Thank you for inviting input on the reassessment of the Brown Wood‑rail. I agree that the species probably no longer meets the thresholds for Vulnerable. However, I think that the available evidence still supports listing it as Near Threatened rather than Least Concern.
The species shows patchy occupancy within the mapped polygon. eBird shows well‑separated localities, most clustered in less than 10 blocks across its range in Colombia and Ecuador. Large areas inside the extent‑of‑occurrence (EOO) have no records despite thorough surveys. The species is dependent on wet forested wetlands. This wood‑rail is tied to swampy forest streams, flooded palm groves and mangrove‐edge thickets; these habitats are naturally discontinuous and further fragmented by land‑use change. The widespread cattle pastures, oil‑palm estates and shrimp ponds that now dominate the coastal lowlands of NW Ecuador and W Colombia offer little or no habitat for the species. If one clips the range to pixels supporting closed‑canopy forest and freshwater/mangrove wetlands, the remaining envelope is much smaller and shows a fragmented scenario.
Habitat loss and fragmentation remain severe pressures in the region. Lowland forests in western Ecuador have already lost 68 % of their original cover, with 20% occurring after 2000. In western Ecuador, which holds >⅓ of the global range, national monitoring indicates that this region accounted for the highest gross deforestation in Ecuador during 2020‑22. Tree‑cover loss continues in coastal Ecuador, with the main drivers being oil‑palm expansion, balsa‑wood booms and logging fronts. Wetland loss compounds a significant problem. Remote‑sensing synthesis over 50 years shows that Pacific‑coast mangroves have declined by c. 40 %, mainly due to shrimp farming and urbanisation. Taken together, forest and wetland degradation suggest an ongoing reduction in the extent and quality of suitable habitat.
Population size and structure remain uncertain and may closely approach threatened thresholds. No direct estimates exist. The density of 3 ind km⁻² cited from A. cajaneus comes from continuous, well‑vegetated floodplain forest and is unlikely to hold across the Chocó mosaic of fragmented wetlands and plantations. The Ecuadorian national red list still treats the species as Vulnerable owing to continuing declines and severe habitat fragmentation and loss across its range.
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 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
We thank Diego F. Cisneros-Heredia for the considered comment. While the population may not occur continuously through the range, the status in Colombia was not considered to come close to meeting any criteria for consideration as threatened, such that consideration of range or population size cannot support a threatened assessment. There is also no evidence that would support a rapid rate of reduction for the population over the past three generations: rates of forest loss reduced greatly in Ecuador after 2005 and as noted there was no indication of a rapid reduction in Colombia. While the population may be depleted in Ecuador and be appropriately considered threatened at the national level, at the global level the data does not indicate that the species approaches threatened thresholds.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, 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 a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.
Thank you for inviting input on the reassessment of the Brown Wood‑rail. I agree that the species probably no longer meets the thresholds for Vulnerable. However, I think that the available evidence still supports listing it as Near Threatened rather than Least Concern.
The species shows patchy occupancy within the mapped polygon. eBird shows well‑separated localities, most clustered in less than 10 blocks across its range in Colombia and Ecuador. Large areas inside the extent‑of‑occurrence (EOO) have no records despite thorough surveys. The species is dependent on wet forested wetlands. This wood‑rail is tied to swampy forest streams, flooded palm groves and mangrove‐edge thickets; these habitats are naturally discontinuous and further fragmented by land‑use change. The widespread cattle pastures, oil‑palm estates and shrimp ponds that now dominate the coastal lowlands of NW Ecuador and W Colombia offer little or no habitat for the species. If one clips the range to pixels supporting closed‑canopy forest and freshwater/mangrove wetlands, the remaining envelope is much smaller and shows a fragmented scenario.
Habitat loss and fragmentation remain severe pressures in the region. Lowland forests in western Ecuador have already lost 68 % of their original cover, with 20% occurring after 2000. In western Ecuador, which holds >⅓ of the global range, national monitoring indicates that this region accounted for the highest gross deforestation in Ecuador during 2020‑22. Tree‑cover loss continues in coastal Ecuador, with the main drivers being oil‑palm expansion, balsa‑wood booms and logging fronts. Wetland loss compounds a significant problem. Remote‑sensing synthesis over 50 years shows that Pacific‑coast mangroves have declined by c. 40 %, mainly due to shrimp farming and urbanisation. Taken together, forest and wetland degradation suggest an ongoing reduction in the extent and quality of suitable habitat.
Population size and structure remain uncertain and may closely approach threatened thresholds. No direct estimates exist. The density of 3 ind km⁻² cited from A. cajaneus comes from continuous, well‑vegetated floodplain forest and is unlikely to hold across the Chocó mosaic of fragmented wetlands and plantations. The Ecuadorian national red list still treats the species as Vulnerable owing to continuing declines and severe habitat fragmentation and loss across its range.
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 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank Diego F. Cisneros-Heredia for the considered comment. While the population may not occur continuously through the range, the status in Colombia was not considered to come close to meeting any criteria for consideration as threatened, such that consideration of range or population size cannot support a threatened assessment. There is also no evidence that would support a rapid rate of reduction for the population over the past three generations: rates of forest loss reduced greatly in Ecuador after 2005 and as noted there was no indication of a rapid reduction in Colombia. While the population may be depleted in Ecuador and be appropriately considered threatened at the national level, at the global level the data does not indicate that the species approaches threatened thresholds.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, 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 a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.