8 thoughts on “Pink-legged Graveteiro (Acrobatornis fonsecai)”
The Pink-legged Graveteiro appears to me to have experienced significant decline over the past 20 years. While I agree, to a large extent, with the new criterion of C2a, I think Vulnerable remains a better descriptor of its current status because of habitat degradation. This species is surviving in suboptimal habitat virtually throughout its very limited geographic distribution — as has been the case for probably more than 300 years — but it is becoming increasingly difficult to find away from a few scattered strongholds. It persists essentially only in cabruca, which is increasingly converted to bananas and coffee, and it also appears to be disappearing from cabrucas that are “naturally” losing their old, native forest trees, which are being replaced with fast-growing Erythrina and Eucalyptus, especially around the borders of cacau plantations. Somewhat amazingly, I think, the birds are able to use twigs from these two introduced tree species in nest construction, but they forage overwhelmingly in the large, native tree species. Criterion B was taken out of consideration, it appears, because of an increased number of eBird records, which are said to have indicated that the population is more widespread than previously thought (your text even characterizes eBird records as “known occurrences”). That said, all of the most significant “extensions” are undocumented, and, I suspect, erroneous. Examples, at the extremes, are Chapada Diamantina (note, however, that the observer commented that the locality was Ipiaú, which is valid!) and Porto Seguro (VERACEL) where Acrobatornis almost certainly does not occur, and any record from near there, or anywhere south of the Rio Jequitinhonha, MUST BE UNEQUIVOCALLY DOCUMENTED. Furthermore, records from “Ilheus – general area” and Reserva Biologica de Una are also problematic, undocumented to the extent that we can know the exact locality (not to mention the actual ID of the bird). I doubt that it occurs in REBIO Una. Records from Boa Nova, which might be construed as being inside Boa Nova National Park, are now 10 years old, and I personally have failed to find the bird in a couple of spots from which these older records were documented; habitat has been highly altered (and this area is well east of the park boundary). The species occurs in forest at Serra Bonita, but it is quite scarce and irregular there — the new Serra das Lontras National Park, quite near the type locality, may well be the only somewhat (officially) protected area harboring a population of the graveteiro. I suggest focusing on the text we put into the type description in 1996 – that this old, highly distinctive species is essentially unprotected. Fires during exceptionally dry periods (they will be coming, any year now) could absolutely devastate remaining cabrucas. The graveteiro is a remarkable survivor: food is, so far, not a problem, and it can use twigs from introduced tree species for nest-building; those are two huge positives. I believe it (and many other organisms) could persist practically forever if a couple of reserves, on either side of the BR-101, that are managed to safeguard old, and propagate young native trees, could be established. Short of that, I can easily imagine losing the graveteiro in less than 50 years.
The species has a very restricted distribution. In Boa Nova we saw only 3 individuals, which have not been seen again in the last 5 years. The cabruca (cocoa forests) in Bahia have been converted into plantations in some places and the tallest trees felled. The greater number of records does not yet mean a population increase for me. I suggest keeping it at least as vulnerable.
I support the comments by Bret Whitney and Edson Ribeiro Luiz and reiterate the point I’ve made for Formicivora grantsaui that eBird records should not be used uncritically to support an expansion in range. As an eBird reviewer in another Brazilian state I am aware of many uncorrected errors in eBird data. Even records documented with photos or recordings are sometimes mapped in the incorrect location, often by visiting birders. eBird records must therefore be filtered and evaluated with great care.
This Brazilian endemic species is categorised as VU, with the following text from the SALVE portal:
“Acrobatornis fonsecai é endêmica do Brasil, com ocorrência restrita ao sul da Bahia e nordeste de Minas Gerais, onde há apenas registros históricos, e sua extensão de ocorrência (EOO) foi calculada em 18.867 km². Habita cabrucas que sobreiam áreas de plantação de cacau e sua sobrevivência depende inteiramente da manutenção destes cacauais consorciados com floresta nativa. A população está severamente fragmentada e há suspeitas de redução no número de indivíduos maduros de ao menos 10% em um período de 11,4 anos (três gerações), devido à desvalorização da cultura cacaueira, e mais recentemente, relacionadas à expansão das áreas urbanas, cultivo de café e eucalipto, e abertura de pastagens. Essas ameaças têm levado à derrubada das matas de cabruca, gerando declínio continuado na extensão de ocorrência, na área de ocupação e na qualidade do habitat. Dessa forma, A. fonsecai foi categorizada como Vulnerável (VU) pelo critério B1ab(i,ii,iii,v).”
The cabruca system on which this species depends is now often uneconomic in many areas, because of pests and diseases affecting the cacau yields and changes in global markets.
I agree with other commenters that this species should be retained 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 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 all contributors for the information shared in the above comments. Information on threats will be incorporated into the updated species factsheet.
