5 thoughts on “New Britain Boobook (Ninox odiosa)”
Although I agree with the reasoning based on forest loss, there is another stressor which may be much more significant in reducing populations of this species, namely the widespread use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in oil palm plantations that form much of it’s lowland range. In a study on the Australian Boobook, we documented rates of up to 75% potentially lethal exposure across a broad geographical region. Given the profound impacts SGARS have been demonstrated to have on Australian raptor populations, it is highly likely that the same also applies in New Britain where we observed widespread use of SGARs. It is not at all; unlikely that up to half of populations are being negatively impacted. Our research finds that population level impacts from SGARS may eclipse other common stressors. Based on this alone I think the species qualifies as at least NT.
Lohr, M.T. (2018). Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in an Australian predatory bird increases with proximity to developed habitat, Science of The Total Environment,
Volume 643, Pages 134-144.
The Global Forest Loss analysis does indeed suggest declines through forest loss are aligned with a Red List status of LC. However, we also need to factor-in habitat degradation from logging, which rarely shows in the GFW analysis, as well as the impact of anticoagulant rat poisons. However, unlike in Australia, SGARs (and FGARs) are likely to be applied broadscale only around oil palm plantations and not across small-scale agriculture and small villages.
The rate of SGAR (and FGAR) use is wholly unknown and BirdLife needs to determine whether to be precautionary and categorise it as NT.
Given that Buchanan et al calculated its rate of decline as 19% over a revised 3-generation period, but excluded impacts from SGARs and FGARs, I believe that it qualifies as NT for that historical period.
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 22 May 2026. 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 22 May 2026, when discussions will re-open.
Many thanks for the helpful comments above. Approximately 11% of tree cover was lost from the species’ range in the last three-generation period (c. 17 years). Although this may not account for additional impacts from logging undetected by remote sensing data, the species is not restricted to pristine forest and also occurs in cultivated areas, plantations and towns, suggesting the rate of decline resulting from forest loss alone is unlikely to exceed this rate. It is noted that the use of rodenticides may be driving additional declines in this species. The rate of decline is therefore placed in the range 5-19% to reflect uncertainty, but there is currently limited evidence that this threat is causing declines in the total population to exceed 20% in three generations. However, further input on this is welcome.
Based on available information therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 31 May 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in November 2026, 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 8 June 2026.
Although I agree with the reasoning based on forest loss, there is another stressor which may be much more significant in reducing populations of this species, namely the widespread use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in oil palm plantations that form much of it’s lowland range. In a study on the Australian Boobook, we documented rates of up to 75% potentially lethal exposure across a broad geographical region. Given the profound impacts SGARS have been demonstrated to have on Australian raptor populations, it is highly likely that the same also applies in New Britain where we observed widespread use of SGARs. It is not at all; unlikely that up to half of populations are being negatively impacted. Our research finds that population level impacts from SGARS may eclipse other common stressors. Based on this alone I think the species qualifies as at least NT.
Lohr, M.T. (2018). Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in an Australian predatory bird increases with proximity to developed habitat, Science of The Total Environment,
Volume 643, Pages 134-144.
The Global Forest Loss analysis does indeed suggest declines through forest loss are aligned with a Red List status of LC. However, we also need to factor-in habitat degradation from logging, which rarely shows in the GFW analysis, as well as the impact of anticoagulant rat poisons. However, unlike in Australia, SGARs (and FGARs) are likely to be applied broadscale only around oil palm plantations and not across small-scale agriculture and small villages.
The rate of SGAR (and FGAR) use is wholly unknown and BirdLife needs to determine whether to be precautionary and categorise it as NT.
Given that Buchanan et al calculated its rate of decline as 19% over a revised 3-generation period, but excluded impacts from SGARs and FGARs, I believe that it qualifies as NT for that historical period.
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 22 May 2026. 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 22 May 2026, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
Many thanks for the helpful comments above. Approximately 11% of tree cover was lost from the species’ range in the last three-generation period (c. 17 years). Although this may not account for additional impacts from logging undetected by remote sensing data, the species is not restricted to pristine forest and also occurs in cultivated areas, plantations and towns, suggesting the rate of decline resulting from forest loss alone is unlikely to exceed this rate. It is noted that the use of rodenticides may be driving additional declines in this species. The rate of decline is therefore placed in the range 5-19% to reflect uncertainty, but there is currently limited evidence that this threat is causing declines in the total population to exceed 20% in three generations. However, further input on this is welcome.
Based on available information therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 31 May 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in November 2026, 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 8 June 2026.