# 76 FR 25150: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-10286

## Section

- **Citation:** 76 FR 25150
- **Heading:** Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 76 / 76 FR 25150

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0053; MO 92210-0-0010 B6] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:
Notice of review.

SUMMARY:
In this notice of review, we announce our annual petition findings for foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions, we must review the status of the species each year until we publish a proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent status reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings are referred to as “resubmitted” petition findings.
Information contained in this notice describes our status review of 20 foreign taxa that were the subject of previous warranted-but-precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2009 Notice of Review published on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540). Based on our current review, we find that 20 species continue to warrant listing, but their listing remains precluded by higher priority listing actions.
With this annual notice of review (ANOR), we are requesting additional information for the 20 taxa whose listings that remain warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future resubmitted petition findings for these 20 taxa. This information will also help us to monitor the status of the taxa and conserve them.

DATES:
We will accept information on these resubmitted petition findings at any time.

ADDRESSES:
This notice is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, and http://endangered.fws.gov/
formation in preparing listing documents and future resubmitted petition findings for these 20 taxa. This information will also help us to monitor the status of the taxa and conserve them.

DATES:
We will accept information on these resubmitted petition findings at any time.

ADDRESSES:
This notice is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, and http://endangered.fws.gov/. Supporting information used in preparing this notice is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Branch of Foreign Species, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this notice to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, ( see ADDRESSES ); by telephone at 703-358-2171; or by facsimile at 703-358-1735. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. First, we can identify and propose for listing those species that are endangered or threatened based on the factors contained in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We implement this mechanism through the candidate program. Candidate taxa are those taxa for which we have sufficient information on file relating to biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list the taxa as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposed rule is precluded by higher priority listing actions. The second mechanism for considering species for listing is when the public petitions us to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The species covered by this notice were assessed through the petition process
the taxa as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposed rule is precluded by higher priority listing actions. The second mechanism for considering species for listing is when the public petitions us to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The species covered by this notice were assessed through the petition process.
Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a listing petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (90-day finding). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. Using the information from the status review, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we must make one of three findings within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (12-month finding). The first possible 12-month finding is that listing is not warranted, in which case we need not take any further action on the petition. The second possibility is that we may find that listing is warranted, in which case we must promptly publish a proposed rule to list the species. Once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern further procedures, regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to the petition. The third possibility is that we may find that listing is warranted but precluded. A warranted but-precluded finding on a petition to list means that listing is warranted, but that the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by higher priority listing actions. In making a warranted-but-precluded finding under the Act, the Service must demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove species from the Lists
but precluded. A warranted but-precluded finding on a petition to list means that listing is warranted, but that the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by higher priority listing actions. In making a warranted-but-precluded finding under the Act, the Service must demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove species from the Lists.
Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, when, in response to a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, we must make a new 12-month finding annually until we publish a proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent 12-month findings are referred to as “resubmitted” petition findings. This notice contains our resubmitted petition findings for foreign species previously described in the 2009 Notice of Review (August 12, 2009, 74 FR 40540).
We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings; to provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing unnecessary; to request input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the Act or additional species that may require the Act's protections; and to request necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals.
On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority)
ber 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Guidelines for such a priority-ranking guidance system are required under section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)). As explained below, in using this system we first categorize based on the magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic status.
Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be either “high” or “moderate to low.” This criterion helps ensure that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued
As used in our priority ranking system, immediacy of threat is categorized as either “imminent” or “nonimminent.” It is not a measure of how quickly the species is likely to become extinct if the threats are not addressed; rather, immediacy is based on when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals over those for which threats are only potential or species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats, but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic status: species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
The result of the ranking system entails assigning each candidate a listing priority number of 1 to 12
nown to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic status: species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
The result of the ranking system entails assigning each candidate a listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threat(s) is/are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status (i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full species would be assigned to LPN 2, and a subspecies, DPS, or a species that is endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of its range would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. Each species included in this notice is one for which we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule to list, because it is in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
For more information on the process and standards used in assigning LPNs, a copy of the guidance is available on our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf. For more information on the LPN assigned to a particular species, the species assessment for each candidate contains the LPN and a rationale for the determination of the magnitude and imminence of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN; that information is presented in this ANOR.
