7 thoughts on “Golden-backed Mountain-tanager (Cnemathraupis aureodorsalis)”
A recent survey of the Golden-backed Mountain Tanager (Cnemathraupis aureodorsalis) conducted in the Carpish Montane Forest Regional Conservation Area and the Unchog Private Conservation Area provides important new information on the species’ distribution and abundance. Using line transects and point counts from May to November 2021, researchers recorded 100 individual tanagers, with the highest numbers observed in August (24), September (28), and October (21). Birds were seen feeding, calling, and singing, primarily in native fruiting plants including Oreopanax oroyanus, Carica pubenscens, Tristerix sp., Pouteria sp., and mountain pomegranate.
The habitat across both study areas was found to be in good condition, with no evidence of recent agricultural expansion, burning, or livestock encroachment. The local community plays an active role in protecting the area, contributing to the preservation of these key ecosystems. The presence of other notable bird species further underscores the biodiversity and ecological value of the region.
This new information may provide useful support for BirdLife in their proposed update to the species’ conservation status. While the survey was limited in scope, it contributes valuable field-based data on the species’ abundance and habitat conditions, which are relevant to the assessment of its extinction risk. Continued monitoring and broader surveys would help to clarify whether these findings reflect the full extent of the species’ recovery or stability.
Please use the following link and password to access the report:
Report Golden-backed Mountain Tanager_NCI_March 2022.pdf
Password: xwy123xhF3Cy https://abcbirds.egnyte.com/dl/uY4LmsvO1m
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.
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.
The report is interesting, but the numbers seem inflated. There are not 100 birds in the areas they have covered. If there was birders would not have spend up to three days to see just one single one. And sometimes not that. They also failed to see it completely in November…
They have not seen 100 different individuals but rather a total count of 100 individuals observed over several months. There is no account for how the individuals were seen. Did they do simultaneous counts on the different transects….or it likley the same birds that were counted several times.
Also, they do not account for in which forest patches the birds were seen. It is not unlikely that the birds cover large distances.
When we see them we practically always find them in the branches of the Weinmannia trees – the umbrella like tree that dominates the Unchog forest. I have always presumed that the Weinmannia provides the main food (perhaps the leaf buds or fruit), and maybe also Tristerix which also Bay-vented Cotinga feeds upon.
The Weinmannia seems to be very sensitive to fire. One area that was burnt some 20-25 years ago, is still not recolonized with Weinmannia, but rather covered in Chusquea bamboo.
Even if there has been very limited destruction of the remaining patches of forest, there have been a few areas next to the road where Weinmannia has been cleared and new potato fields have put in.
And the surrounding area is heavily used by grazing cattle. Burning for pastures is still very common in the Andes of Peru.
Even if the area has legal protection it does not mean it is still threatened. At lower subtropical regions of the Carpish Mountains within the designated conservation area huge tracts of forest have been destroyed to grow Hydrangea for export.
Considering the scarceness of the species and the few sites where it can still be found, and the constant destruction of the ecotone habitat throughout the Andes. it should definitely have a threat status higher than that of Masked Mountain-Tanager of Ecuador and Colombia in very similar habitat. It is far easier to find Masked Mountain Tanager than Golden-backed Mountain Tanager and the former is even found in reserves that do get proper protection. GBMT is simply a much rarer bird, known only from a handful of sites. Flocks that I have seen may have had 6 birds max 7, but never as many as 10. I have never counted 10 in one day doing the same 4km transect they did. In later years no more than max four has been seen at the time.
I suggest to do a thorough check on ebird records of how many birds are seen, and also account for birding days without sightings by perhaps checking all the lists that contain Coppery Metaltail (which is common in the same habitat). You will appreciate how rare this bird is and how dependent it is on the GOOD habitat and counts of 28 birds just seem rediculous. The scarcity of negative days indicate that the bird covers greater areas than one can walk in one day.
I have not visited the other small patches on the other side of the ridge where they have shorter transects, but it would surprise me if they are found in big numbers there.
