8 thoughts on “Rio Branco Antbird (Cercomacra carbonaria)”
Re-assessment of this species seems merited, as this bird (along with Synallaxis kollari, also up for reassessment) previously stood out among CR species found in Brazil as being apparently not in as extreme a situation as many or all of the other CR birds.
The National Red List assessment for Brazil evaluates this species as NT (B2ab(iii)), based on “little more than ten locations and a continuing decline in habitat quality because of agriculture and anthropogenic fires” (translated from Aleixo et al. 2023, https://doi.org/10.37002/salve.ficha.14104).
The question is whether there is sufficient information to place this species in the VU category (as which it was listed from 1994 to 2008), or whether it would be more appropriate to return it to NT (as which it was listed from 2008 to 2012, and which would be consistent with the current Brazilian national red list). As the great majority of the species’ range, and presumably population, is in Brazil, consistency would be desirable, so it would be important to clarify the reasons for any divergence. Of course, the very small population in Guyana may still qualify as nationally CR for that country.
I think there is a mismatch between the data presented and the final proposal – it cites A2c+3c, while in the table criterion A2 is not met but “approached”. Also please note that for a narrow, linear range like this, the colour legend on the map is not usable.
This species was listed as NT in the last Brazilian national assessment, carried out in 2018. This information can be consulted at:
Aleixo, A.L.P.; Lees, A.C.; Lima, D.M.; Lopes, E.V.; Silveira, L.F.; Haft, M.E.C.; Cerqueira, P.V.; Piacentini, V.Q. 2023. Cercomacra carbonaria Sclater & Salvin, 1873. Sistema de Avaliação do Risco de Extinção da Biodiversidade – SALVE. Available in: https://salve.icmbio.gov.br DOI: 10.37002/salve.ficha.14104 – Accessed: 03 de fev. de 2024.
I disagree with the proposal to prioritize reassessment of both Rio Branco endemics (this species and Hoary-throated Spinetail) for two reasons. The first is that the only population data from the species’ ranges in Brazil (presented in Vale et al. 2007) are now twenty years old. Given the extent of habitat degradation and land use change in Roraima during this time, a resurvey of both species is badly needed. The population estimates we generated (SRCS 2021) are based on these old data, and we emphasized that caveat in our report. In the manuscript describing our findings (currently in review), we urge caution in using our data to justify reassessment of both species: the state of knowledge of their ranges in Brazil at the present time is insufficient, and the current threats are too grave.
To illustrate why updated population estimates from Brazil should precede reassessment by IUCN, consider that our surveys along the Guyana-Brazil border indicated that a range contraction of more than 50 river kilometers likely occurred on the Maú (Ireng) River between 2004-2021, despite relatively little forest loss during this interval. This makes me doubt the value of observed changes in forest cover as a proxy for population trajectories. Indeed, our own forest-cover-based estimates of population size reflect the most optimistic scenario. Remote imagery may suggest that suitable habitat still exists, but there is no guarantee that small, isolated populations will maintain themselves in a fragmented gallery forest landscape.
The other reason for my opposition to reassessment at the present time is more practical. Our findings of considerable numbers of both species along the Takutu-Ireng (Maú) corridor has generated local interest and spurred constructive dialogue between our organization (SRCS) and a number of stakeholders in Guyana, including the Protected Areas Commission, the Guyana Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, local landowners, and tourism operators. Our proposed Ireng-Takutu KBA is being used as a springboard to develop an innovative community-based conservation zone to balance habitat preservation and local economic needs to help fulfill Guyana’s national conservation goals for 2030. Up to now, our progress has been encouraging, but we face a challenging path ahead. Guyana is moving forward rapidly with plans to develop large-scale agriculture in the Rupununi region, and the area along the Ireng River in particular is under intense development pressure. In fact, in the few years since we conducted our river surveys, several leaseholders have preemptively begun clearing land and building enormous drainage ditches that cut through the gallery forest in our study area. With the current El Niño conditions, this fire season has been especially intense. One of the forest blocks which we surveyed to generate our population estimates in 2021 has been burning for days and is still on fire as I type this. In short, we can ill afford the setback that we’re certain would result from having to tell our stakeholders that both species’ threat levels have been lowered.
