6 thoughts on “Pinto’s Spinetail (Synallaxis infuscata)”
This Brazilian endemic species is listed as EN Nationally. It is described by Gussoni et al. (2021) as “uncharacteristically rare, for a spinetail” despite its use of more open, disturbed habitats. There have been some surveys of this species by BirdLife partner SAVE Brasil and I will ask someone from SAVE to comment during the next round of feedback. Despite its use of disturbed habitat, it is absent from many areas of such habitat within its restricted range, and my feeling, based on my limited experience and knowledge of the species, is that EN or VU would be more appropriate than NT.
Note that outlying records on eBird are likely errors, as with other species (it is not clear if eBird records were used to update the EOO).
From the ICMBio’s SALVE portal:
“Synallaxis infuscata é endêmica do Brasil, com ocorrência restrita aos estados de Alagoas, Pernambuco e Paraíba. Habita ambientes florestados, preferindo clareiras de interior de mata ou bordas bem preservadas e densas. Ocorre entre 500 a 900 m de altitude. A área de ocupação (AOO) da espécie foi calculada em 432 km², através da sobreposição de um grid com quadrículas de 4 km² aos pontos de registro atuais confirmados, inferidos e suspeitados. Apesar de não ter ocorrido perda significativa de vegetação nativa nos últimos 10 anos, a espécie está confinada em poucos, pequenos e isolados remanescentes de Mata Atlântica imersos em matriz de cana-de-açúcar, estando sua população severamente fragmentada. Foi extinta localmente ao longo de sua distribuição e as constantes ameaças, como incêndios, extração seletiva de madeira e remoção de lenha, plantio de culturas de subsistência e caça, têm causado declínios em sua extensão de ocorrência, área de ocupação, qualidade do habitat e também no número de subpopulações. Dessa forma. S. infuscata foi categorizada como Em Perigo (EN) pelo critério B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv).”
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 their comments. This species has been described as locally common and appears to have a higher tolerance to habitat fragmentation than other endemic birds in the region, preferring more open areas such as clearings and forest edges (Pereira et al. 2014). Nonetheless, it remains forest-dependent and habitat loss has caused local extinctions in the past (Silveira et al. 2023). Given the threats are ongoing (though remote sensing data detect no significant loss of native vegetation over the last ten years), a continuing decline in mature individuals is inferred on a precautionary basis. As a result, the population decline qualifier has been revised from ‘suspected’ to ‘inferred’.
However, while the population size is suspected to be small, in the absence of a direct population/density estimate (for which further information is sought) the species can only be considered to be approaching threatened thresholds under Criterion C.
While calculating AOO solely based on a grid over validated georeferenced records may yield a value that falls below threatened thresholds, this does not account for the potential occupancy of remaining apparently suitable habitat and is thus likely to result in a significant underestimate.
The AOO has not been quantified but overlaying a 2 x 2 km grid over the area of forest in the mapped extant range suggests that it may exceed 2,000 km2). Even if the species’ AOO did fall below the threshold for Vulnerable, it would still need to meet two of the additional subcriteria to qualify as Vulnerable. Specifically, in addition to the ongoing decline in habitat area/extent/quality, it must 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 be 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). There is currently no evidence that the majority of individuals are in subpopulations that would be considered unviable. The spatial footprint of each individual threat event likely to affect the species is small, such that the number of locations would be many.
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.
Assessors in Brazil calculated an AOO of 432 km². They do not calculate the AOO based just on validated georeferenced records but also consider potential habitat and inferred records. However, it is not clear what specific habitat was considered for this calculation. We also consider that the population is severely fragmented. Considering this severe fragmentation depends somewhat on the interpretation of the assessors and should be discussed between BirdLife and ICMBio teams.
To use criterion C, 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) and cannot be inferred or suspected.
I think that if there is no estimate of the number of mature individuals, but only suspected or inferred, criterion C cannot be used, not even to classify as NT. If there is no estimate of population size, criterion C does not apply, the species would be DD by this criterion.
I would like to add some additional information to help with the assessment of this species. I spoke with Carlos Gussoni who has been conducting detailed surveys (territory mapping) for globally threatened birds in the Serra do Urubu landscape in Pernambuco, and Edson Ribeiro who is now coordinating that work for SAVE Brasil. They were able to provide additional information as this is one of their target species.