We have amended the distribution based on the very helpful note from Bret Whitney that many of the outlying records used to expand the range and associated EOO are erroneous. This change results in an updated EOO of c. 12,500 km2, which meets the thresholds for Vulnerable under Criterion B1. Additionally, there is an inferred continuing decline in the area, extent, and quality of habitat for this species. However, for a Vulnerable listing to be justified, it must also be demonstrated that there are fewer than 10 locations or that the species is severely fragmented.
Locations under the IUCN definition refers to a threat-based area in which the most plausible threat could rapidly affect all individuals within a geographically or ecologically distinct area. The spatial scale (i.e. the footprint of a threat event) of habitat loss (whether from conversion of cabruca, senescence of the native canopy, fire, or something else) does not appear sufficient to indicate that fewer than ten threat events could affect the entire species’ range.
To be severely fragmented more than 50% of individuals or the total AOO must be in habitat patches that are both isolated and too small to support viable populations. While occurring in several discrete areas the size and arrangement of these areas strongly suggests that most individuals are not in populations that would be considered unviable.
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. However, if sufficient information can be provided that demonstrates that there are fewer than ten locations, or that the species is severely fragmented, this will be reconsidered. Alternatively, if reasonable evidence (e.g. densities from standardised survey or a likely maximum number within a known area of habitat) can be used to generate an adequate population estimate, even if imprecise, this may justify listing in a threatened category under Criterion C. It is the weak justification for the population size that currently prevents listing higher than Near Threatened for this Criterion.
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.
In the last national assessment in Brazil, the evaluators estimated the EOO at just over 18,000 km². They also considered that the population is severely fragmented, but this condition is not well explained. Therefore, I consider that the species would be NT by criterion B. I see a problem in using criterion C, because according to the methodology, the number of mature individuals must be estimated (i.e. the minimum standard of evidence required for listing under Criterion C according to the IUCN Guidelines), it cannot be inferred.
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
To be listed as threatened under Criterion C it is true that the population size must be estimated – it cannot be inferred or suspected (see IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee 2024). A listing as Near Threatened only requires a species to approach threatened thresholds however. Although not estimated, the population size threshold can be considered to be nearly met when the population size is suspected/inferred to be <10,000 mature individuals. The inferred population size in this instance is thus enough to qualify the species as Near Threatened under Criterion C given there is also a suspected decline and potentially a single subpopulation. Per the previous comment, where the EOO is now reduced to <20,000 km2, this species is also now considered to approach the thresholds for listing under Criterion B1.
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Pink-legged Graveteiro is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds under Criterion B1b(iii);C2a(ii).
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.
The Pink-legged Graveteiro appears to me to have experienced significant decline over the past 20 years. While I agree, to a large extent, with the new criterion of C2a, I think Vulnerable remains a better descriptor of its current status because of habitat degradation. This species is surviving in suboptimal habitat virtually throughout its very limited geographic distribution — as has been the case for probably more than 300 years — but it is becoming increasingly difficult to find away from a few scattered strongholds. It persists essentially only in cabruca, which is increasingly converted to bananas and coffee, and it also appears to be disappearing from cabrucas that are “naturally” losing their old, native forest trees, which are being replaced with fast-growing Erythrina and Eucalyptus, especially around the borders of cacau plantations. Somewhat amazingly, I think, the birds are able to use twigs from these two introduced tree species in nest construction, but they forage overwhelmingly in the large, native tree species. Criterion B was taken out of consideration, it appears, because of an increased number of eBird records, which are said to have indicated that the population is more widespread than previously thought (your text even characterizes eBird records as “known occurrences”). That said, all of the most significant “extensions” are undocumented, and, I suspect, erroneous. Examples, at the extremes, are Chapada Diamantina (note, however, that the observer commented that the locality was Ipiaú, which is valid!) and Porto Seguro (VERACEL) where Acrobatornis almost certainly does not occur, and any record from near there, or anywhere south of the Rio Jequitinhonha, MUST BE UNEQUIVOCALLY DOCUMENTED. Furthermore, records from “Ilheus – general area” and Reserva Biologica de Una are also problematic, undocumented to the extent that we can know the exact locality (not to mention the actual ID of the bird). I doubt that it occurs in REBIO Una. Records from Boa Nova, which might be construed as being inside Boa Nova National Park, are now 10 years old, and I personally have failed to find the bird in a couple of spots from which these older records were documented; habitat has been highly altered (and this area is well east of the park boundary). The species occurs in forest at Serra Bonita, but it is quite scarce and irregular there — the new Serra das Lontras National Park, quite near the type locality, may well be the only somewhat (officially) protected area harboring a population of the graveteiro. I suggest focusing on the text we put into the type description in 1996 – that this old, highly distinctive species is essentially unprotected. Fires during exceptionally dry periods (they will be coming, any year now) could absolutely devastate remaining cabrucas. The graveteiro is a remarkable survivor: food is, so far, not a problem, and it can use twigs from introduced tree species for nest-building; those are two huge positives. I believe it (and many other organisms) could persist practically forever if a couple of reserves, on either side of the BR-101, that are managed to safeguard old, and propagate young native trees, could be established. Short of that, I can easily imagine losing the graveteiro in less than 50 years.
