 2013; Collar and Salaman 2013). Based on densities of O. guerinii (10 ind/ha, Salamanca Reyes, 2011) and O. stubelii (4 ind/ha, O. Cortés-Herrera pers. obs. 2014), under an optimistic scenario, it can be thought that the population of O. cyanolaemus has a few hundred individuals (see population size in the risk assessment section).”
“According to the synthesis of information on the species (Cortés Herrera and Villagrán Chavarro, 2016), O. cyanolaemus is not numerous in any location within its distribution. However, in the absence of a good estimate of area of occupancy, an estimate of population size would not be robust enough to assess the species for criteria C”
“The habitat of the species is severely fragmented, not only due to the net loss of páramo area, but also due to its degradation (a). Habitat degradation is not in the process of being reversed, so it is estimated that the species will continue to decline (b) in terms of area of occupancy (ii), extension and/or quality of habitat (iii) and number of mature individuals (v ). IN B1ab(ii,iii,v).
B2 Remaining habitat area = 966km2 < 2000km2, however this figure includes both areas in good condition and degraded areas that do not support populations of the species. Recent searches indicate that its population could be located and that the area of occupancy could be less than 500 km2 (a) (O. Cortés-Herrera pers. comm.). TheHabitat degradation is not in the process of being reversed, so it is estimated that it will continue to decrease (b) in terms of area of occupation (ii), extension and/or quality of habitat (iii) and number of mature individuals (v). It is important to make a more precise quantification of the area of occupation of the species. IN B2ab(ii,iii,v).”
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 until 26 June 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 26 June 2023, when discussions will re-open.
Comments submitted during this Forum process support the suspicion that the population size of this species is indeed small, though a solid quantification remains absent. However, as is clearly stated in the Rationale for the proposed change, the absence of a true population ‘estimate’, as defined in IUCN’s Red List Guidelines, means that a listing as threatened under Criterion C is not possible. The proposed change is coded as ‘nongenuine’, meaning that the species should not previously have been listed as Critically Endangered. While the species’ habitat is certainly fragmented, there is currently no evidence of a severe fragmentation of the population (as defined by IUCN 2022). The potentially small population, the urgent need for an accurate quantification of the population size and trend, as well as the decline in habitat availability (per Renjifo et al. 2016) is highlighted in the species factsheet.
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 2 July 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 the information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 10 July 2023.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Blue-bearded Helmetcrest is recommended to be listed as Endangered under Criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2023.2 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.
It might be useful to talk to ProAves Colombia about this assessment. My understanding is not that 11% of its habitat has been lost but that more like 99% has been lost. It’s really important to clarify this.
The population size has not been quantified and I don’t think there is a good assessment of available or occupied habitat.
It is plausible that the population numbers less than 1,000 mature individuals.
Looking at eBird data, there are observations from only three clusters. The first cluster of Lagunas de Sevilla and Laguna del Colibri appear to hold somewhere in the range of 7-14 birds based on max counts from eBird checklists in this area. It is difficult to aggregate these checklists with confidence, but the highest single checklist record 7 birds. Two more clusters (Laguna Venado; and Steve Ogles camps at 3800 m and 4000 m) have max counts of 8 more birds. Adding these together yields a crude estimate of 13-22 individuals. This seems reasonable and conservative for a known population that was only recently rediscovered. More importantly, there is no evidence of further individuals surviving elsewhere. Other populations may yet be discovered within the Santa Marta mountains, but until such evidence is gathered I think BirdLife’s population guestimate of 250-999 is very likely an over-estimate and it would be a mistake to down-list the Blue-bearded Helmetcrest from CR to EN. The threat of human-set wildfires remains for known sites such as Lagunas de Sevilla.
BirdLife’s data cites Renjifo et al from the Colombian Red Book volume 2 get their population estimate. They say their population estimates are NOT robust. A google translation says
“The population size is unknown (Collar and Salaman 2013). Apparrently the species was abundant in the years from 1940 to 1946, where 62 individuals were collected from some areas of the SNSM, among which the Mamancanaca Páramo stands out, where 17 specimens (of the 62) were collected in a single field trip (Biomap 2013; Collar and Salaman 2013). Based on densities of O. guerinii (10 ind/ha, Salamanca Reyes, 2011) and O. stubelii (4 ind/ha, O. Cortés-Herrera pers. obs. 2014), under an optimistic scenario, it can be thought that the population of O. cyanolaemus has a few hundred individuals (see population size in the risk assessment section).”
“According to the synthesis of information on the species (Cortés Herrera and Villagrán Chavarro, 2016), O. cyanolaemus is not numerous in any location within its distribution. However, in the absence of a good estimate of area of occupancy, an estimate of population size would not be robust enough to assess the species for criteria C”
“The habitat of the species is severely fragmented, not only due to the net loss of páramo area, but also due to its degradation (a). Habitat degradation is not in the process of being reversed, so it is estimated that the species will continue to decline (b) in terms of area of occupancy (ii), extension and/or quality of habitat (iii) and number of mature individuals (v ). IN B1ab(ii,iii,v).
B2 Remaining habitat area = 966km2 < 2000km2, however this figure includes both areas in good condition and degraded areas that do not support populations of the species. Recent searches indicate that its population could be located and that the area of occupancy could be less than 500 km2 (a) (O. Cortés-Herrera pers. comm.). TheHabitat degradation is not in the process of being reversed, so it is estimated that it will continue to decrease (b) in terms of area of occupation (ii), extension and/or quality of habitat (iii) and number of mature individuals (v). It is important to make a more precise quantification of the area of occupation of the species. IN B2ab(ii,iii,v).”
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 until 26 June 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 26 June 2023, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
Comments submitted during this Forum process support the suspicion that the population size of this species is indeed small, though a solid quantification remains absent. However, as is clearly stated in the Rationale for the proposed change, the absence of a true population ‘estimate’, as defined in IUCN’s Red List Guidelines, means that a listing as threatened under Criterion C is not possible. The proposed change is coded as ‘nongenuine’, meaning that the species should not previously have been listed as Critically Endangered. While the species’ habitat is certainly fragmented, there is currently no evidence of a severe fragmentation of the population (as defined by IUCN 2022). The potentially small population, the urgent need for an accurate quantification of the population size and trend, as well as the decline in habitat availability (per Renjifo et al. 2016) is highlighted in the species factsheet.
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 2 July 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 the information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 10 July 2023.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Blue-bearded Helmetcrest is recommended to be listed as Endangered under Criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2023.2 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.