Species to be potentially uplisted after a reassessment of species against criterion B2, following Tracewski et al. (2016)

This discussion was first published as part of the 2017 Red List update. At the time a decision regarding the status of several was pended, but to enable potential reassessment of these species as part of the 2018 Red List update this post remains open and the date of posting has been updated.

The species which are still open for discussion are; White-tailed Starfrontlet (Coeligena phalerata), Sira Barbet (Capito fitzpatricki), Brown-rumped Tapaculo (Scytalopus latebricola), and Streak-capped Spinetail (Cranioleuca hellmayri).

Assessments against criterion B2 require the Area of Occupancy (AOO) to meet a threshold size (<10km2 for Critically Endangered; <500km2 for Endangered; <2,000km2 for Vulnerable; no threshold set by IUCN for Near Threatened but for this analysis one was arbitrarily set at <2,500km2), and at least two further conditions must also be met. These further conditions are a) the species’s range is severely fragmented or restricted to a certain number of locations* (1 for CR; 2-5 for EN; 6-10 for VU), b) continuing decline in i) extent of occurrence, ii) area of occupancy, iii) area/extent/quality of habitat, iv) number of locations/subpopulations or v) number of mature individuals, and c) extreme fluctuations in i) extent of occurrence, ii) area of occupancy, iii) number of locations/subpopulations or iv) number of mature individuals.

Listing as Near Threatened need not only be confined to species with an AOO of 2,000km2-2,500km2, and fulfilling at least two of the further conditions. Species with a far smaller AOO but which do not fully meet the further conditions required for listing as Vulnerable, may also warrant listing as Near Threatened, because they approach the threshold for listing as Vulnerable (e.g. a species with an AOO of 450km2, found at 12 locations which are fragmented but NOT severely fragmented, where the habitat area is declining, but there is no evidence for any extreme fluctuations, would merit listing as Near Threatened).

A total of 364 species reached the threshold for a higher Red List category based on AOO alone, but the vast majority of these did not fulfil the other conditions required for listing under criterion B2. Of this 364 species, 29 potentially warrant uplisting to a higher category based on an assessment against B2. These 29 are the species presented in the pdf below. It should be noted that not all of the species presented are proposed for uplisting. The 29 species represent the species that have the greatest potential for uplisting based on criterion B2. For those where our proposed decision is not to uplist them they have been put forward here because comments/further information may mean that these species end up being proposed for uplisting.

Additionally, not all of the species presented in the pdf are proposed for uplisting under criterion B2 alone. The reassessment against the conditions for criterion B2 also meant that some of the species presented in the pdf will also qualify for uplisting under other criteria, and in fact this may be the most appropriate listing for the species rather than under criterion B2. However, all of the species in this topic do have the potential for uplisting under criterion B2. Species that qualify for uplisting solely under other criteria are not part of this forum topic but will be presented in other topics in the future.

The pdf can be downloaded here: Assessment of species with potential uplisting under criterion B2.

In the pdf we present for each species:

  • Its AOO, calculated as the remaining tree area within the species’s range, from (Ł. Tracewski unpublished data), and its EOO.
  • Whether the species’s range/habitat and population are deemed to be in decline.
  • Whether the species’s range is considered to be (severely) fragmented.
  • Whether the number of locations where the species occurs meets the threshold for listing under a Threatened category.
  • The highest potential Red List status for the species.
  • The Red List status that will be proposed to IUCN in the absence of further information or comments.
  • Justification for the difference between the highest RL status and the proposed RL status where applicable.

Comments or further information regarding these proposed Red List statuses are very welcome.

 

*Note that the term ‘location’ defines a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present. The size of the location depends on the area covered by the threatening event and may include part of one or many subpopulations. Where a taxon is affected by more than one threatening event, location should be defined by considering the most serious plausible threat (IUCN 2001, 2012).

 

References

IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission.

IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

Tracewski, Ł.; Butchart, S. H. M.; Di Marco, M.; Ficetola, G. F.; Rondinini, C.; Symes, A.; Wheatley, H.; Beresford, A. E.; Buchanan, G. M. 2016. Toward quantification of the impact of 21st-century deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology 30: 1070-1079.

This entry was posted in Africa, Americas, Asia, Caribbean, Central America, Europe & Central Asia, Galliformes, North America, Pacific, South America. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Species to be potentially uplisted after a reassessment of species against criterion B2, following Tracewski et al. (2016)

  1. Thomas Donegan says:

    For the three Santa Marta endemics in this proposal, the additional potential complications of climate change and forest fires may mean that upgrades are warranted.

    For climate change, see Velazquez et al paper:
    http://eco-index.org/new/print-online/pdfs/Climate-change-bird-Colombia.pdf

    For forest fires, see this release and others:
    https://www.rainforesttrust.org/project/saving-santa-marta-parakeet/

  2. Natalia Ocampo-Penuela, Stuart Pimm, Clinton Jenkins says:

    As conservation scientists, we feel motivated to improve the science that determines the threat status of species, and thus directs conservation action. Of special concern to us is the urgency with which species should be protected, as some have ranges that are shrinking rapidly and protection varies across endangered species. For a decade, we have systematically developed an approach to provide consistent and effective methods to identify such species, from individual case studies to regional studies. We did so, feeling that only such deliberate studies could properly assess the details and local experiences that, if ignored, would compromise the results. We are saddened that Tracewski et al., who use largely the same methods as us for refining by elevation and forest, did not quote this well-cited work from major conservation journals and, unfortunately did not learn from its experience (Harris and Pimm 2004, Harris et al. 2005, Harris and Pimm 2008, Alves et al. 2008, Jenkins et al. 2010, Schnell et al. 2013a, 2013b, Ocampo-Peñuela and Pimm 2014, Li and Pimm 2015, Li et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016).

    In November 2016, we published the capstone paper in Science Advances showing that after refining the ranges of 586 small ranged and endemic forest birds by elevation and forest cover, their distributions appear much smaller and severely fragmented. As a result, we suggested that for 210 species (189 currently non-threatened), their threat category be reassessed based on refined range size and degree of protection. In the latest review of threat categories posted here, we do not see any reference to this study or inspection of any of the species we suggested for reassessment (except Goldmania violiceps which is also suggested for uplisting by Tracewski). There is also no reference of a recent study by Ramesh et al. (2017), which also suggested uplisting 10 endemic species in the Western Ghats using different methods.

    We believe our results were not considered because critics allege we confuse Extents of Occurrence (EOO), Areas of Occupancy (AOO) and the thresholds for endangerment that accompany them. We did not and noted this explicitly. Discussions sparked by our paper were based on this dichotomy and not on the fact that we find ranges are much smaller than Extents of Occurrence — that is inevitable, but (1) inconsistently smaller across different current classes of threat, and (2) inconsistently more fragmented than previously thought (Schnell et al. 2013a, 2013b.) It appears that the only study being considered in the current reassessment is that by Tracewski et al., who use largely the same methods for refining by elevation and forest, but apply AOO thresholds instead of EOO for suggesting higher threat categories.

    There are several assumptions in Tracewski et al.’s analyses that deserve attention:

    – The Digital Elevation Model used for refining by elevation has a 900m horizontal resolution. We typically used readily available 90m resolutions — 100 times more spatially resolved. This is an important consideration for species inhabiting narrow elevational belts in tropical mountains such as the Andes.
    – Tracewski et al. do not report the threshold of percent tree cover that was considered for forest cover, and so the findings cannot be replicated. The product they use (Hansen et al.) ranges from 0-100% tree cover per 30m pixel. For instance, in certain cases, using local knowledge, we selected 60% tree cover as forest cover, and noticed that the results vary significantly according to the percent used.
    – The Hansen et al. data overestimates forest cover in many areas for which local forest products fair better and are available. The authors attempted to correct for this using plantation data, but it was restricted to very few countries. We used local forest cover layers when available to avoid this bias.
    – The AOO the authors report has issues. First, the rescaling of cell size to reach 4-km2 cells results in the loss of information during the process. We did not find details on how this rescaling was done and how they dealt with the associated information loss. Lastly, the maps produced are also not AOO. They are based on remote sensing and no fieldwork was done to detect the true presence of the species.