The species has a very restricted distribution. In Boa Nova we saw only 3 individuals, which have not been seen again in the last 5 years. The cabruca (cocoa forests) in Bahia have been converted into plantations in some places and the tallest trees felled. The greater number of records does not yet mean a population increase for me. I suggest keeping it at least as vulnerable.
I support the comments by Bret Whitney and Edson Ribeiro Luiz and reiterate the point I’ve made for Formicivora grantsaui that eBird records should not be used uncritically to support an expansion in range. As an eBird reviewer in another Brazilian state I am aware of many uncorrected errors in eBird data. Even records documented with photos or recordings are sometimes mapped in the incorrect location, often by visiting birders. eBird records must therefore be filtered and evaluated with great care.
This Brazilian endemic species is categorised as VU, with the following text from the SALVE portal:
“Acrobatornis fonsecai é endêmica do Brasil, com ocorrência restrita ao sul da Bahia e nordeste de Minas Gerais, onde há apenas registros históricos, e sua extensão de ocorrência (EOO) foi calculada em 18.867 km². Habita cabrucas que sobreiam áreas de plantação de cacau e sua sobrevivência depende inteiramente da manutenção destes cacauais consorciados com floresta nativa. A população está severamente fragmentada e há suspeitas de redução no número de indivíduos maduros de ao menos 10% em um período de 11,4 anos (três gerações), devido à desvalorização da cultura cacaueira, e mais recentemente, relacionadas à expansão das áreas urbanas, cultivo de café e eucalipto, e abertura de pastagens. Essas ameaças têm levado à derrubada das matas de cabruca, gerando declínio continuado na extensão de ocorrência, na área de ocupação e na qualidade do habitat. Dessa forma, A. fonsecai foi categorizada como Vulnerável (VU) pelo critério B1ab(i,ii,iii,v).”
The cabruca system on which this species depends is now often uneconomic in many areas, because of pests and diseases affecting the cacau yields and changes in global markets.
I agree with other commenters that this species should be retained 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 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 all contributors for the information shared in the above comments. Information on threats will be incorporated into the updated species factsheet.
We have amended the distribution based on the very helpful note from Bret Whitney that many of the outlying records used to expand the range and associated EOO are erroneous. This change results in an updated EOO of c. 12,500 km2, which meets the thresholds for Vulnerable under Criterion B1. Additionally, there is an inferred continuing decline in the area, extent, and quality of habitat for this species. However, for a Vulnerable listing to be justified, it must also be demonstrated that there are fewer than 10 locations or that the species is severely fragmented.
Locations under the IUCN definition refers to a threat-based area in which the most plausible threat could rapidly affect all individuals within a geographically or ecologically distinct area. The spatial scale (i.e. the footprint of a threat event) of habitat loss (whether from conversion of cabruca, senescence of the native canopy, fire, or something else) does not appear sufficient to indicate that fewer than ten threat events could affect the entire species’ range.
To be severely fragmented more than 50% of individuals or the total AOO must be in habitat patches that are both isolated and too small to support viable populations. While occurring in several discrete areas the size and arrangement of these areas strongly suggests that most individuals are not in populations that would be considered unviable.
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. However, if sufficient information can be provided that demonstrates that there are fewer than ten locations, or that the species is severely fragmented, this will be reconsidered. Alternatively, if reasonable evidence (e.g. densities from standardised survey or a likely maximum number within a known area of habitat) can be used to generate an adequate population estimate, even if imprecise, this may justify listing in a threatened category under Criterion C. It is the weak justification for the population size that currently prevents listing higher than Near Threatened for this Criterion.
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.
In the last national assessment in Brazil, the evaluators estimated the EOO at just over 18,000 km². They also considered that the population is severely fragmented, but this condition is not well explained. Therefore, I consider that the species would be NT by criterion B. I see a problem in using criterion C, because according to the methodology, the number of mature individuals must be estimated (i.e. the minimum standard of evidence required for listing under Criterion C according to the IUCN Guidelines), it cannot be inferred.
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
To be listed as threatened under Criterion C it is true that the population size must be estimated – it cannot be inferred or suspected (see IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee 2024). A listing as Near Threatened only requires a species to approach threatened thresholds however. Although not estimated, the population size threshold can be considered to be nearly met when the population size is suspected/inferred to be <10,000 mature individuals. The inferred population size in this instance is thus enough to qualify the species as Near Threatened under Criterion C given there is also a suspected decline and potentially a single subpopulation. Per the previous comment, where the EOO is now reduced to <20,000 km2, this species is also now considered to approach the thresholds for listing under Criterion B1.
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Pink-legged Graveteiro is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds under Criterion B1b(iii);C2a(ii).
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.