12 thoughts on “Rondonia Bushbird (Clytoctantes atrogularis)”
I would suggest pending this downlist. This is clearly a low-density bird, with a relatively restricted range, in an area of the Amazon that has experienced some of the most highest rates of deforestation in the world. This species has been listed in the past as Lower Risk/Least Concern, Data Deficient, Critically Endangered and now Vulnerable. To minimise further non-genuine changes to its status, it surely merits a more thorough analysis.
Many of the few existing observations are from the same known territories. Even given the difficulties of detection, sparseness of data, and gaps in observer coverage in this Amazonian region, it is clear that this species is patchily distributed with a low population density, and as a consequence it is likely vulnerable to edge effects and forest degradation as well as to deforestation.
The effects of deforestation may thus render much larger areas unsuitable for the species through forest degradation, as has been shown for other Amazonian birds — where, for example, deforestation of 20% can result in losses of species such as this of 39-54% (Barlow et al. 2016). Such an analysis of forest degradation has not been done for this species in this region, but there is evidence of thresholds in species loss in this region, with populations of some species collapsing when forest cover passes certain thresholds (Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2015). Rondônia is one of the Amazon states with the greatest loss of primary forest and least secondary forest regeneration, while the southern part of Amazonas (Apuí municipality, where the species is also found) looks to be heading on a similar trajectory (Smith et al. 2021).
This country endemic is also considered VU on the Brazilian National Red List, and a downlisting would take the global and national lists out of sync. Given a substantial likelihood that this species is genuinely threatened, I would suggest delaying downlisting until a better habitat analysis can be done, taking account of habitat degradation and edge effects, as well as a threat analysis of planned hydro-electric dams within its range.
References
Barlow, J. et al. 2016. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535, 144–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18326
Ochoa-Quintero, J.M., Gardner, T.A., Rosa, I., de Barros Ferraz, S.F., Sutherland, W.J., 2015. Thresholds of species loss in Amazonian deforestation frontier landscapes. Conservation Biology 29, 440–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12446
Smith, C.C., Healey, J.R., Berenguer, E., Young, P.J., Taylor, B., Elias, F., Espírito-Santo, F., Barlow, J., 2021. Old-growth forest loss and secondary forest recovery across Amazonian countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 085009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1701
The question for this species is: is there any guidance in the IUCN methodology for downlisting to NT when population size data is only suspect? This situation is not foreseen in the Guidelines and I understand that, in this case, criterion C does not apply, not even for NT. In this case, the species would be LC. But if there is an understanding that the species is threatened and there is no data to confirm this, then it would be DD until an estimate of its population size is available. Or, Criterion A could be another way. The species has lost 10% of its habitat over the past three generations. In addition to these 10% lost, has there been degradation of the remaining habitat? What’s the rate? Does the species remain or not in altered areas?
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.
Based on available information, our proposal for the 2023 Red List is to pend the decision on this species and keep the discussion open until 2024, while leaving the current Red List category unchanged in the 2023 update.
It has been indicated that the population is small and potentially threatened. Delaying a decision on this species should give sufficient time for additional analyses to shed light on the population size, habitat availability and rate of population decline, so that the assessment can be based on solid evidence.
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.
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.
Considering that there are no new data on population size and considering the current data – suspected less than 10,000 mature individuals and suspected population declines at a rate of less than 20% over 3 generations – I understand that, for now, NT is more correct than VU. The next review of the national red list should make the same adjustment, if more accurate data do not emerge.
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.
There is great uncertainty around the population size, trend, subpopulation structure and exact distribution of this species. Nevertheless, in accordance with IUCN Red List Guidelines, the species can be assessed as Near Threatened. The urgent need for accurate data is noted in the species factsheet, and the assessment will be refined and updated when this data becomes available.
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.
I understand the back and forth on this one, based on lack of data. However, it is reasonable to infer from what little is published on this bird that “low-density” may not be the only issue so much as unknown exact habitat requirements. The species would appear not to occur uniformly throughout the polygon marked as its range and so the “only 10% habitat loss” is almost surely an underestimate. In fact, the species is not usually found in most of this area, suggesting that its true range is much smaller and mostly restricted to precisely the areas, within the currently delimited polygon, that suffer the greatest disturbance. I believe it would be irresponsible to classify it as anything less than vulnerable (and it is probably worse off than that). Also, it probably occurred, although we will never know for sure, further south where there is absolutely no remaining habitat. Thus, it has lost more habitat than we are calculating, and very recently.
To put it another way, deforestation and severe habitat degradation will continue in the southern part of its mapped range, leaving only the northern part, where its presence is, in my opinion, very spotty at best. This species will go extinct before we have enough data to agree on what its correct listing should be!
Also, if the question is data quality requiring more study, but the species is not listed and occurs in places that are hard to study, we will not be eligible for any funding for research to improve data quality. Again, it will go extinct before we get the data.
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. Rondonia Bushbird is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold for listing as threatened under Criteria C1+2a(ii).
The urgent need for surveys to quantify the population size and trend is noted in the species factsheet. However, a species’ dependence on conservation action and the need for funding is explicitly not part of a Red List assessment. Instead, this is evaluated in the IUCN Green Status of Species, and thus we strongly encourage assessing the Green Status of Rondonia Bushbird.
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.
