Xingu Scythebill (Campylorhamphus multostriatus): Revise global status?

This entry was posted in Americas, South America and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Xingu Scythebill (Campylorhamphus multostriatus): Revise global status?

  1. Diego Mendes Lima says:

    In the assessment of the risk of extinction of the Brazilian fauna carried out in 2018, the species was categorized as Vulnerable (VU), according to the A2c criteria.

    Evaluators: Alexander Charles Lees, Alexandre Luis Padovan Aleixo, Diego Mendes Lima, Edson Varga Lopes, Luís Fábio Silveira, Mario Eric Cohn Haft, Pablo Vieira Cerqueira e Vítor de Queiroz Piacentini.

    Criterion A – In FLONA de Caxiuanã, the species was considered rare in upland forests, not being contacted once in a total of six plots of 100 ha, sampled between May 2003 and June 2005 (Valente, 2006). Similarly, reported as uncommon in the Tapirapé-Aquiri FLONA, where the taxon was recorded in only one of the five sampled sites, not being captured in mist nets (Dantas & Almeida, unpublished data). Also noted as uncommon in upland forests of FLONA de Carajás (Pacheco et al., 2007). In Tucuruí, some specimens were collected on land, in the 1910s and 1980s, and were not later recorded in the region, even in a recent census, with a sampling effort of more than 100 hours (Henriques & Dantas, data not published). Near Altamira, in an area under the influence of the Belo Monte HPP, a single specimen was recorded during a study with a sampling effort of about 20 hours (S.M. Dantas, unpublished data). In other studies, also in an area under the influence of the Belo Monte HPP, conducted by the MZUSP, two individuals were collected (specimens deposited at the MZUSP).

    Due to the sensitivity of the species, habitat loss is considered to lead to at least proportional population loss. It has suffered habitat loss of about 39-54% from its original distribution due to fire and selective logging (Barlow et al., 2016). Considering that this loss was more intense in recent decades, it is suspected that there was a population decline of at least 30% in the last three generations (12 years).

    Considering that public policies for the occupation of the Amazon remain the same, it is plausible that this population loss will continue.

    4-year generational time (BirdLife International, 2009).

    Criterion B – The calculations of AOO (40 km2) and EOO (90.063 km2) reach the thresholds for categorizing threatened in AOO. However, it does not meet at least two sub-criteria.

    Criterion C – in the assessment carried out in 2018, we did not find observed, estimated, projected and inferred data on the number of mature individuals and respective population decline.

    Criterion D – in the assessment carried out in 2018, we did not find population data on mature individuals and their AOO is greater than 20 km2.

    Criterion E – in the 2018 assessment, we did not find PVA data.

    JUSTIFICATION : Campylorhamphus multostriatus is endemic to the Xingu endemic center, located in the Xingu-Tocantins interfluve, a region that has been suffering high rates of deforestation. Among all endemic taxa of this Center of Endemism, it seems to be the one with the smallest extent of occurrence, apparently being restricted to the middle portion of the interfluve. It only occurs in large areas of forest, being apparently extinct in altered and fragmented places. Therefore, it is considered that habitat loss leads to population loss, at least proportional. The species has lost 80% of its original habitat and it is suspected that there has been a population loss of at least 30% in three generations (12 years). For these reasons, C. multostriatus was categorized as Vulnerable (VU) by the A2c criteria.

  2. Red List Team (BirdLife International) says:

    Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by so many people in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed. We will analyse and interpret the new information and post a preliminary decision on this species’s Red List status on this page in early July.

    Thank you once again,
    BirdLife Red List Team

  3. Red List Team (BirdLife International) says:

    Preliminary proposal

    Thank you for the comment on this proposal. Our preliminary decision is to list the species as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold for listing as threatened under Criteria A3c+4c, based on a projected rate of deforestation of 14-19% over the next three generations (11 years), and assuming an additional population decline of up to 51% of the rate of deforestation, due to habitat disturbance and fragmentation (based on Barlow et al. 2016), resulting in an overall projected population reduction of 14-28% over the next three generations (11 years).

    The comment above stated, ‘It has suffered habitat loss of about 39-54% from its original distribution due to fire and selective logging (Barlow et al., 2016)’. It would be helpful to know how the 39-54% figure was derived from the results of this analysis, what this number refers to specifically, what timeframe the number relates to and any assumptions that have been made.

    There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline in mid-July, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.

    The final 2021 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2021, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.

  4. Red List Team (BirdLife International) says:

    Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN

    The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Xingu Scythebill is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching the threshold for listing as threatened under Criterion A3c+4c.

    Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2021 GTB Forum process. The final 2021 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2021, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.

Comments are closed.