A previous commenter offered the following:
The question is whether there is sufficient information to place this species in the VU category (as which it was listed from 1994 to 2008), or whether it would be more appropriate to return it to NT (as which it was listed from 2008 to 2012, and which would be consistent with the current Brazilian national red list). As the great majority of the species’ range, and presumably population, is in Brazil, consistency would be desirable, so it would be important to clarify the reasons for any divergence. Of course, the very small population in Guyana may still qualify as nationally CR for that country.
Seriously?
The question is not whether the species should be considered VU or NT. The question is more fundamental: Why now? Is there a compelling reason that these particular species, both of which face dire threats throughout their small ranges, should have their threat assessment lowered on the basis of 20-year-old data? Amid a backdrop of increasingly severe fires, hydropower development, and agriculture expansion? Would it not be reasonable to resurvey their previously known ranges in Brazil before making such a decision? Why is consistency with Brazil’s national list so desirable? (There is no red list for Guyana, so maintaining it as CR at the national level is not possible). However mistaken you may feel IUCN was in designating these species as CR in the first place, there is no doubt that their status has helped us garner support for their conservation from all corners, because everyone understands what it means to be critically endangered. Isn’t that what the Red List is supposed to accomplish?
In summary, I urge the IUCN to postpone reassessment of both Rio Branco Antbird and Hoary-throated Spinetail for at least two years, pending finalization of protected area status for both species in Guyana and updated population data from Brazil.
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 12 February 2024. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 12 February 2024, when discussions will re-open.
We are grateful for the contributions made during this latest round of discussions, and all relevant information has been incorporated into the updated Red List assessment for this species. Available data suggests that this species’ previous listing as Critically Endangered was unjustified and therefore cannot be upheld: there is no evidence that it meets the thresholds for listing as Critically Endangered under any criterion according to IUCN Red List Guidelines. We emphasise that Red List assessments are a measure of species’ global extinction risk following the best data available at the time of re-assessment and that this is a non-genuine change, i.e. there has been no genuine improvement in extinction risk. Based on available information therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2024 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 18 February 2024, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2024 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2024, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
I’d like to respond to the comment by Brian O’Shea, to which I am sympathetic. I would like to emphasise that I based my contributions on available information as part of the efforts by Instituto Claravis to support improved integration between the global red list and Brazilian national red list, but I do not work in the field with this species, and it’s crucial to prioritise the perspective and knowledge of those who do.
Consistency with the Brazilian national red list works both ways, as neither list is infallible. If the true status is worse than that recorded on the national red list, then it is the national red list that will need to be updated, assuming that the situation in Brazil is similar to that of the species as a whole, as seems likely.
Given the evidence mentioned by Brian of range contraction in intact habitat, and multiple and interacting threats (large-scale agriculture plans, active land clearance, drainage ditches through gallery forest, unusually intense fires as a result of El Niño and climate change) it does appear that there is sufficient evidence of recent and future declines that would place this species in a higher threat category than is currently the case on the Brazilian national red list. Even if such declines could be quantitatively estimated from just part of the species’ range, if they’re the best information available, they can be used to inform the threat category for the species as a whole.
Finally, I would support consideration of pending the decision for this year, if there is a likelihood of having improved data to work from in 1-2 years’ time. If that is not possible, it might be advisable to change one category level at a time (CR to EN in this case) to minimise the risk of seesawing between higher and lower categories and back up again as more data come in.
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 26 February 2024.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
Given the need to reassess the status of all bird species within a cycle that must be less than 10 years, a species’ previous listing cannot be maintained if it is unjustified or based on incorrect data. This species’ previous listing as Critically Endangered is considered erroneous and a new assessment must stand alone; it must be reassessed within the current cycle based on current available data. The population size is small and it is thought to be declining at a moderately rapid rate. Accordingly, it is assessed as Vulnerable, facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. There is no evidence it meets the thresholds for a higher threat category under any criterion according to IUCN Red List Guidelines however, and the final categorisation for this species has therefore not changed. Rio Branco Antbird is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criteria A3c+4c;C2a(i).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2024.1 GTB Forum process. The final 2024 Red List categories will now be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2024, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Re-assessment of this species seems merited, as this bird (along with Synallaxis kollari, also up for reassessment) previously stood out among CR species found in Brazil as being apparently not in as extreme a situation as many or all of the other CR birds.