Previous Notices
This revised notice supersedes all previous annual notices of review for foreign species. The species discussed in this notice were the result of three separate petitions submitted to the U.S
or each candidate contains the LPN and a rationale for the determination of the magnitude and imminence of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN; that information is presented in this ANOR.
Previous Notices
This revised notice supersedes all previous annual notices of review for foreign species. The species discussed in this notice were the result of three separate petitions submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to list a number of foreign bird and butterfly species as endangered or threatened under the Act. We received petitions to list foreign bird species on November 24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 (46 FR 26464, May 12, 1981; and 56 FR 65207, December 16, 1991, respectively). On January 10, 1994, we received a petition to list seven butterfly species as endangered or threatened (59 FR 24117; May 10, 1994).
We took several actions on these petitions. Our most recent review of petition findings was published on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540). Previously published petition findings, listing rules, status reviews, and petition finding reviews that included foreign species are also listed in the 2009 ANOR.
Summary of This ANOR
Since publication of the previous ANOR on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that listing is warranted for each species, and reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly species with high listing priority numbers (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at greatest risk first. In addition to reviewing foreign candidate species since publication of the last ANOR, we have worked on numerous findings in response to petitions to list species and on proposed and final determinations for rules to list species under the Act
g priority numbers (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at greatest risk first. In addition to reviewing foreign candidate species since publication of the last ANOR, we have worked on numerous findings in response to petitions to list species and on proposed and final determinations for rules to list species under the Act. Some of these findings and determinations have been completed and published in the Federal Register , while work on others is still under way ( see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, below, for details).
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, with this ANOR, we have changed the LPN for several candidates. The review of these 20 species is summarized in Table 1.
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions
This notice describes our resubmitted petition findings for 20 foreign species for which we had previously found proposed listing to be warranted but precluded. We have considered all of the new information that we have obtained since the previous finding, and we have reviewed in accordance with our Listing Priority Guidance the listing priority number (LPN) of each taxon for which proposed listing continues to be warranted but precluded.
As a result of our review, we find that warranted-but-precluded findings remain appropriate for these 20 species. We emphasize that we are not proposing these species for listing by this notice, but we do anticipate developing and publishing proposed listing rules for these species in the future, with an objective of making expeditious progress in addressing all 20 of these foreign species within a reasonable timeframe.
Table 1 provides a summary of all updated determinations of the 20 taxa in our review. All taxa in Table 1 of this notice are ones for which we find that listing is warranted but precluded and are referred to as “candidates” under the Act. The column labeled “Priority” indicates the LPN
ve of making expeditious progress in addressing all 20 of these foreign species within a reasonable timeframe.
Table 1 provides a summary of all updated determinations of the 20 taxa in our review. All taxa in Table 1 of this notice are ones for which we find that listing is warranted but precluded and are referred to as “candidates” under the Act. The column labeled “Priority” indicates the LPN. Following the scientific name of each taxon (third column) is the family designation (fourth column) and the common name, if one exists (fifth column). The sixth column provides the known historic range for the taxon. The avian species in Table 1 are listed taxonomically.