    All scientific studies have shortcomings and as scientists, we attempt to prevent or mitigate assumptions and biases. Transparency is vital to this process. It seems that the application of both AOO and EOO is problematic from a practical point of view. One is too coarse (EOO), and one too fine and difficult to obtain (AOO). In practice, measuring AOO following current guidelines is impractical for the vast majority of species, even for most birds. We suggest an intermediate measure that is more informative than EOO and can be estimated practically using readily available data.

    Various studies have proposed a measure in-between, “extent of suitable habitat” (ESH). Tracewski et al., Ramesh et al, and Ocampo-Peñuela et al. all produce maps of this measure that can be obtained using available geospatial data, can be automated, and periodically updated.

    Some Red List assessments at the national level have already incorporated such measures. The Red List of Colombian Birds reports the three range measures: EOO, ESH, and AOO and makes the maps available as evidence of the difference in the three, an important level of transparency.

    If the IUCN and BirdLife were to incorporate an “extent of suitable habitat” measure into Red List criteria, as has been suggested by various independent scientific groups (for example, Beresford et al.2011), Red List assessments could greatly benefit from the wealth of freely available geospatial data. This would not eliminate the expert opinions or close evaluation for certain species, but it would allow the entry of the enormous recent advances in geospatial science. We believe this would help guide the experts to the species that need most urgent attention.

    Above all, we reiterate our succinct and modest proposal. Whatever one’s preference for criteria, in discussing a species’ risk of extinction, it would be entirely simple to add one sentence, of the kind, “species A has an extent of occurrence of X km2, of which only Y km2 is within the known elevational bounds of the species, and which at best only Z km2 has remaining natural habitat; only Q% of that remaining habitat is currently protected.” This sentence would greatly aid those who manage endangered species and prioritize which areas should be protected.

    Finally, we suggest all researchers exploring this subject make the detailed tables of range sizes, how various factors affect them, what fractions are protected, and where possible GIS files, available online or in public databases — as we did in Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016). This should be the standard for assessments of potentially threatened species.

    • Natalia Ocampo-Penuela, Stuart Pimm, Clinton Jenkins says:

      References
      Alves MA, Pimm SL, Storni A, Raposo MA, Brooke MD, Harris G, Foster A, Jenkins CN. 2008. Mapping and exploring the distribution of the Vulnerable grey-winged cotinga Tijuca condita. Oryx 42:562-566.
      Beresford AE, Buchanan GM, Donald PF, Butchart SH, Fishpool LD, Rondinini 2011 C. Poor overlap between the distribution of protected areas and globally threatened birds in Africa. Animal Conservation. 14(2):99-107.
      Harris GM, Pimm SL. 2004. Bird species’ tolerance of secondary forest habitats and its effects on extinction. Conservation Biology 18: 1607-1616.
      Harris GM, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL. 2005. Refining biodiversity conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 19:1957-1968.
      Harris GM, Pimm SL. 2008. Range size and extinction risk in forest birds. Conservation Biology 22:163-171.
      Jenkins CN, Alves MAS, and Pimm SL. 2010. Avian conservation priorities in a top-ranked biodiversity hotspot. Biological Conservation 143(4): 992-998.
      Li BV, Pimm SL. 2015. China’s endemic vertebrates sheltering under the protective umbrella of the giant panda. Conservation Biology 30: 329-339.
      Li BV, Hughes AC, Jenkins CN, Ocampo-Peñuela N, Pimm SL. 2016. Remotely sensed data informs Red List evaluations and conservation priorities in Southeast Asia. PLoS One 11(8): e0160566.
      Ocampo-Penuela, NA., Pimm, SL. 2014. Setting Practical Conservation Priorities for Birds in the Western Andes of Colombia. Conservation Biology 28:1260-1270.
      Ocampo-Peñuela N, Jenkins CN, Vijay V, Li BV, Pimm SL. 2016 Incorporating explicit geospatial data shows more species at risk of extinction than the current Red List. Science Advances. 1;2(11):e1601367.
      Ramesh V, Gopalakrishna T, Barve S, Melnick DJ (2017) IUCN greatly underestimates threat levels of endemic birds in the Western Ghats. Biological Conservation. 210:205-21.
      Schnell JK, Harris GM, Pimm SL, Russell GJ. 2013. Estimating Extinction Risk with Metapopulation Models of Large‐Scale Fragmentation. Conservation Biology 27:520-30.
      Schnell JK, Harris GM, Pimm SL, Russell GJ. 2013. Quantitative analysis of forest fragmentation in the Atlantic Forest reveals more threatened bird species than the current Red List. PloS One 8(5): e65357.
      Tracewski Ł, Butchart SH, Di Marco M, Ficetola GF, Rondinini C, Symes A, Wheatley H, Beresford AE, Buchanan GM. 2016 Toward quantification of the impact of 21st‐century deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology. 30(5):1070-9.