I believe it may have to supplement on other food sources in some seasons why a continuous forest as there is lower down in Unchog is probably important. I have seen them once at the lowest point of the 4k stretch where the forest rapidly into sub-tropics as the trail descends steeply. The more fruity plants mentioned in the report may be of importance when they can not find food items in the Weinmannia dominated areas. This is a hypothesis anyway.
I asked Oscar Gonzales who has been studying hummingbirds in the area over extensive periods of time. He says he has never seen more than 3 in a day.
One can not extrapolate and say that there is plenty of habitat between the sites that few researchers have reached. There is likely to be similar rural economies which will burn the ecotone forest for pasture…and good Weinmannia forest will only be found in rare pockets, as it is in Unchog.
To me it seem logical to rather upgrade the species to CR unless more than 5 actual sites have been registered. If there are more than 5 sites, perhaps maintain it at EN.
Least concern is a joke, while better known Masked Mountain Tanager retains VU.
“If there was birders would not have spend up to three days to see just one single one.” Should read…
If they were birders, they would have spent up to three days to see just a single one. Some groups have even missed it, even with three days of birding.
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.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
We thank all those who have contributed valuable information, which will be incorporated into the updated Red List assessment. Although remote sensing data indicate no significant forest loss within the range in the last ten years, based on the information provided by G. Engblom a continuing decline in habitat quality can be inferred. The species is thus considered to be approaching threatened thresholds under Criterion B, given the EOO falls below the threshold of 20,000 km². The population trend has also been revised from ‘stable’ to ‘unknown’.
To qualify as threatened under Criterion B the species must also either be severely fragmented (>50% of individuals or the total AOO in habitat patches that are both isolated and too small to support viable populations) or restricted to ten or fewer locations (the term ‘location’ defining a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present). In the absence of evidence for either, it only approaches threatened thresholds under Criterion B. Given the population size and trend have not been directly quantified, the species also cannot be listed as threatened under Criterion C, and there is currently no evidence for steep declines that may exceed thresholds for Criterion A.
The recommended categorisation for this species has therefore been changed. Golden-backed Mountain-tanager is now recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds under Criterion B1b(iii).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.2 GTB Forum process. The final 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.
A recent survey of the Golden-backed Mountain Tanager (Cnemathraupis aureodorsalis) conducted in the Carpish Montane Forest Regional Conservation Area and the Unchog Private Conservation Area provides important new information on the species’ distribution and abundance. Using line transects and point counts from May to November 2021, researchers recorded 100 individual tanagers, with the highest numbers observed in August (24), September (28), and October (21). Birds were seen feeding, calling, and singing, primarily in native fruiting plants including Oreopanax oroyanus, Carica pubenscens, Tristerix sp., Pouteria sp., and mountain pomegranate.
The habitat across both study areas was found to be in good condition, with no evidence of recent agricultural expansion, burning, or livestock encroachment. The local community plays an active role in protecting the area, contributing to the preservation of these key ecosystems. The presence of other notable bird species further underscores the biodiversity and ecological value of the region.
This new information may provide useful support for BirdLife in their proposed update to the species’ conservation status. While the survey was limited in scope, it contributes valuable field-based data on the species’ abundance and habitat conditions, which are relevant to the assessment of its extinction risk. Continued monitoring and broader surveys would help to clarify whether these findings reflect the full extent of the species’ recovery or stability.
Please use the following link and password to access the report:
Report Golden-backed Mountain Tanager_NCI_March 2022.pdf
Password: xwy123xhF3Cy
https://abcbirds.egnyte.com/dl/uY4LmsvO1m
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
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.
The report is interesting, but the numbers seem inflated. There are not 100 birds in the areas they have covered. If there was birders would not have spend up to three days to see just one single one. And sometimes not that. They also failed to see it completely in November…
They have not seen 100 different individuals but rather a total count of 100 individuals observed over several months. There is no account for how the individuals were seen. Did they do simultaneous counts on the different transects….or it likley the same birds that were counted several times.
Also, they do not account for in which forest patches the birds were seen. It is not unlikely that the birds cover large distances.