Table 1—Annual Notice of Review [C = listing warranted-but-precluded] Status Category Priority Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Birds C 2 Pauxi unicornis Craciidae southern helmeted curassow Bolivia, Peru. C 2 Rallus semiplumbeus Rallidae Bogota rail Colombia. C 8 Porphyrio hochstetteri Rallidae takahe New Zealand. C 8 Haematopus chathamensis Haematopodidae Chatham oystercatcher Chatham Islands, New Zealand. C 8 Cyanoramphus malherbi Psittacidae orange-fronted parakeet New Zealand. C 2 Eunymphicus uvaeensis Psittacidae Uvea parakeet Uvea, New Caledonia. C 2 Ara glaucogularis Psittacidae blue-throated macaw Bolivia. C 8 Dryocopus galeatus Picidae helmeted woodpecker Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay. C 2 Dendrocopus noguchii Picidae Okinawa woodpecker Okinawa Island, Japan. C 2 Aulacorhynchus huallagae Ramphastidae yellow-browed toucanet Peru. C 8 Scytalopus novacapitalis Conopophagidae Brasilia tapaculo Brazil. C 12 Bowdleria punctata wilsoni Sylviidae Codfish Island fernbird Codfish Island, New Zealand. C 2 Zosterops luteirostris Zosteropidae Ghizo white-eye Solomon Islands. C 8 Tangara peruviana Thraupidae black-backed tanager Brazil. C 6 Strepera graculina crissalis Cracticidae Lord Howe pied currawong Lord Howe Islands, New South Wales
Scytalopus novacapitalis Conopophagidae Brasilia tapaculo Brazil. C 12 Bowdleria punctata wilsoni Sylviidae Codfish Island fernbird Codfish Island, New Zealand. C 2 Zosterops luteirostris Zosteropidae Ghizo white-eye Solomon Islands. C 8 Tangara peruviana Thraupidae black-backed tanager Brazil. C 6 Strepera graculina crissalis Cracticidae Lord Howe pied currawong Lord Howe Islands, New South Wales. Invertebrates C 6 Eurytides (= Graphium or Mimoides) lysithous harrisianus Paplionidae Harris' mimic swallowtail Brazil. C 2 Eurytides (= Graphium or Neographium or Protographium or Protesilaus) marcellinus Paplionidae Jamaican kite swallowtail Jamaica. C 5 Parides ascanius Paplionidae Fluminense swallowtail Brazil. C 2 Parides hahneli Paplionidae Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail Brazil. C 8 Teinopalpus imperialis Paplionidae Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam. Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted but Precluded
We have found that, for the 20 taxa discussed below, publication of proposed listing rules continues to be warranted but precluded due to the need to complete pending, higher priority listing actions. We will continue to monitor the status of these species as new information becomes available ( see Monitoring, below). Our review of new information will determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency list any species or change the LPN of any of the species. In the following section, we describe the status of and threats to the individual species.
Birds
A. Southern Helmeted Curassow ( Pauxi unicornis ), LPN = 2
The southern helmeted curassow, also known as the horned curassow, is one of the least frequently encountered South American bird species. This may be due to the inaccessibility of its preferred habitat and its apparent intolerance of human disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 1998; Macleod et al. 2009, p. 15)
he individual species.
Birds
A. Southern Helmeted Curassow ( Pauxi unicornis ), LPN = 2
The southern helmeted curassow, also known as the horned curassow, is one of the least frequently encountered South American bird species. This may be due to the inaccessibility of its preferred habitat and its apparent intolerance of human disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 1998; Macleod et al. 2009, p. 15). The southern helmeted curassow is only known to occur in central Bolivia and central Peru (BirdLife International (BLI) 2010a). The Bolivian population of the nominate (a subspecies with the same name as the species) species ( Pauxi unicornis unicornis ) remained unknown to science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). The Peruvian population is known as Pauxi unicornis koepckeae.
What is now recognized as the southern helmeted curassow may in fact comprise two separate species that are currently recognized as two subspecies ( Pauxi unicornis unicornis, and Pauxi unicornis koepckeae). It has been proposed that these populations of Pauxi unicornis that are currently treated as subspecies may represent two different species because they are separated by more than 1,000 km (621 mi), and have a multitude of distinct characteristics (Gastañaga in prep. in BLI 2010a). Currently, both BLI and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognize the southern helmeted curassow as Pauxi unicornis and do not specifically address either subspecies. The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) recognizes Pauxi unicornis as a full species as well as both subspecies (ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). For the purpose of this ANOR, we are reviewing the petitioned entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes all subspecies.
In many cases, taxonomy of species can be unclear. There is substantial discussion in scientific literature that debates the classification of species and whether various entities deserve species status rather than subspecies status (Phillimore 2010, pp. 42-53; James 2010, pp. 1-5; Pratt 2010, pp. 79-89)
NOR, we are reviewing the petitioned entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes all subspecies.
In many cases, taxonomy of species can be unclear. There is substantial discussion in scientific literature that debates the classification of species and whether various entities deserve species status rather than subspecies status (Phillimore 2010, pp. 42-53; James 2010, pp. 1-5; Pratt 2010, pp. 79-89). This is sometimes significant with respect to conservation measures, Pauxi unicornis, which includes all subspecies. We welcome comments on the classification of the southern helmeted curassow.