    • Andy Symes (BirdLife) says:

      The following post addresses the points raised by Ocampo-Penuela et al. in their previous forum post. The original post is quoted for clarity as to which points are being addressed.

      As conservation scientists, we feel motivated to improve the science that determines the threat status of species, and thus directs conservation action. Of special concern to us is the urgency with which species should be protected, as some have ranges that are shrinking rapidly and protection varies across endangered species. For a decade, we have systematically developed an approach to provide consistent and effective methods to identify such species, from individual case studies to regional studies. We did so, feeling that only such deliberate studies could properly assess the details and local experiences that, if ignored, would compromise the results. We are saddened that Tracewski et al., who use largely the same methods as us for refining by elevation and forest, did not quote this well-cited work from major conservation journals and, unfortunately did not learn from its experience (Harris and Pimm 2004, Harris et al. 2005, Harris and Pimm 2008, Alves et al. 2008, Jenkins et al. 2010, Schnell et al. 2013a, 2013b, Ocampo-Peñuela and Pimm 2014, Li and Pimm 2015, Li et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016).

      In November 2016, we published the capstone paper in Science Advances showing that after refining the ranges of 586 small ranged and endemic forest birds by elevation and forest cover, their distributions appear much smaller and severely fragmented. As a result, we suggested that for 210 species (189 currently non-threatened), their threat category be reassessed based on refined range size and degree of protection. In the latest review of threat categories posted here, we do not see any reference to this study or inspection of any of the species we suggested for reassessment (except Goldmania violiceps which is also suggested for uplisting by Tracewski). There is also no reference of a recent study by Ramesh et al. (2017), which also suggested uplisting 10 endemic species in the Western Ghats using different methods.

      We believe our results were not considered because critics allege we confuse Extents of Occurrence (EOO), Areas of Occupancy (AOO) and the thresholds for endangerment that accompany them. We did not and noted this explicitly. Discussions sparked by our paper were based on this dichotomy and not on the fact that we find ranges are much smaller than Extents of Occurrence — that is inevitable, but (1) inconsistently smaller across different current classes of threat, and (2) inconsistently more fragmented than previously thought (Schnell et al. 2013a, 2013b.) It appears that the only study being considered in the current reassessment is that by Tracewski et al., who use largely the same methods for refining by elevation and forest, but apply AOO thresholds instead of EOO for suggesting higher threat categories.

      BirdLife, as Red List Authority for birds on the IUCN Red List, is beholden to follow the guidance of the IUCN Red List Standards and Petitions Sub-Committee (SPSC), just like any Red List Authority for other taxonomic groups (we sign an MOU which has a commitment to this). The guidance is clear, and the current version of the Guidelines (available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/red-list-documents) includes detailed guidance on how Extent of Suitable Habitat (ESH) estimates can be used in Red List assessments. ESH estimates cannot be directly compared to either AOO or EOO thresholds, but the maps of ESH can be used to estimate either, given several conditions. Briefly, AOO must to be measured at (or scaled to) the reference scale (see section 4.10.5), and EOO must be measured as the minimum convex polygon that includes all the identified habitat areas (see section 4.9).

