Archived: Mammals (2017 AZE update consultation)

Please note that this 1st phase of the 2017 AZE consultation has now closed. Many thanks to everyone who contributed during July and August. The 2nd phase of the consultation, focusing on the spatial boundaries of the sites, is taking place on a different platform. Please follow this link to access it, and provide feedback using the links to Survey Monkey by the deadline of 12 November. Many thanks.


Please click on the link below to access an Excel spreadsheet listing all the proposed AZE sites triggered by mammal species. Please post any comments or feedback on these proposed sites on this page (rather than on any of the AZE pages for other taxa) by 31 July 2017. Comments indicating that you have looked through the data, but do not have any suggested amendments or more specific feedback, are also welcome. Many thanks in advance – BirdLife, IUCN and ABC


For a spreadsheet summarising the proposed delistings for mammals – i.e. 2010 AZE trigger species which have been provisionally determined to longer meet the criteria – please see: Mammals – proposed 2017 delistings.

This entry was posted in Archive, AZE (Alliance for Zero Extinction) and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Archived: Mammals (2017 AZE update consultation)

  1. Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

    Please note that an updated version of the spreadsheet has been posted today (11th July 2017) to include a column indicating, for each trigger species, whether it was also listed as a trigger species in the 2010 dataset or is a proposed new trigger species in 2017.

  2. Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

    Comment from Chris Banks via email:
    Matschie’s Tree Kangaroo – Dendrolagus matschei
    The species is listed as Endangered (and declining) on the IUCN Red List. It is restricted to the high elevations of mountains (centred over the Saruwaged and Finisterre Ranges) of the Huon Peninsula in north-east Papua New Guinea. As far as I can see on the AZE website, neither the species nor locality/site is listed.

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      Regarding Dendrolagus matschei, this was on my long list of potential mammal species considered as AZE trigger species. However, as its range on the Huon Peninsular includes multiple mountain ranges, I concluded that it did not seem appropriate to consider this to be one discrete site: “The area must have a definable boundary within which the character of habitats, biological communities, and/or management issues have more in common with each other than they do with those in adjacent areas.” Although there are some AZEs which are fragmented, these are generally e.g. the high elevation areas of a single mountain range, rather than multiple mountain ranges. If you think that this can count as one discrete site, however, I’d be happy to consider it further. Is the distribution fragmented, and if so is it naturally so or artificially due to e.g. habitat loss? Do the tree kangaroos form one population, or separate subpopulations?

      • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

        Reply from Lisa Dabek via email:
        Thanks for this discussion on Dendrolagus matschiei. I had met with AZE representatives a long time ago and have always thought Dendrolagus matschiei should be an AZE species. They are an endemic species restricted to the Huon Peninsula (except for a population translocated by local people to Umboi Island) off the coast. It is true there are multiple mountain ranges, but populations are very localized. We are starting to work with Dr. Falk Huettmann who will be doing a distribution and population abundance model for the species in YUS and across the Huon Peninsula. We have done genetics work on the local population of Dendrolagus matschiei in YUS where we work, but we do not (yet) know if there are true subpopulations across the Peninsula. It would be likely since the terrain is so extreme and forest areas are isolated and the home range is relatively small. Also there is fairly new mapping on land use and habitat loss on the Peninsula, so there is information about isolation due to human activity as well. So we could potentially consider a Sarawagat population and a Finisterre population? Perhaps in conjunction with Dr. Huettmann’s work with us (2017-2019) we could have more discussions about what might be applicable. I would be interested in any further discussions.

        • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

          Reply from Janet Scott via email:
          Many thanks for your useful and interesting feedback on Dendrolagus matschiei. Whilst this species is clearly of high conservation interest, from your description of the situation it does not sound as though it can qualify as an AZE trigger species – with multiple mountain ranges, and fragmented localized populations restricted to forest patches, I can’t see how it is possible to delineate and justify a discrete site covering the whole area. There is a large number of other species with similarly localized but not highly restricted distributions, in comparable situations, and if one were to be included then they all should be which would be a significant departure from the methodology followed so far – we’ve had to be as scrupulous as possible when to comes to applying the criteria fairly and consistently.

          As the AZE initiative is only one “tool” in the site-based conservation box, I do hope it will be possible for the importance of this area, or part of it, to be recognised through another channel or receive formal protection.

  3. Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

    Comment from Mariella Superina via email:
    I have verified the information about the only xenarthran species listed in the Mammals database (Bradypus pygmaeus, Red_ID 993). Unfortunately we still don’t have any reliable population estimates for this species.
    In a paper published in 2015, our pygmy sloth expert Bryson Voirin suspected that the population could consist of 500-1500 individuals, but the quality of this population estimate is poor. Not sure if it is worth including this information in the database…
    The reference of the 2015 paper is Voirin, B. (2015): Biology and conservation of the pygmy sloth, Bradypus pygmaeus. Journal of Mammalogy
    96(4): 703-707.