The southern helmeted curassow inhabits dense, humid, lower montane forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 450 to 1,200 meters (m) (1,476 to 3,937 feet) (Cordier 1971; Herzog and Kessler 1998). It prefers eating nuts of the almendrillo tree ( Byrsonima wadsworthii (Cordier 1971)), but also consumes other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft plants, larvae, and insects (BLI 2008). Clutch size of the southern helmeted curassow is probably two, as in other Cracidae. However, the only nest found contained only one egg (Banks 1998; Cox et al. 1997; Renjifo and Renjifo 1997 as cited in BLI 2010a). The southern helmeted curassow typically occurs at densities up to 20 individuals per square kilometer (km 2 ) (Macleod 2007 as cited in BLI 2008).
In Amboró National Park (Yungas Inferiores de Amboró), the southern helmeted curassow was regularly sighted on the upper Saguayo river (Saguayo Río; Wege and Long 1995). Subsequently, it has been observed in the adjacent Amboró and Carrasco National Parks (Herzog and Kessler 1998; Brooks 2006). It was also found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park (TIPNIS), and along the western edge of the Cordillera Mosetenes (Mosetenes Mountains), Cochabamba, Bolivia. A recent survey located a few southern helmeted curassows across the northern boundary of Carrasco National Park (Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco), where it was historically found (MacLeod 2007 as cited in BLI 2009a)
. It was also found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park (TIPNIS), and along the western edge of the Cordillera Mosetenes (Mosetenes Mountains), Cochabamba, Bolivia. A recent survey located a few southern helmeted curassows across the northern boundary of Carrasco National Park (Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco), where it was historically found (MacLeod 2007 as cited in BLI 2009a). Surveys conducted between 2004 and 2005 found no evidence of the species anywhere north or east of Amboro, Carrasco, and Isiboro-Secure National Parks in central Bolivia (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). It was found only in five locations during the survey period. Extensive surveys over the last several years have failed to locate the species in Madidi National Park, La Paz, on the eastern edge of the Mosetenes Mountains in Cochabamba, or in the Río Tambopata area near the Bolivia-Peru border (MacLeod in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI 2010a; Hennessey 2004a as cited in BLI 2009a; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2008).
In Peru, Pauxi unicornis koepckeae is known only from the Sira Mountains (known as the Reserva Comunal El Sira), in Huanuco (Tobias and del Hoyo 2006). In 2005, a team from the Armonia Association (BirdLife in Bolivia) saw one and heard three southern helmeted curassow in the Sira Mountains: The first sighting of the distinctive endemic Peruvian subspecies since 1969 (BLI 2008). Limited reports suggest that the southern helmeted curassow is rare here (Mee et al. 2002; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2008; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; Gastañaga and Hennessey 2005 as cited in BLI 2009a).
The total population of southern helmeted curassow is estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals (BLI 2010a). The population in Peru is estimated to have fewer than 400 individuals (Gastañaga in litt. 2007, as cited in BLI 2010a). The estimated decline in the overall population over 10 years has been 50 to 79 percent (BLI 2009b)
009a; Gastañaga and Hennessey 2005 as cited in BLI 2009a).
The total population of southern helmeted curassow is estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals (BLI 2010a). The population in Peru is estimated to have fewer than 400 individuals (Gastañaga in litt. 2007, as cited in BLI 2010a). The estimated decline in the overall population over 10 years has been 50 to 79 percent (BLI 2009b).
Southern helmeted curassow populations are estimated to be declining very rapidly due to uncontrolled hunting and habitat destruction. This species has a small range and is known only from a few locations, which continue to be subject to habitat loss and hunting pressure. Hunting was indicated to be the biggest threat to southern helmeted curassow in all parts of its range (Gastañaga 2006). The species was often hunted for meat due to its large size and for its unique blue casque, or horn, which the local people used to make cigarette lighters (Cordier 1971; Collar et al. 1992). In the Amboró region of Bolivia, the bird's head was purportedly used in folk dances (Hardy 1984 as cited in Collar 1992). It is unclear whether this practice still occurs.