      In other words, ESH measured at an arbitrary scale is neither an upper bound for AOO nor a lower bound for EOO. First, ESH is always an upper bound on an estimate of any spatial metric of occurrence/occupancy because it potentially includes areas in which the taxon is extinct (or was never extant). Second, whether a spatial metric based on ESH is comparable to AOO or EOO thresholds depends on how it is measured. If ESH is measured/scaled at the 2×2 km scale, it is an upper bound on the estimate of AOO. And the area of the minimum convex polygon (the convex hull) that includes all ESH is an upper bound on the estimate of EOO.

      This isn’t a matter of academic debate –the SPSC have the job of explaining the intent of the Red List criteria and of providing guidance on how to apply them. Our responsibility is to follow their guidance, in order to ensure consistency across the Red List. As an example, we used to calculate the area of mapped distribution and apply this area to the EOO thresholds. SPSC ruled that this was not valid, as explained in Joppa et al 2015. We therefore now apply MCPs around the mapped distribution and apply this to the B1 thresholds, following the SPSC guidance. (The logic behind this rule is explained in the Guidelines.)

      As the studies referred to above do not follow this guidance, we have not incorporated their recommendations into proposed Red List recategorisations. If we did so, they would just get rejected by the IUCN Red List unit, who vet all our assessments.

      There are several assumptions in Tracewski et al.’s analyses that deserve attention:
      – The Digital Elevation Model used for refining by elevation has a 900m horizontal resolution. We typically used readily available 90m resolutions — 100 times more spatially resolved. This is an important consideration for species inhabiting narrow elevational belts in tropical mountains such as the Andes.

      We used the 900m DEM as a tradeoff between processing time and accuracy. However, the errors that remain within DEM layers, and in the altitude ranges of species, mean that we suggest the errors associated with this use of this layer are minimal. In addition, it is important to remember that the EOO layers on which the ESH calculation is based will contain errors.

      – Tracewski et al. do not report the threshold of percent tree cover that was considered for forest cover, and so the findings cannot be replicated. The product they use (Hansen et al.) ranges from 0-100% tree cover per 30m pixel. For instance, in certain cases, using local knowledge, we selected 60% tree cover as forest cover, and noticed that the results vary significantly according to the percent used.

      We apologise for this omission. We can confirm we used a 50% threshold.

      – The Hansen et al. data overestimates forest cover in many areas for which local forest products fair better and are available. The authors attempted to correct for this using plantation data, but it was restricted to very few countries. We used local forest cover layers when available to avoid this bias.

      We would welcome studies using alternative datasets that apply consistent and appropriate methods and that follow the IUCN Guidelines as noted above. We would be happy to provide input to or collaborate on such studies. If they do not follow IUCN guidance, then we can’t make use of the results in our Red List assessments.

      – The AOO the authors report has issues. First, the rescaling of cell size to reach 4-km2 cells results in the loss of information during the process. We did not find details on how this rescaling was done and how they dealt with the associated information loss. Lastly, the maps produced are also not AOO. They are based on remote sensing and no fieldwork was done to detect the true presence of the species.

      Tracewski et al did not report AOO or claim that the ESH estimates represent estimates of AOO. AOO can only be calculated using presence/absence data at a scale of 2x2km squares, as outlined in the IUCN Guidelines. Instead, they calculated ESH, and followed IUCN guidance in interpreting this as the maximum possible value of the AOO (in nearly all cases, AOO will be smaller, often much smaller). Note that the IUCN Guidelines indicate that rescaling to 2×2 km cells is necessary in order to interpret the ESH as an upper bound of the AOO estimate. Rescaling was done by summing forest cover within each cell. We acknowledge that there are multiple ways in which this can be done, and all have strengths and weaknesses.