All areas of apparently suitable habitat at Serra do Urubu were visited in January 2023, and a total of just five territories (nine individuals) were found. This was a full census with the objective of recording all occupied territories, and as the species is vocal and responsive to playback, it seems likely this is an accurate assessment of the local population. There has been monitoring at Serra do Urubu since 2010, initially with observations from fixed points. In 2010 and 2011 some individuals of this species were observed at the points. From 2012 to 2021 the species was not observed from the points, but unstructured observations were made away from the fixed points. In the 2022/23 breeding season, a new effort was made to visit and map all occupied territories, including all points at which the species had been previously recorded.
At least three territories where Carlos and others had found the species in previous years were no longer occupied, suggesting that the species has declined in recent years.
As surveys were not as targeted in previous years, we don’t have precise older estimates of the population, but if we consider that at least three territories were no longer occupied, that would indicate a local decline from 2010/11 to 2022/23 of the order of 37.5% (3/8).
Carlos also made the important point that while this species inhabits forest edge and clearings, it is only present at the edge/clearings of good quality forest habitat, which is now very rare in the Pernambuco Center of Endemism. It is not like some other species of Synallaxis which readily occupy a range of disturbed, open habitats. Suitable habitat for S. infuscata is thus much more scarce than might initially appear, again pointing towards maintaining a threatened status for this species.
If we consider that the area of Atlantic Forest in Serra do Urubu is approximately 1000 ha, then the results of the census translate to 0.005 territories per ha. (The area of suitable habitat (edges and clearings) there would be much smaller than 1000 ha). We can make a very rough estimate of population size based on the number of subpopulations (at most 30; based on eBird and species fact sheet) and a generous assumption of 5 territories per subpopulation (generous because Serra do Urubu has one of the largest and best-quality remaining areas of forest in the region). That would translate to 150 territories or 300 mature individuals. That estimate could be too low if there are more than 30 subpopulations or too high if the mean number of individuals per subpopulation is lower than assumed. Taking these considerations into account, a population size range of 100–500 mature individuals seems reasonable, lower than provided in the species fact sheet.
I would suggest that the species also meets the criteria for “severely fragmented”. If the population size in one of the best remaining areas of habitat is just nine mature individuals, then it seems reasonable to assume that >>50% of the population is in habitat patches that are too small to support a viable population. By nature of historical deforestation, patches of remaining habitat in the Pernambuco Centre are isolated from each other.
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.
This Brazilian endemic species is listed as EN Nationally. It is described by Gussoni et al. (2021) as “uncharacteristically rare, for a spinetail” despite its use of more open, disturbed habitats. There have been some surveys of this species by BirdLife partner SAVE Brasil and I will ask someone from SAVE to comment during the next round of feedback. Despite its use of disturbed habitat, it is absent from many areas of such habitat within its restricted range, and my feeling, based on my limited experience and knowledge of the species, is that EN or VU would be more appropriate than NT.
Note that outlying records on eBird are likely errors, as with other species (it is not clear if eBird records were used to update the EOO).
From the ICMBio’s SALVE portal:
“Synallaxis infuscata é endêmica do Brasil, com ocorrência restrita aos estados de Alagoas, Pernambuco e Paraíba. Habita ambientes florestados, preferindo clareiras de interior de mata ou bordas bem preservadas e densas. Ocorre entre 500 a 900 m de altitude. A área de ocupação (AOO) da espécie foi calculada em 432 km², através da sobreposição de um grid com quadrículas de 4 km² aos pontos de registro atuais confirmados, inferidos e suspeitados. Apesar de não ter ocorrido perda significativa de vegetação nativa nos últimos 10 anos, a espécie está confinada em poucos, pequenos e isolados remanescentes de Mata Atlântica imersos em matriz de cana-de-açúcar, estando sua população severamente fragmentada. Foi extinta localmente ao longo de sua distribuição e as constantes ameaças, como incêndios, extração seletiva de madeira e remoção de lenha, plantio de culturas de subsistência e caça, têm causado declínios em sua extensão de ocorrência, área de ocupação, qualidade do habitat e também no número de subpopulações. Dessa forma. S. infuscata foi categorizada como Em Perigo (EN) pelo critério B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv).”
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 their comments. This species has been described as locally common and appears to have a higher tolerance to habitat fragmentation than other endemic birds in the region, preferring more open areas such as clearings and forest edges (Pereira et al. 2014). Nonetheless, it remains forest-dependent and habitat loss has caused local extinctions in the past (Silveira et al. 2023). Given the threats are ongoing (though remote sensing data detect no significant loss of native vegetation over the last ten years), a continuing decline in mature individuals is inferred on a precautionary basis. As a result, the population decline qualifier has been revised from ‘suspected’ to ‘inferred’.