The Río Leche area in Peru experienced a 100 percent population decline in less than 5 years likely due to hunting or other pressures (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). In Carrasco National Park, the species had been abundant during surveys in 2001 but in 2004 there were no visual or auditory sightings (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). This may be due to illegal human encroachment. Similar human pressures are ongoing throughout the species' range. The observed decline infers that a 50-percent population loss likely occurred between 1995 and 2005. Unless threats are mitigated, this trend will probably continue for the next several years (Macleod in litt. 2005).
In Bolivia, forests within the range of the southern helmeted curassow are being cleared for crop cultivation by colonists from the altiplano (Maillard 2006, pp. 95-98)
cies' range. The observed decline infers that a 50-percent population loss likely occurred between 1995 and 2005. Unless threats are mitigated, this trend will probably continue for the next several years (Macleod in litt. 2005).
In Bolivia, forests within the range of the southern helmeted curassow are being cleared for crop cultivation by colonists from the altiplano (Maillard 2006, pp. 95-98). Rural development, including road building, inhibits its dispersal (Herzog and Kessler 1998; Fjeldså in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010). In Peru, southern helmeted curassow habitat is threatened by subsistence agriculture (MacLeod in litt. 2000 as cited in BLI 2010a), forest clearing by colonists, illegal logging, mining, and oil exploration (BLI 2010a).
Conservation Status. According to IUCN's Species Survival Commission (SSC) Cracid Specialist Group, the southern helmeted curassow is critically endangered and should be given immediate conservation attention (Brooks and Strahl 2000). The southern helmeted curassow was previously classified as “Vulnerable” on the IUCN Red List. In 2005, it was uplisted to its current status as “Endangered” (BLI 2009a). It is not listed in any appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; www.cites.org), which regulates international trade in animals and plants of conservation concern.
The southern helmeted curassow is dependent upon pristine habitat. In Bolivia, large parts of southern helmeted curassow habitat are ostensibly protected by inclusion in the Amboro and Carrasco National Parks and in the Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park. However, pressures on the species' populations continue (BLI 2010a). In recent years, extensive field surveys of southern helmeted curassow habitat have resulted in little success in locating the species (Mee et al. 2002; Hennessey 2004a; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2010a; MacLeod in litt
iboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park. However, pressures on the species' populations continue (BLI 2010a). In recent years, extensive field surveys of southern helmeted curassow habitat have resulted in little success in locating the species (Mee et al. 2002; Hennessey 2004a; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2010a; MacLeod in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI 2010a). The Armonia Association has been attempting to estimate southern helmeted curassow population numbers to identify its most important populations, and is evaluating human impact on the species' natural habitat. In addition, Armonia is carrying out an environmental awareness project to inform local people about the threats to southern helmeted curassow (Asociación Armonía 2010) and is conducting training workshops with park guards to help improve chances for its survival.
In our 2009 ANOR, the southern helmeted curassow received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the
B. Bogota Rail ( Rallus semiplumbeus ), LPN = 2
The Bogota rail is found in the East Andes of Colombia on the Ubaté-Bogotá Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyacá. It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m (occasionally as low as 2,100 m) (6,890 ft) in savanna and páramo marshes (BLI 2010b). Bogota rail inhabit wetland habitats with vegetation-rich shallows that are surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes (Stiles in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). It inhabits the water's edge, in flooded pasture and along small overgrown dykes and ponds (Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI 2010b; Fjeldså 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b; Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b; Salaman in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). Nests have been recorded adjoining shallow water in beds of Scirpus (bulrush or sedge) and Typha (cat tail) species. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b)
edge, in flooded pasture and along small overgrown dykes and ponds (Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI 2010b; Fjeldså 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b; Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b; Salaman in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). Nests have been recorded adjoining shallow water in beds of Scirpus (bulrush or sedge) and Typha (cat tail) species. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). The Bogota rail is omnivorous, consuming a diet that includes aquatic invertebrates, insect larvae, worms, mollusks, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant material (BLI 2010b; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI 2010b).