      All scientific studies have shortcomings and as scientists, we attempt to prevent or mitigate assumptions and biases. Transparency is vital to this process. It seems that the application of both AOO and EOO is problematic from a practical point of view. One is too coarse (EOO), and one too fine and difficult to obtain (AOO). In practice, measuring AOO following current guidelines is impractical for the vast majority of species, even for most birds. We suggest an intermediate measure that is more informative than EOO and can be estimated practically using readily available data.

      We are not aware of any practical issues in estimating EOO – it is easy to apply an MCP around the mapped distribution. EOO can only be interpreted as “too coarse” if one assumes it is trying to say something about the occurrence of individuals within the distributional limits. But this is not the definition or purpose of EOO. Instead it measures spread of extinction risk –essentially how far apart are the distributional boundaries. This isn’t a matter of academic debate. If you want to change the definition of EOO, that’s fine, but you can’t then apply the results of any analysis to the Red List.

      We agree that estimating AOO is impractical for most species. But there is no requirement that all Red List criteria are applicable to all species –they just capture different elements of extinction risk. We agree that ESH can be estimated practically –see below for our future plans – but it provides different, not more, information than EOO. The critical point is how ESH estimates are used in in Red List assessments. Here we all have to follow the IUCN SPSC guidance. If you don’t want to do this, that’s fine, but then you can’t interpret the results of any analysis in relation to the IUCN Red List.

      Various studies have proposed a measure in-between, “extent of suitable habitat” (ESH). Tracewski et al., Ramesh et al, and Ocampo-Peñuela et al. all produce maps of this measure that can be obtained using available geospatial data, can be automated, and periodically updated.

      We agree, and are working with Global Forest Watch and a variety of other collaborators to automate the assessment of ESH and change in this (based on change in land cover datasets) on an annual basis for all relevant species (not just a sample) across all comprehensively assessed taxa (not just birds) and to feed these data into SIS –the database that underpins the IUCN Red List –to make them accessible to Red List assessors.

      Some Red List assessments at the national level have already incorporated such measures. The Red List of Colombian Birds reports the three range measures: EOO, ESH, and AOO and makes the maps available as evidence of the difference in the three, an important level of transparency.

      If the IUCN and BirdLife were to incorporate an “extent of suitable habitat” measure into Red List criteria, as has been suggested by various independent scientific groups (for example, Beresford et al.2011), Red List assessments could greatly benefit from the wealth of freely available geospatial data. This would not eliminate the expert opinions or close evaluation for certain species, but it would allow the entry of the enormous recent advances in geospatial science. We believe this would help guide the experts to the species that need most urgent attention.

      Changing the Red List criteria is a major undertaking that would involve IUCN membership and would potentially reduce our ability to track trends in extinction risk, because future assessments would not be comparable with those made in the last two decades. So, in order to justify such change, there would have to be new evidence that adding a new criterion (and specifying what this would be) could identify species at risk of extinction that aren’t identified by other criteria. This would of course require independent information on actual extinction risk. Given that ESH estimates can be used to estimate EOO or AOO in ways that are comparable with the current criteria, IUCN would need to see convincing reasons for changing the criteria at this time.

      Above all, we reiterate our succinct and modest proposal. Whatever one’s preference for criteria, in discussing a species’ risk of extinction, it would be entirely simple to add one sentence, of the kind, “species A has an extent of occurrence of X km2, of which only Y km2 is within the known elevational bounds of the species, and which at best only Z km2 has remaining natural habitat; only Q% of that remaining habitat is currently protected.” This sentence would greatly aid those who manage endangered species and prioritize which areas should be protected.

      As already indicated, we intend to add fields showing the area of mapped distribution and of ESH (for taxa which have ESH calculated using our methodology) onto the IUCN Red List website, but this will take a while to implement as the whole Red List website is being redeveloped.