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      Many thanks for your comment on Bradypus pygmaeus. On the basis that a potentially poor quality population estimate is better than no population estimate, I will note this to include in the database.

  4. Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

    Comment from John Fanshawe via email, concerning several taxa:
    Regarding Kenya’s Arabuko-Sokoke Forest as as candidate AZE, with the potential trigger species Rhynchocyon chrysopygus (Golden-rumped Sengi).
    “I’d be surprised if Sokoke does not contain 95% of the pop.”

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      Reply from Janet Scott via email:
      Regarding the mammals mentioned below, I had indeed ruled out Aders’ Duiker on the basis of multiple subpopulations at multiple sites. The Golden Rumped Sengi I had also thought would not qualify on the basis of the several small populations in addition to the one in Arabuko-Sokoke, but if the site does contain 95% of the global population despite this then it will indeed qualify. Any confirmation of this from Clare or Galen would be greatly appreciated.

  5. Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

    Summarised from comments received from Aliança Brasileira para a Extinção Zero (the Brazilian Alliance for Zero Extinction, BAZE) regarding sites/species from multiple taxonomic groups:

    1. Serra do Tabuleiro State Park (Parque Estadual da Serra do Tabuleiro IBA) – Cavia intermedia – ok

    2. Serra da Mantiqueira – Phyllomys mantiqueirensis – Is listed as DD on Brazilian Redlist.

    3. Ilhabela State Park (Parque Estadual de Ilhabela IBA) – Phyllomys thomasi – ok

    4. Helvecia – Phyllomys unicolor – The last confirmed record was over 100 years ago. I have found one paper reporting the rediscovery of the species, by capture of a single specimen. This could qualify the species as trigger, considering small rodents, specially the rares, are normally of difficult detection. However, one of the co-authors who published the paper reporting the rediscovery discards the record later on, in her PhD thesis. That being said, it should be considered PEX, and not be valid as trigger.

    5. Pompeu – Phyllomys brasiliensis – The three current localities could hardly be considered a single site, as they are located in a very degraded area, embbeded in a matrix of eucaliptus.

    6. Dunas e Veredas do Baixo Médio São Francisco – Trinomys yonenagae – This species was disqualified due to serious taxonomic confusion.

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      Summarised from reply:

      1. OK
      2. For the global AZE list we need to follow the global IUCN Red List category.
      3. OK
      4. We do have other CR(PE) species as AZE triggers, on the basis that we prefer to be precautionary (similarly to not assessing species as EX until there is no reasonable doubt that no individuals survive). Do you know if the other authors of the rediscovery paper also discard the record?
      5. If this can’t be considered to be a discrete site, I will remove it from the list (this would be a “delisting”, as the site/species was in the 2010 dataset)
      6. Do you have any further details of the taxonomic confusion? The global Red List assessment does not mention any issues (other than a change of genus).

  6. Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

    Comment from Steve Ross via email:
    Regarding the aze consultation, i would like to suggest the Arabian tahr (arabitragus jayakari) as an endagered species that should be considered in the aze document. This could be included by suggesting the hajar mountains as the key site (tahr are endemic to the range) or alternatively the eastern hajars (approx 12000 sq km, containing about 80-90% of the population, or wadi sareen nature reserve (700 sq km, containing 20-30% of the population.
    Each of these site suggestions have other endemic plant and animal species which would also benefit from the aze status.

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      Many thanks for your comments on the Arabian Tahr.
      This species was on my long list of potential AZE trigger species, but on examining its distribution I concluded that the relevant area – the whole Hajar Mountains range – did not look like it could be a single discrete site: “Discreteness: The area must have a definable boundary within which the character of habitats, biological communities, and/or management issues have more in common with each other than they do with those in adjacent areas.” The site would overlap the PA and KBA “Jabal al Akhdar”; the KBAs “Masafi – Tayibah area” and “Musandam” and the PAs “Al Saleel National Park” and “Hatta” (as well as Wadi Sareen which is not listed in the WDPA or IBAT, but I’ve found the boundaries). Considering the large area and the number of current sites overlapped, to me this doesn’t seem to qualify as a discrete site. It’s also not possible to use one of the smaller areas you suggested, as the site has to contain at least 95% of the global population of the trigger species.

      • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

        Reply from Steve Ross via email:
        Thanks for your explanation.
        The tahr has been extripated from musandam and is almost extnict in the Uae. If the area south of the uae border is not too large then i think it could be considered as a discrete management unit by your defination. It is a large area but the issues and habitats available in this unit are largely the same. Are the number of PAs it overlaps an issue ? I think having a shared management philosophy for the mountain range would be very beneficial.

        • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

          Thanks for this. Based on this I’ve drawn a potential site covering the Oman section of the Hajar mountains for further discussion. It would certainly be one of the largest AZEs if it goes through, but there is no actual size cutoff, and no rule that it can’t overlap a number of PAs. What may be more of an issue is if the habitat and population are fragmented; i.e. is this one continuous site or several “patches”?

Comments are closed.