The current population is estimated to range between 1,000 and 2,499 individuals, although numbers are expected to decline over the next 10 years by 10 to 19 percent (BLI 2009). Although the Bogota rail has been observed in at least 21 locations in Cundinamarca, the Bogota rail population is thought to be declining. It is still uncommon to fairly common, with a few notable populations, including nearly 400 birds at Laguna de Tota, approximately 50 bird territories at Laguna de la Herrera, approximately 100 birds at Parque La Florida, and populations at La Conejera marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BLI 2010b).
Its suitable habitat has become widely fragmented (BLI 2010b). Wetland drainage, pollution, and siltation on the Ubaté-Bogotá plateau have resulted in major habitat loss and few suitably vegetated marshes remain. All major savanna wetlands are threatened, predominately due to draining, but also due to agricultural runoff, erosion, dyking, eutrophication caused by untreated sewage effluent, insecticides, tourism, hunting, burning, reed harvesting, fluctuating water levels, and increasing water demand. Additionally, road construction may result in colonization and human interference, including introduction of exotic species in previously stable wetland environments (Cortes in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010b).
Conservation Status
, eutrophication caused by untreated sewage effluent, insecticides, tourism, hunting, burning, reed harvesting, fluctuating water levels, and increasing water demand. Additionally, road construction may result in colonization and human interference, including introduction of exotic species in previously stable wetland environments (Cortes in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010b).
Conservation Status. The Bogota rail is listed as “Endangered” by IUCN primarily because its range is very small and is contracting due to widespread habitat loss and degradation. It is not listed in any appendices of CITES. Some Bogota rails occur in protected areas such as Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, most savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected (BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Bogota rail received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that a change in the listing priority number for the species is appropriate. The Bogota rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude due to the pressures on the population's habitat. Its range is very small and is rapidly contracting because of widespread habitat loss and degradation (agricultural encroachment, erosion, dyking, and eutrophication). The population is believed to be between 1,000 and 2,499 individuals, and the population trend is believed to be rapidly declining. Based on new information regarding threats to this species, we find that the threats to the species are occurring now, are ongoing, and are therefore imminent. Thus, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
C. Takahe ( Porphyrio hochstetteri, Previously Known as P. mantelli ), LPN = 8
The takahe, a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand, is the world's largest extant (living) member of the rail family (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli, was split into P. mantelli (extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996)
m an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
C. Takahe ( Porphyrio hochstetteri, Previously Known as P. mantelli ), LPN = 8
The takahe, a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand, is the world's largest extant (living) member of the rail family (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli, was split into P. mantelli (extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996). BLI (2000) incorrectly assigned the name P. mantelli to the extant form, while the name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly assigned to the extinct form. Fossils indicate that this species was once widespread throughout New Zealand's North and South Islands. The takahe was thought to be extinct by the 1930s until its rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison Mountains, Fiordland (South Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its rediscovery, a takahe Special Area of 500 km 2 (193 mi 2 ) was set aside in the Murchison Mountains of Fiordland National Park for the conservation of the takahe (Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2009c). Today, the species is present in the Murchison and Stuart Mountains and was introduced to five island reserves (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri, Mantangi, Maud) and one privately owned island (Collar et al. 1994; NZDOC 2009d, p. 10). The population in the Murchison Mountains is important because it is the only mainland population and has the potential for sustaining a large, viable population (NZDOC 1997).
