5 thoughts on “Hooded Gnateater (Conopophaga roberti)”
Our multi-taxon survey of sites across the municipality of Paragominas in 2010-2011(Moura et al. 2014) regularly recorded this species in varyingly-degraded primary-forests and in varying-aged secondary forests. It was never recorded from non-forest habitats (e.g. pasture, mechanised agriculture, smallholder agriculture, plantations). The species was recorded from 33% of burned primary forests transects (1 of 3 sites), in 45% (22 of 45) of logged primary forests (those subject to historical selective logging which is very predatory in this region) in 15% (15 of 45) of logged and burned primary forests, in 18% of secondary forests (4 of 22) and in 0% of undisturbed forest sites (n= 9). In a different study (Lees et al. 2015) of avian usage of different Amazonian habitats in neighbouring municipalities we found Conopophaga roberti in 33% (5 of 15) of primary forest transects (all varyingly-degraded) and 20% of secondary forests (1 of 5). These data suggest the species does well in lightly disturbed primary forest sites which characterise most of the species’ Amazonian range and like many other Conopophagas it is likely a gap specialist in primary forest landscapes. However the species appears only to use older secondary forests from about 20 years of age.
Lees, A.C., Moura, N.G., De Almeida, A.S. and Vieira, I.C., 2015. Poor prospects for avian biodiversity in Amazonian oil palm. PloS one, 10(5), p.e0122432.
Moura, N.G., Lees, A.C., Andretti, C.B., Davis, B.J., Solar, R.R., Aleixo, A., Barlow, J., Ferreira, J. and Gardner, T.A., 2013. Avian biodiversity in multiple-use landscapes of the Brazilian Amazon. Biological Conservation, 167, pp.339-348.
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 would like to thank Alexander for his comment. This information will be incorporated into the updated species factsheet.
Remote sensing data indicate that forest cover loss has declined by a maximum of 20% over the past three generations. This was used as a basis for justifying maximum declines of 29% over the same period as it was uncertain how the species responded to habitat degradation. Surveys for this species appear to indicate that it tolerates, and potentially prefers, degraded and secondary forest. Therefore, it is unlikely that the species is declining at a rate that exceeds that of forest loss alone, and 20% is thought to be the maximum rate of decline. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to list Hooded Gnateater as Least Concern.
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.
Based on information that the species is tolerant to habitat degradation and the rate of habitat loss in its range, LC seems most appropriate for this species at this time.
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.
Our multi-taxon survey of sites across the municipality of Paragominas in 2010-2011(Moura et al. 2014) regularly recorded this species in varyingly-degraded primary-forests and in varying-aged secondary forests. It was never recorded from non-forest habitats (e.g. pasture, mechanised agriculture, smallholder agriculture, plantations). The species was recorded from 33% of burned primary forests transects (1 of 3 sites), in 45% (22 of 45) of logged primary forests (those subject to historical selective logging which is very predatory in this region) in 15% (15 of 45) of logged and burned primary forests, in 18% of secondary forests (4 of 22) and in 0% of undisturbed forest sites (n= 9). In a different study (Lees et al. 2015) of avian usage of different Amazonian habitats in neighbouring municipalities we found Conopophaga roberti in 33% (5 of 15) of primary forest transects (all varyingly-degraded) and 20% of secondary forests (1 of 5). These data suggest the species does well in lightly disturbed primary forest sites which characterise most of the species’ Amazonian range and like many other Conopophagas it is likely a gap specialist in primary forest landscapes. However the species appears only to use older secondary forests from about 20 years of age.
Lees, A.C., Moura, N.G., De Almeida, A.S. and Vieira, I.C., 2015. Poor prospects for avian biodiversity in Amazonian oil palm. PloS one, 10(5), p.e0122432.
Moura, N.G., Lees, A.C., Andretti, C.B., Davis, B.J., Solar, R.R., Aleixo, A., Barlow, J., Ferreira, J. and Gardner, T.A., 2013. Avian biodiversity in multiple-use landscapes of the Brazilian Amazon. Biological Conservation, 167, pp.339-348.
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 would like to thank Alexander for his comment. This information will be incorporated into the updated species factsheet.
Remote sensing data indicate that forest cover loss has declined by a maximum of 20% over the past three generations. This was used as a basis for justifying maximum declines of 29% over the same period as it was uncertain how the species responded to habitat degradation. Surveys for this species appear to indicate that it tolerates, and potentially prefers, degraded and secondary forest. Therefore, it is unlikely that the species is declining at a rate that exceeds that of forest loss alone, and 20% is thought to be the maximum rate of decline. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to list Hooded Gnateater as Least Concern.
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.
Based on information that the species is tolerant to habitat degradation and the rate of habitat loss in its range, LC seems most appropriate for this species at this time.
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.