5 thoughts on “Dark-rumped Swift (Apus acuticauda)”
How can we justify downgrading a species from Vulnerable to Least Concern when its small population numbers are unknown, many (probably most) facets of its ecology and range unknown? In that case DD would have been appropriate.
It is better to keep as Vulnerable as its small numbers are known from small isolated pockets. The Bhutan range is not large as mentioned in the text.
The location in Arunachal Pradesh not show on the map.
I agree with A. Choudhury that such a radical downgrading is hardly justified. The distribution of the bird is barely known. The map shows large blobs in Myanmar but in reality the actual range is likely to be considerably smaller. The large blue area around Mandalay is based on a few observations and the bird is still very scarce in the region. Considering its small distribution in the Eastern himalayan foothills and unknown status I suggest to keep it as VU.
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 3 May 2024. We will now analyse and interpret all information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 3 May 2024, when discussions will re-open.
We thank those who have taken the time to comment. Regarding the suggestion to classify the species as Data Deficient, we acknowledge that there are uncertainties surrounding the ecology and population size of the species. However, based on the available eBird records, we have been able to derive rough estimates of population size and distribution, which provide sufficient information to avoid classifying the species as Data Deficient (which requires that the data are so uncertain the species could be listed as either Least Concern or Critically Endangered). But we do recognise the possibility of a very small population size and have taken this into consideration. The number of individuals recorded in each eBird observation indicates that the population size is unlikely to be less than 250. However, it is possible that the population size could be fewer than 1,000 mature individuals. Given the significant lack of understanding surrounding the population, a precautionary estimate ranges from 900 to 10,000 individuals. This estimate considers both the apparent small population size and the substantial uncertainty, leaving room for the possibility of a larger population that has yet to be discovered.
In response to A. Choudhury’s query regarding the location in Arunachal Pradesh not being visible on the map, we confirm that it is included. However, the location marker is small, and the colouring is not very distinct. We have made adjustments to ensure that it is more conspicuous and thereby avoiding any oversight.
Regarding the range map potentially being too large, we’ve taken note of your concerns, and the map will undergo a review. It’s worth noting that eBird records span much of the specified range in Bhutan. In Myanmar, records are spread across the designated area, albeit at lower densities, suggesting the potential for a smaller range than depicted. This aspect will also be carefully examined.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2024 Red List would be to list Dark-rumped Swift as Near Threatened under Criterion D1.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 13 May 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 October 2024, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Why would we want to lower the status of a species when we don’t even know how the population is doing? Birdwatchers often record it in the same spot, but that doesn’t mean it’s common. Also, a study from Southeast Asia and our own experience with the Indian Swiftlet in the Western Ghats of India shows that it is hard to make judgments based on ebird data for swifts and swiftlets because different birders have different ways of identifying them, and even if they are identified correctly, the same population is recorded by different people over and over again. So, I agree with keeping the species in the Vulnerable category.
How can we justify downgrading a species from Vulnerable to Least Concern when its small population numbers are unknown, many (probably most) facets of its ecology and range unknown? In that case DD would have been appropriate.
It is better to keep as Vulnerable as its small numbers are known from small isolated pockets. The Bhutan range is not large as mentioned in the text.
The location in Arunachal Pradesh not show on the map.
I agree with A. Choudhury that such a radical downgrading is hardly justified. The distribution of the bird is barely known. The map shows large blobs in Myanmar but in reality the actual range is likely to be considerably smaller. The large blue area around Mandalay is based on a few observations and the bird is still very scarce in the region. Considering its small distribution in the Eastern himalayan foothills and unknown status I suggest to keep it as VU.
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 3 May 2024. We will now analyse and interpret all information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 3 May 2024, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank those who have taken the time to comment. Regarding the suggestion to classify the species as Data Deficient, we acknowledge that there are uncertainties surrounding the ecology and population size of the species. However, based on the available eBird records, we have been able to derive rough estimates of population size and distribution, which provide sufficient information to avoid classifying the species as Data Deficient (which requires that the data are so uncertain the species could be listed as either Least Concern or Critically Endangered). But we do recognise the possibility of a very small population size and have taken this into consideration. The number of individuals recorded in each eBird observation indicates that the population size is unlikely to be less than 250. However, it is possible that the population size could be fewer than 1,000 mature individuals. Given the significant lack of understanding surrounding the population, a precautionary estimate ranges from 900 to 10,000 individuals. This estimate considers both the apparent small population size and the substantial uncertainty, leaving room for the possibility of a larger population that has yet to be discovered.
In response to A. Choudhury’s query regarding the location in Arunachal Pradesh not being visible on the map, we confirm that it is included. However, the location marker is small, and the colouring is not very distinct. We have made adjustments to ensure that it is more conspicuous and thereby avoiding any oversight.
Regarding the range map potentially being too large, we’ve taken note of your concerns, and the map will undergo a review. It’s worth noting that eBird records span much of the specified range in Bhutan. In Myanmar, records are spread across the designated area, albeit at lower densities, suggesting the potential for a smaller range than depicted. This aspect will also be carefully examined.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2024 Red List would be to list Dark-rumped Swift as Near Threatened under Criterion D1.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 13 May 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 October 2024, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Why would we want to lower the status of a species when we don’t even know how the population is doing? Birdwatchers often record it in the same spot, but that doesn’t mean it’s common. Also, a study from Southeast Asia and our own experience with the Indian Swiftlet in the Western Ghats of India shows that it is hard to make judgments based on ebird data for swifts and swiftlets because different birders have different ways of identifying them, and even if they are identified correctly, the same population is recorded by different people over and over again. So, I agree with keeping the species in the Vulnerable category.