When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the takahe population was about 260 pairs (del Hoyo 1996; Heather and Robertson 1997). By the 1970s, takahe populations had declined dramatically, and it appeared that the species was at risk of extinction. In 1981, the population reached a low at an estimated 120 birds. Since then, the population has fluctuated between 100 and 160 birds (Crouchley 1994; Maxwell 2001)
n 1948, it was estimated that the takahe population was about 260 pairs (del Hoyo 1996; Heather and Robertson 1997). By the 1970s, takahe populations had declined dramatically, and it appeared that the species was at risk of extinction. In 1981, the population reached a low at an estimated 120 birds. Since then, the population has fluctuated between 100 and 160 birds (Crouchley 1994; Maxwell 2001). At first, translocated populations increased only slowly, possibly in part due to young pair-bonds and the quality of the founding population (Bunin et al. 1997). In recent years, the total takahe population has experienced significant growth; in 2004, there was a 13.6 percent increase in the number of adult birds, with the number of breeding pairs up 7.9 percent (BLI 2005). As of June 2008, the estimated population of takahe was approximately 93 in the Core Census Area; 91 on islands and at Maungatautari (the mainland sanctuary); 36 at the Burwood Breeding Center; and 5 birds on public display at Wildlife Centers. The Core Census Area consists of suitable habitat east of the
This species experienced a loss of fitness as a result of recent inbreeding. Relative to other species, it has low genetic diversity (Grueber et al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Research reported in 2010 that the true level of inbreeding may be underestimated for this species (Grueber et al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Failure to address these concerns could result in reduced fitness potential and much higher susceptibility to biotic and abiotic disturbances in the short term, and an inability to adapt to environmental change in the long term. There is growing evidence that inbreeding can negatively affect small, isolated populations. Jamieson et al. (2006) suggested that limiting the potential effects of inbreeding and loss of genetic variation should be integral to any management plan for a small, isolated, inbred island species such as the takahe.
As of 2009, the current total population estimate is 227 adults (NZDOC 2009d, p. 11; NZDOC 2009e)
wing evidence that inbreeding can negatively affect small, isolated populations. Jamieson et al. (2006) suggested that limiting the potential effects of inbreeding and loss of genetic variation should be integral to any management plan for a small, isolated, inbred island species such as the takahe.
As of 2009, the current total population estimate is 227 adults (NZDOC 2009d, p. 11; NZDOC 2009e). Birds under 1 year of age were not counted in these totals. As of 2007, the mainland population, as well as island reserves, were thought to be at carrying capacity (Greaves 2007, p. 17), (NZDOC 2009, p. 29), however a Recovery Plan is underway to address conservation priorities and needs for this species (NZDOC 2009d, entire). Overall, population numbers are slowly increasing due to intensive management of the island reserve populations, but fluctuations in the remnant mainland population continue to occur (NZDOC 2009d; BLI 2010c).
Takahe territories historically have been large; they have been known to be between several hectares (ha) to more than 100 ha (247 acres (ac)) depending on the availability of their preferred food sources (Lee and Jamieson 2001, p. 57). Takahe defend them aggressively against other takahe, which means that they will not form dense colonies even in very good habitat. They are long-lived birds, probably living between 14 and 20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997) and have a low reproductive rate, with clutches consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. They form life-long pair bonds and generally occupy the same territory throughout life (Reid 1967). Generally pairs in the wild only rear one chick. Only a few pairs manage to consistently rear more than one chick each year. Although under normal conditions this is generally sufficient to maintain the population, populations recover slowly from catastrophic events (Crouchley 1994); and this is a concern because this species has such a small population size
territory throughout life (Reid 1967). Generally pairs in the wild only rear one chick. Only a few pairs manage to consistently rear more than one chick each year. Although under normal conditions this is generally sufficient to maintain the population, populations recover slowly from catastrophic events (Crouchley 1994); and this is a concern because this species has such a small population size. To increase the population, NZDOC has been removing some eggs from the wild, captive rearing them, and reintroducing them back into the wild (NZDOC 2009, p. 26).
Originally, the species occurred throughout forest and grass ecosystems. Now takahe occupy alpine grasslands (BLI 2010c). They feed on tussock grasses during much of the year; snow tussocks ( Chionochloa pallens, Chionochloa conspicua, Chionochloa flavescens, and Chionochloa crassiuscula ) are their preferred food (Mills and Mark 1977, p. 951; Mills et al., 1980, Crouchley 1994, NZDOC 2009, pp. 39-40). These grasses are high in nutritional content. C. flavescens is high in phosphorus; C. pallens is high in starch; and C. crassiuscula is high in sulphur, starch, and sodium (Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 951, 953). takahe also forage on Carex coriacea, which is also high in nutrients. During some seasons, takahe prefer plants with high phosphorus content; for example, during spring and autumn, they prefer C. crassiuscula. From October to December, when they lay eggs, they prefer mountain daisy ( Celmisia petriei), which has high levels of calcium and sugar (Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 952-953). By June, the snow cover usually prevents feeding above tree line, and birds move into forested valleys in the winter and feed mainly on the rhizome of a fern ( Hypolepis millefolium ) which has a high carbohydrate content (Mills et al. 1980, p. 136).