When we see them we practically always find them in the branches of the Weinmannia trees – the umbrella like tree that dominates the Unchog forest. I have always presumed that the Weinmannia provides the main food (perhaps the leaf buds or fruit), and maybe also Tristerix which also Bay-vented Cotinga feeds upon.
The Weinmannia seems to be very sensitive to fire. One area that was burnt some 20-25 years ago, is still not recolonized with Weinmannia, but rather covered in Chusquea bamboo.
Even if there has been very limited destruction of the remaining patches of forest, there have been a few areas next to the road where Weinmannia has been cleared and new potato fields have put in.
And the surrounding area is heavily used by grazing cattle. Burning for pastures is still very common in the Andes of Peru.
Even if the area has legal protection it does not mean it is still threatened. At lower subtropical regions of the Carpish Mountains within the designated conservation area huge tracts of forest have been destroyed to grow Hydrangea for export.
Considering the scarceness of the species and the few sites where it can still be found, and the constant destruction of the ecotone habitat throughout the Andes. it should definitely have a threat status higher than that of Masked Mountain-Tanager of Ecuador and Colombia in very similar habitat. It is far easier to find Masked Mountain Tanager than Golden-backed Mountain Tanager and the former is even found in reserves that do get proper protection. GBMT is simply a much rarer bird, known only from a handful of sites. Flocks that I have seen may have had 6 birds max 7, but never as many as 10. I have never counted 10 in one day doing the same 4km transect they did. In later years no more than max four has been seen at the time.
I suggest to do a thorough check on ebird records of how many birds are seen, and also account for birding days without sightings by perhaps checking all the lists that contain Coppery Metaltail (which is common in the same habitat). You will appreciate how rare this bird is and how dependent it is on the GOOD habitat and counts of 28 birds just seem rediculous. The scarcity of negative days indicate that the bird covers greater areas than one can walk in one day.
I have not visited the other small patches on the other side of the ridge where they have shorter transects, but it would surprise me if they are found in big numbers there.
I believe it may have to supplement on other food sources in some seasons why a continuous forest as there is lower down in Unchog is probably important. I have seen them once at the lowest point of the 4k stretch where the forest rapidly into sub-tropics as the trail descends steeply. The more fruity plants mentioned in the report may be of importance when they can not find food items in the Weinmannia dominated areas. This is a hypothesis anyway.
I asked Oscar Gonzales who has been studying hummingbirds in the area over extensive periods of time. He says he has never seen more than 3 in a day.
One can not extrapolate and say that there is plenty of habitat between the sites that few researchers have reached. There is likely to be similar rural economies which will burn the ecotone forest for pasture…and good Weinmannia forest will only be found in rare pockets, as it is in Unchog.
To me it seem logical to rather upgrade the species to CR unless more than 5 actual sites have been registered. If there are more than 5 sites, perhaps maintain it at EN.
Least concern is a joke, while better known Masked Mountain Tanager retains VU.
“If there was birders would not have spend up to three days to see just one single one.” Should read…
If they were birders, they would have spent up to three days to see just a single one. Some groups have even missed it, even with three days of birding.
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.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
We thank all those who have contributed valuable information, which will be incorporated into the updated Red List assessment. Although remote sensing data indicate no significant forest loss within the range in the last ten years, based on the information provided by G. Engblom a continuing decline in habitat quality can be inferred. The species is thus considered to be approaching threatened thresholds under Criterion B, given the EOO falls below the threshold of 20,000 km². The population trend has also been revised from ‘stable’ to ‘unknown’.
To qualify as threatened under Criterion B the species must also either be severely fragmented (>50% of individuals or the total AOO in habitat patches that are both isolated and too small to support viable populations) or restricted to ten or fewer locations (the term ‘location’ defining a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present). In the absence of evidence for either, it only approaches threatened thresholds under Criterion B. Given the population size and trend have not been directly quantified, the species also cannot be listed as threatened under Criterion C, and there is currently no evidence for steep declines that may exceed thresholds for Criterion A.
The recommended categorisation for this species has therefore been changed. Golden-backed Mountain-tanager is now recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds under Criterion B1b(iii).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.2 GTB Forum process. The final 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.