The National Red List assessment for Brazil evaluates this species as NT (B2ab(iii)), based on “little more than ten locations and a continuing decline in habitat quality because of agriculture and anthropogenic fires” (translated from Aleixo et al. 2023, https://doi.org/10.37002/salve.ficha.14104).
The question is whether there is sufficient information to place this species in the VU category (as which it was listed from 1994 to 2008), or whether it would be more appropriate to return it to NT (as which it was listed from 2008 to 2012, and which would be consistent with the current Brazilian national red list). As the great majority of the species’ range, and presumably population, is in Brazil, consistency would be desirable, so it would be important to clarify the reasons for any divergence. Of course, the very small population in Guyana may still qualify as nationally CR for that country.
I think there is a mismatch between the data presented and the final proposal – it cites A2c+3c, while in the table criterion A2 is not met but “approached”. Also please note that for a narrow, linear range like this, the colour legend on the map is not usable.
This species was listed as NT in the last Brazilian national assessment, carried out in 2018. This information can be consulted at:
Aleixo, A.L.P.; Lees, A.C.; Lima, D.M.; Lopes, E.V.; Silveira, L.F.; Haft, M.E.C.; Cerqueira, P.V.; Piacentini, V.Q. 2023. Cercomacra carbonaria Sclater & Salvin, 1873. Sistema de Avaliação do Risco de Extinção da Biodiversidade – SALVE. Available in: https://salve.icmbio.gov.br DOI: 10.37002/salve.ficha.14104 – Accessed: 03 de fev. de 2024.
I disagree with the proposal to prioritize reassessment of both Rio Branco endemics (this species and Hoary-throated Spinetail) for two reasons. The first is that the only population data from the species’ ranges in Brazil (presented in Vale et al. 2007) are now twenty years old. Given the extent of habitat degradation and land use change in Roraima during this time, a resurvey of both species is badly needed. The population estimates we generated (SRCS 2021) are based on these old data, and we emphasized that caveat in our report. In the manuscript describing our findings (currently in review), we urge caution in using our data to justify reassessment of both species: the state of knowledge of their ranges in Brazil at the present time is insufficient, and the current threats are too grave.
To illustrate why updated population estimates from Brazil should precede reassessment by IUCN, consider that our surveys along the Guyana-Brazil border indicated that a range contraction of more than 50 river kilometers likely occurred on the Maú (Ireng) River between 2004-2021, despite relatively little forest loss during this interval. This makes me doubt the value of observed changes in forest cover as a proxy for population trajectories. Indeed, our own forest-cover-based estimates of population size reflect the most optimistic scenario. Remote imagery may suggest that suitable habitat still exists, but there is no guarantee that small, isolated populations will maintain themselves in a fragmented gallery forest landscape.
The other reason for my opposition to reassessment at the present time is more practical. Our findings of considerable numbers of both species along the Takutu-Ireng (Maú) corridor has generated local interest and spurred constructive dialogue between our organization (SRCS) and a number of stakeholders in Guyana, including the Protected Areas Commission, the Guyana Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, local landowners, and tourism operators. Our proposed Ireng-Takutu KBA is being used as a springboard to develop an innovative community-based conservation zone to balance habitat preservation and local economic needs to help fulfill Guyana’s national conservation goals for 2030. Up to now, our progress has been encouraging, but we face a challenging path ahead. Guyana is moving forward rapidly with plans to develop large-scale agriculture in the Rupununi region, and the area along the Ireng River in particular is under intense development pressure. In fact, in the few years since we conducted our river surveys, several leaseholders have preemptively begun clearing land and building enormous drainage ditches that cut through the gallery forest in our study area. With the current El Niño conditions, this fire season has been especially intense. One of the forest blocks which we surveyed to generate our population estimates in 2021 has been burning for days and is still on fire as I type this. In short, we can ill afford the setback that we’re certain would result from having to tell our stakeholders that both species’ threat levels have been lowered.