However, while the population size is suspected to be small, in the absence of a direct population/density estimate (for which further information is sought) the species can only be considered to be approaching threatened thresholds under Criterion C.
While calculating AOO solely based on a grid over validated georeferenced records may yield a value that falls below threatened thresholds, this does not account for the potential occupancy of remaining apparently suitable habitat and is thus likely to result in a significant underestimate.
The AOO has not been quantified but overlaying a 2 x 2 km grid over the area of forest in the mapped extant range suggests that it may exceed 2,000 km2). Even if the species’ AOO did fall below the threshold for Vulnerable, it would still need to meet two of the additional subcriteria to qualify as Vulnerable. Specifically, in addition to the ongoing decline in habitat area/extent/quality, it must 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 be 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). There is currently no evidence that the majority of individuals are in subpopulations that would be considered unviable. The spatial footprint of each individual threat event likely to affect the species is small, such that the number of locations would be many.
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.
Assessors in Brazil calculated an AOO of 432 km². They do not calculate the AOO based just on validated georeferenced records but also consider potential habitat and inferred records. However, it is not clear what specific habitat was considered for this calculation. We also consider that the population is severely fragmented. Considering this severe fragmentation depends somewhat on the interpretation of the assessors and should be discussed between BirdLife and ICMBio teams.
To use criterion C, 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) and cannot be inferred or suspected.
I think that if there is no estimate of the number of mature individuals, but only suspected or inferred, criterion C cannot be used, not even to classify as NT. If there is no estimate of population size, criterion C does not apply, the species would be DD by this criterion.
I would like to add some additional information to help with the assessment of this species. I spoke with Carlos Gussoni who has been conducting detailed surveys (territory mapping) for globally threatened birds in the Serra do Urubu landscape in Pernambuco, and Edson Ribeiro who is now coordinating that work for SAVE Brasil. They were able to provide additional information as this is one of their target species.
All areas of apparently suitable habitat at Serra do Urubu were visited in January 2023, and a total of just five territories (nine individuals) were found. This was a full census with the objective of recording all occupied territories, and as the species is vocal and responsive to playback, it seems likely this is an accurate assessment of the local population. There has been monitoring at Serra do Urubu since 2010, initially with observations from fixed points. In 2010 and 2011 some individuals of this species were observed at the points. From 2012 to 2021 the species was not observed from the points, but unstructured observations were made away from the fixed points. In the 2022/23 breeding season, a new effort was made to visit and map all occupied territories, including all points at which the species had been previously recorded.
At least three territories where Carlos and others had found the species in previous years were no longer occupied, suggesting that the species has declined in recent years.
As surveys were not as targeted in previous years, we don’t have precise older estimates of the population, but if we consider that at least three territories were no longer occupied, that would indicate a local decline from 2010/11 to 2022/23 of the order of 37.5% (3/8).
Carlos also made the important point that while this species inhabits forest edge and clearings, it is only present at the edge/clearings of good quality forest habitat, which is now very rare in the Pernambuco Center of Endemism. It is not like some other species of Synallaxis which readily occupy a range of disturbed, open habitats. Suitable habitat for S. infuscata is thus much more scarce than might initially appear, again pointing towards maintaining a threatened status for this species.
If we consider that the area of Atlantic Forest in Serra do Urubu is approximately 1000 ha, then the results of the census translate to 0.005 territories per ha. (The area of suitable habitat (edges and clearings) there would be much smaller than 1000 ha). We can make a very rough estimate of population size based on the number of subpopulations (at most 30; based on eBird and species fact sheet) and a generous assumption of 5 territories per subpopulation (generous because Serra do Urubu has one of the largest and best-quality remaining areas of forest in the region). That would translate to 150 territories or 300 mature individuals. That estimate could be too low if there are more than 30 subpopulations or too high if the mean number of individuals per subpopulation is lower than assumed. Taking these considerations into account, a population size range of 100–500 mature individuals seems reasonable, lower than provided in the species fact sheet.
I would suggest that the species also meets the criteria for “severely fragmented”. If the population size in one of the best remaining areas of habitat is just nine mature individuals, then it seems reasonable to assume that >>50% of the population is in habitat patches that are too small to support a viable population. By nature of historical deforestation, patches of remaining habitat in the Pernambuco Centre are isolated from each other.
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.