6 thoughts on “Scarlet-breasted Dacnis (Dacnis berlepschi)”
Although a bit hesitant, the proposed change agrees with what the current evidence indicates. Until more accurate distributional and ecological information is available, listing the species as LC seems appropriate.
The extent of occurrence, estimated from occurrence data revised by Carrillo et al. (in prep.; https://zenodo.org/records/14187316), is 13,053 km²—placing the species within the threshold for Vulnerable under IUCN criterion B1. Within this extent and the species’ altitudinal range, forest cover decreased by 2.98% (232.56 km²) between 2014 and 2023 (Global Forest Watch). Additionally, oil palm plantations covered 216 km² in 2019, with likely expansion since, supported by government incentives for cultivation (Biopama; https://zenodo.org/records/4473715). This expansion has resulted in a shift from small-scale agriculture—where the species has been documented—to industrial-scale monoculture, where its persistence is uncertain.. While the species’ level of forest dependency remains uncertain, intensive searches in seemingly suitable habitat within its Colombian range have failed to detect it, suggesting it occurs at very low densities or has highly specific microhabitat requirements. To date, only one population has been recorded, in a riparian forest fragment along the Colombia–Ecuador border (Flórez-Pai, in litt. 2025).
Based on the above, Audubon’s recommendation is to keep the species status as Vulnerable, under criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii).
Thank you for opening the Scarlet‑breasted Dacnis review for comment. Below I summarise why, in my view, the species should not be down‑listed to Least Concern. I focus on three lines of evidence: (1) an over‑estimated range, (2) faster‑than‑recognised habitat loss and fragmentation, and (3) very restricted and declining sub‑populations.
1. The Extent of Occurrence (EOO) seems to be overestimated. The species is confined to tropical rainforests (60 % historical forest loss, with 20 % occurring after 2000; only 32 % of the original lowland rainforest remains. Remote‑sensing dashboards (Global Forest Watch) indicate that Esmeraldas Province, the geopolitical area where most records of the species come from, lost about 16% of its forests between 2013 and 2023. Annual loss rates have accelerated in the last decade, driven mainly by legal and illegal deforestation for expanding pasturelands, palm oil and balsa plantations, illegal logging in protected areas, and legal and illegal mining. Much of the residual forest is highly fragmented, and forest remnants are separated by expanding agro‑industrial matrices. The species is rarely detected in forest fragments. Our data from three different localities record the species almost exclusively in, or within 100 m of, old‑growth. Although it may be seen in forest borders or secondary forest, it is virtually absent from extensive secondary stands. The assumption in the proposal that habitat loss within the polygon is low, therefore underestimates forest removal inside the area occupied by the bird.
3. Population size, structure and trend remain uncertain but meet criterion B1. Field guides describing the dacnis as “rare to locally uncommon” should be interpreted carefully, as they usually refer to well‑watched sites and do not translate into wide ecological abundance. EBird data shows that most records typically involve one or two birds per field trip, and many visits to even well-known sites for the species may result in no records. There are no more than five or six discrete populations in Ecuador and Colombia, surrounded by active deforestation fronts. Density estimates are not representative. The only published densities (30–52 ind km⁻² from Jahn 2011, Playa de Oro) came from nearly intact forest 15 years ago. Extrapolation across the range is therefore unwarranted.
A precautionary approach is particularly warranted given the paucity of robust population data and the accelerating land‑use change in its core 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 all contributors for their comments. All relevant information will be incorporated into the updated Red List assessment for this species. Given that rates of forest loss within the mapped range may underestimate loss within the area occupied by this species, the upper bound of the suspected rate of decline has been increased to 15% over ten years. There is currently no evidence that the species is declining at a rate that meets or approaches threatened thresholds under Criterion A however.
The EOO, calculated from a minimum convex polygon around the extant range (sensu IUCN Guidelines) as mapped above, is above the threshold of 20,000 km2 required for listing as threatened. The mapped range is based primarily on occurrence data derived from GBIF.org (2025) which extends beyond that used by Carrillo et al. as referred to in the above comments. Input is thus specifically sought on whether the native resident range, as mapped above, is correct, as substantial revisions could reduce the EOO below the threshold and potentially qualify the species for listing as Near Threatened.
Nonetheless, the species would need to meet the EOO threshold and two of the additional subcriteria to qualify as Vulnerable. Specifically, in addition to the ongoing decline in habitat area/extent/quality, it would need to 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.
In the absence of a population estimate the species cannot currently be assessed under Criterion C. Input is therefore also sought on the population size: are there likely to be fewer than 10,000 mature individuals, with less than 1,000 mature individuals in the largest subpopuation?