A previous commenter offered the following:
The question is whether there is sufficient information to place this species in the VU category (as which it was listed from 1994 to 2008), or whether it would be more appropriate to return it to NT (as which it was listed from 2008 to 2012, and which would be consistent with the current Brazilian national red list). As the great majority of the species’ range, and presumably population, is in Brazil, consistency would be desirable, so it would be important to clarify the reasons for any divergence. Of course, the very small population in Guyana may still qualify as nationally CR for that country.
Seriously?
The question is not whether the species should be considered VU or NT. The question is more fundamental: Why now? Is there a compelling reason that these particular species, both of which face dire threats throughout their small ranges, should have their threat assessment lowered on the basis of 20-year-old data? Amid a backdrop of increasingly severe fires, hydropower development, and agriculture expansion? Would it not be reasonable to resurvey their previously known ranges in Brazil before making such a decision? Why is consistency with Brazil’s national list so desirable? (There is no red list for Guyana, so maintaining it as CR at the national level is not possible). However mistaken you may feel IUCN was in designating these species as CR in the first place, there is no doubt that their status has helped us garner support for their conservation from all corners, because everyone understands what it means to be critically endangered. Isn’t that what the Red List is supposed to accomplish?
In summary, I urge the IUCN to postpone reassessment of both Rio Branco Antbird and Hoary-throated Spinetail for at least two years, pending finalization of protected area status for both species in Guyana and updated population data from Brazil.
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 12 February 2024. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 12 February 2024, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We are grateful for the contributions made during this latest round of discussions, and all relevant information has been incorporated into the updated Red List assessment for this species. Available data suggests that this species’ previous listing as Critically Endangered was unjustified and therefore cannot be upheld: there is no evidence that it meets the thresholds for listing as Critically Endangered under any criterion according to IUCN Red List Guidelines. We emphasise that Red List assessments are a measure of species’ global extinction risk following the best data available at the time of re-assessment and that this is a non-genuine change, i.e. there has been no genuine improvement in extinction risk. Based on available information therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2024 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 18 February 2024, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2024 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2024, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
I’d like to respond to the comment by Brian O’Shea, to which I am sympathetic. I would like to emphasise that I based my contributions on available information as part of the efforts by Instituto Claravis to support improved integration between the global red list and Brazilian national red list, but I do not work in the field with this species, and it’s crucial to prioritise the perspective and knowledge of those who do.
Consistency with the Brazilian national red list works both ways, as neither list is infallible. If the true status is worse than that recorded on the national red list, then it is the national red list that will need to be updated, assuming that the situation in Brazil is similar to that of the species as a whole, as seems likely.
Given the evidence mentioned by Brian of range contraction in intact habitat, and multiple and interacting threats (large-scale agriculture plans, active land clearance, drainage ditches through gallery forest, unusually intense fires as a result of El Niño and climate change) it does appear that there is sufficient evidence of recent and future declines that would place this species in a higher threat category than is currently the case on the Brazilian national red list. Even if such declines could be quantitatively estimated from just part of the species’ range, if they’re the best information available, they can be used to inform the threat category for the species as a whole.
Finally, I would support consideration of pending the decision for this year, if there is a likelihood of having improved data to work from in 1-2 years’ time. If that is not possible, it might be advisable to change one category level at a time (CR to EN in this case) to minimise the risk of seesawing between higher and lower categories and back up again as more data come in.
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 26 February 2024.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
Given the need to reassess the status of all bird species within a cycle that must be less than 10 years, a species’ previous listing cannot be maintained if it is unjustified or based on incorrect data. This species’ previous listing as Critically Endangered is considered erroneous and a new assessment must stand alone; it must be reassessed within the current cycle based on current available data. The population size is small and it is thought to be declining at a moderately rapid rate. Accordingly, it is assessed as Vulnerable, facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. There is no evidence it meets the thresholds for a higher threat category under any criterion according to IUCN Red List Guidelines however, and the final categorisation for this species has therefore not changed. Rio Branco Antbird is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criteria A3c+4c;C2a(i).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2024.1 GTB Forum process. The final 2024 Red List categories will now be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2024, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.