I would suggest pending this downlist. This is clearly a low-density bird, with a relatively restricted range, in an area of the Amazon that has experienced some of the most highest rates of deforestation in the world. This species has been listed in the past as Lower Risk/Least Concern, Data Deficient, Critically Endangered and now Vulnerable. To minimise further non-genuine changes to its status, it surely merits a more thorough analysis.
Many of the few existing observations are from the same known territories. Even given the difficulties of detection, sparseness of data, and gaps in observer coverage in this Amazonian region, it is clear that this species is patchily distributed with a low population density, and as a consequence it is likely vulnerable to edge effects and forest degradation as well as to deforestation.
The effects of deforestation may thus render much larger areas unsuitable for the species through forest degradation, as has been shown for other Amazonian birds — where, for example, deforestation of 20% can result in losses of species such as this of 39-54% (Barlow et al. 2016). Such an analysis of forest degradation has not been done for this species in this region, but there is evidence of thresholds in species loss in this region, with populations of some species collapsing when forest cover passes certain thresholds (Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2015). Rondônia is one of the Amazon states with the greatest loss of primary forest and least secondary forest regeneration, while the southern part of Amazonas (Apuí municipality, where the species is also found) looks to be heading on a similar trajectory (Smith et al. 2021).
This country endemic is also considered VU on the Brazilian National Red List, and a downlisting would take the global and national lists out of sync. Given a substantial likelihood that this species is genuinely threatened, I would suggest delaying downlisting until a better habitat analysis can be done, taking account of habitat degradation and edge effects, as well as a threat analysis of planned hydro-electric dams within its range.
References
Barlow, J. et al. 2016. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535, 144–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18326
Ochoa-Quintero, J.M., Gardner, T.A., Rosa, I., de Barros Ferraz, S.F., Sutherland, W.J., 2015. Thresholds of species loss in Amazonian deforestation frontier landscapes. Conservation Biology 29, 440–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12446
Smith, C.C., Healey, J.R., Berenguer, E., Young, P.J., Taylor, B., Elias, F., Espírito-Santo, F., Barlow, J., 2021. Old-growth forest loss and secondary forest recovery across Amazonian countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 085009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1701
Also note that the distribution maps on the IUCN Red List site and the BirdLife Data Zone are different.
The question for this species is: is there any guidance in the IUCN methodology for downlisting to NT when population size data is only suspect? This situation is not foreseen in the Guidelines and I understand that, in this case, criterion C does not apply, not even for NT. In this case, the species would be LC. But if there is an understanding that the species is threatened and there is no data to confirm this, then it would be DD until an estimate of its population size is available. Or, Criterion A could be another way. The species has lost 10% of its habitat over the past three generations. In addition to these 10% lost, has there been degradation of the remaining habitat? What’s the rate? Does the species remain or not in altered areas?
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
Based on available information, our proposal for the 2023 Red List is to pend the decision on this species and keep the discussion open until 2024, while leaving the current Red List category unchanged in the 2023 update.
It has been indicated that the population is small and potentially threatened. Delaying a decision on this species should give sufficient time for additional analyses to shed light on the population size, habitat availability and rate of population decline, so that the assessment can be based on solid evidence.
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.
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.
Considering that there are no new data on population size and considering the current data – suspected less than 10,000 mature individuals and suspected population declines at a rate of less than 20% over 3 generations – I understand that, for now, NT is more correct than VU. The next review of the national red list should make the same adjustment, if more accurate data do not emerge.
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
There is great uncertainty around the population size, trend, subpopulation structure and exact distribution of this species. Nevertheless, in accordance with IUCN Red List Guidelines, the species can be assessed as Near Threatened. The urgent need for accurate data is noted in the species factsheet, and the assessment will be refined and updated when this data becomes available.
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.
I understand the back and forth on this one, based on lack of data. However, it is reasonable to infer from what little is published on this bird that “low-density” may not be the only issue so much as unknown exact habitat requirements. The species would appear not to occur uniformly throughout the polygon marked as its range and so the “only 10% habitat loss” is almost surely an underestimate. In fact, the species is not usually found in most of this area, suggesting that its true range is much smaller and mostly restricted to precisely the areas, within the currently delimited polygon, that suffer the greatest disturbance. I believe it would be irresponsible to classify it as anything less than vulnerable (and it is probably worse off than that). Also, it probably occurred, although we will never know for sure, further south where there is absolutely no remaining habitat. Thus, it has lost more habitat than we are calculating, and very recently.
To put it another way, deforestation and severe habitat degradation will continue in the southern part of its mapped range, leaving only the northern part, where its presence is, in my opinion, very spotty at best. This species will go extinct before we have enough data to agree on what its correct listing should be!
Also, if the question is data quality requiring more study, but the species is not listed and occurs in places that are hard to study, we will not be eligible for any funding for research to improve data quality. Again, it will go extinct before we get the data.
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. Rondonia Bushbird is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold for listing as threatened under Criteria C1+2a(ii).
The urgent need for surveys to quantify the population size and trend is noted in the species factsheet. However, a species’ dependence on conservation action and the need for funding is explicitly not part of a Red List assessment. Instead, this is evaluated in the IUCN Green Status of Species, and thus we strongly encourage assessing the Green Status of Rondonia Bushbird.
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.