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.
Although a bit hesitant, the proposed change agrees with what the current evidence indicates. Until more accurate distributional and ecological information is available, listing the species as LC seems appropriate.
The extent of occurrence, estimated from occurrence data revised by Carrillo et al. (in prep.; https://zenodo.org/records/14187316), is 13,053 km²—placing the species within the threshold for Vulnerable under IUCN criterion B1. Within this extent and the species’ altitudinal range, forest cover decreased by 2.98% (232.56 km²) between 2014 and 2023 (Global Forest Watch). Additionally, oil palm plantations covered 216 km² in 2019, with likely expansion since, supported by government incentives for cultivation (Biopama; https://zenodo.org/records/4473715). This expansion has resulted in a shift from small-scale agriculture—where the species has been documented—to industrial-scale monoculture, where its persistence is uncertain.. While the species’ level of forest dependency remains uncertain, intensive searches in seemingly suitable habitat within its Colombian range have failed to detect it, suggesting it occurs at very low densities or has highly specific microhabitat requirements. To date, only one population has been recorded, in a riparian forest fragment along the Colombia–Ecuador border (Flórez-Pai, in litt. 2025).
Based on the above, Audubon’s recommendation is to keep the species status as Vulnerable, under criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii).
Thank you for opening the Scarlet‑breasted Dacnis review for comment. Below I summarise why, in my view, the species should not be down‑listed to Least Concern. I focus on three lines of evidence: (1) an over‑estimated range, (2) faster‑than‑recognised habitat loss and fragmentation, and (3) very restricted and declining sub‑populations.
1. The Extent of Occurrence (EOO) seems to be overestimated. The species is confined to tropical rainforests (60 % historical forest loss, with 20 % occurring after 2000; only 32 % of the original lowland rainforest remains. Remote‑sensing dashboards (Global Forest Watch) indicate that Esmeraldas Province, the geopolitical area where most records of the species come from, lost about 16% of its forests between 2013 and 2023. Annual loss rates have accelerated in the last decade, driven mainly by legal and illegal deforestation for expanding pasturelands, palm oil and balsa plantations, illegal logging in protected areas, and legal and illegal mining. Much of the residual forest is highly fragmented, and forest remnants are separated by expanding agro‑industrial matrices. The species is rarely detected in forest fragments. Our data from three different localities record the species almost exclusively in, or within 100 m of, old‑growth. Although it may be seen in forest borders or secondary forest, it is virtually absent from extensive secondary stands. The assumption in the proposal that habitat loss within the polygon is low, therefore underestimates forest removal inside the area occupied by the bird.
3. Population size, structure and trend remain uncertain but meet criterion B1. Field guides describing the dacnis as “rare to locally uncommon” should be interpreted carefully, as they usually refer to well‑watched sites and do not translate into wide ecological abundance. EBird data shows that most records typically involve one or two birds per field trip, and many visits to even well-known sites for the species may result in no records. There are no more than five or six discrete populations in Ecuador and Colombia, surrounded by active deforestation fronts. Density estimates are not representative. The only published densities (30–52 ind km⁻² from Jahn 2011, Playa de Oro) came from nearly intact forest 15 years ago. Extrapolation across the range is therefore unwarranted.
A precautionary approach is particularly warranted given the paucity of robust population data and the accelerating land‑use change in its core 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 all contributors for their comments. All relevant information will be incorporated into the updated Red List assessment for this species. Given that rates of forest loss within the mapped range may underestimate loss within the area occupied by this species, the upper bound of the suspected rate of decline has been increased to 15% over ten years. There is currently no evidence that the species is declining at a rate that meets or approaches threatened thresholds under Criterion A however.
The EOO, calculated from a minimum convex polygon around the extant range (sensu IUCN Guidelines) as mapped above, is above the threshold of 20,000 km2 required for listing as threatened. The mapped range is based primarily on occurrence data derived from GBIF.org (2025) which extends beyond that used by Carrillo et al. as referred to in the above comments. Input is thus specifically sought on whether the native resident range, as mapped above, is correct, as substantial revisions could reduce the EOO below the threshold and potentially qualify the species for listing as Near Threatened.
Nonetheless, the species would need to meet the EOO threshold and two of the additional subcriteria to qualify as Vulnerable. Specifically, in addition to the ongoing decline in habitat area/extent/quality, it would need to 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.
In the absence of a population estimate the species cannot currently be assessed under Criterion C. Input is therefore also sought on the population size: are there likely to be fewer than 10,000 mature individuals, with less than 1,000 mature individuals in the largest subpopuation?
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.