      We are less convinced of the value of reporting the % of ESH covered by protected areas for individual species – we prefer to focus on the proportion of Key Biodiversity Areas (including Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas; IBAs) identified for the species that are covered by protected areas (and, in due course, by OECMs – Other effective area-based conservation measures, in the language of Aichi Target 11). KBAs are delineated management units supporting known populations of the species in numbers that exceed the KBA criteria thresholds. Whereas, as discussed above, much of the ESH for a species may be unoccupied by it, so apparent protected area coverage may be of no benefit to the species.

      Finally, we suggest all researchers exploring this subject make the detailed tables of range sizes, how various factors affect them, what fractions are protected, and where possible GIS files, available online or in public databases — as we did in Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016). This should be the standard for assessments of potentially threatened species.

      The ESH files will also be made available on the IUCN and BirdLife websites in due course. As noted above, it is intended that ESH values will be documented in the Red List assessments.

      BirdLife International

  3. Andy Symes (BirdLife) says:

    Preliminary proposals

    Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2017 Red List would be to list:

    Sabah Partridge as Least Concern

    Madeira Laurel-pigeon as Least Concern.

    Comoro Olive-pigeon as Near Threatened under criteria B1ab(v)+2ab(v); C2a(i).

    Comoro Blue-pigeon as Near Threatened under criterion B1ab(v)+2ab(v).

    Lompobattang Fruit-dove as Vulnerable under criterion C2a(ii).

    Violet-capped Hummingbird as Near Threatened under criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii,v)+2ab(i,ii,iii,v).

    White-tufted Sunbeam as Near Threatened under criterion B2ab(i,ii,iii,v).

    White-tailed Starfrontlet as Endangered under criteria B1ab(i,ii,iii,v).

    Least Boobook as Endangered under criterion B2ab(i,ii,iii,v).

    Brown-rumped Tapaculo as Near Threatened under criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii,v)+2ab(i,ii,iii,v).

    Streak-capped Spinetail as Near Threatened under criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii,v)+2ab(i,ii,iii,v).

    Coiba Spinetail as Near Threatened under criterion B1ab(v)+2ab(v).

    Bougainville Honeyeater as Least Concern.

    Bacan Myzomela as Vulnerable under criterion C2a(ii).

    Timor Figbird as Least Concern.

    Morningbird as Least Concern.

    Cozumel Vireo as Near Threatened under criteria B1ab(ii,iii,v)+2ab(ii,iii,v); D2.

    Biak Fantail as Least Concern.

    Rennell Shrikebill as Least Concern.

    Izu Tit as Endangered under criterion B1ab(ii,iii,v)+2ab(ii,iii,v).

    Namuli Apalis as Near Threatened under criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii,v)+2ab(i,ii,iii,v).

    Reunion Bulbul as Near Threatened under criterion B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v).

    Citrine White-eye as Least Concern.

    Indochinese Fulvetta as Least Concern.

    Hermit Wood-wren as Near Threatened under criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii,v)+2ab(i,ii,iii,v).

    Buru Thrush as Near Threatened under criterion B1ab(v)+2ab(v).

    Grand Comoro Fody as Near Threatened under criteria B1ab(v)+2ab(v); C2a(ii).

    Grand Cayman Bullfinch as Near Threatened under criteria B1ab(v)+2ab(v); C2a(ii).

    The preliminary proposal for Sira Barbet is to pend a decision until 2018 and so retain the current listing as part of the 2017 Red List update.

    There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline of 4 August, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.

    Please note that we will then only post final recommended categorisations on forum discussions where these differ from the initial proposal.

    The final 2017 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in early December, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.

  4. James Westrip (BirdLife) says:

    Recommended categorisations to be put forward to IUCN

    Following further review, the recommended categorisations for the following species have been changed.

    White-tailed Starfrontlet, Brown-rumped Tapaculo and Streak-capped Spinetail.

    A final decision for all of these species will now be pended until 2018 and so they will retain the current listing as part of the 2017 Red List update.

    Decisions for all other species remain as outlined in the preliminary proposal.

    Final 2017 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in early December, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.

Leave a Reply

You have to agree to the comment policy.