Research by Mills et al. (1980) suggested that takahe require the high-carbohydrate concentrations in the rhizomes of the fern to meet the metabolic requirement of thermoregulation in the mid-winter subfreezing temperatures
move into forested valleys in the winter and feed mainly on the rhizome of a fern ( Hypolepis millefolium ) which has a high carbohydrate content (Mills et al. 1980, p. 136).
Research by Mills et al. (1980) suggested that takahe require the high-carbohydrate concentrations in the rhizomes of the fern to meet the metabolic requirement of thermoregulation in the mid-winter subfreezing temperatures. Chionochloa conspicua (bush snow-grass) is the takahe's preferred winter food in the Murchison Mountains, although new information indicates that it is currently uncommon due to overgrazing by deer (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). C. conspicua has higher levels of phosphorus, potassium and magnesium (Mills et al. 1980, p. 136) than Hypolepis spp., which is currently the primary plant in the winter takahe diet.
Although Hypolepis rhizomes may not be sufficient for a balanced winter diet, they are a valuable source of starch, nitrogen and phosphorus (Mills et al. 1980, p. 136). Because foraging on Hypolepis is a learned behavior, it is being taught at the Burwood Captive Rearing Center to chicks by adult birds (NZDOC 2009d, p. 27).
Rareness of C. conspicua may be a contributing factor to the lack of viability of the takahe population (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). There are no known diseases that pose threats to the takahe. C. conspicua is less common in the forest understory in the takahe Special Area than it previously was, in part due to overgrazing by deer. NZDOC is conducting research and trying to reintroduce and increase the prevalence of this plant species in the Murchison Mountains Reserve (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). The island populations now primarily consume introduced grasses (BLI 2010c). Some researchers have theorized that consumption of these nonnative species may contribute to inadequate nutrition and subsequently nest failure (Jamieson 2003, p. 708); however this has not been confirmed.
Several factors have led to the decline in the species' population
son Mountains Reserve (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). The island populations now primarily consume introduced grasses (BLI 2010c). Some researchers have theorized that consumption of these nonnative species may contribute to inadequate nutrition and subsequently nest failure (Jamieson 2003, p. 708); however this has not been confirmed.
Several factors have led to the decline in the species' population. The main cause of the species' historical decline was competition for tussock grasses by grazing red deer ( Cervus elaphus ), which were introduced after the 1940s (Mills and Mark 1977). The red deer overgrazed the takahe's habitat, eliminating nutritious plants and preventing some grasses from seeding (del Hoyo et al. 1996; NZDOC 2009, p. 39). The NZDOC has controlled red deer through an intensive hunting program in the Murchison Mountains since the 1960s. Predation by introduced stoats ( Mustela erminea ) is still a threat to the species (Crouchley 1994; Bunin and Jamieson 1995; Bunin and Jamieson 1996; NZDOC 2009, pp. 34-36). The NZDOC is running a trial stoat control program in a portion of the takahe Special Area to measure the effect on takahe survival and productivity. Initial assessment indicates that the control program has had a positive influence (NZDOC 2009, pp. 35-36).
Other potential threats include a competitor, the introduced brush-tailed possum ( Trichosurus vulpecula ) and the predator, the threatened weka ( Gallirallus australis ), a flightless woodhen endemic to New Zealand (BLI 2010c). Severe weather may also be a limiting factor to this species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995; BLI 2010c). Weather patterns in the Murchison Mountains vary from year to year. High chick and adult mortality may occur during extraordinarily severe winters, and poor breeding may result from severe stormy weather during spring breeding season (Crouchley 1994). Research has confirmed that severity of winter conditions adversely affects survivorship of takahe in the wild, particularly of young birds (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997)
the Murchison Mountains vary from year to year. High chick and adult mortality may occur during extraordinarily severe winters, and poor breeding may result from severe stormy weather during spring breeding season (Crouchley 1994). Research has confirmed that severity of winter conditions adversely affects survivorship of takahe in the wild, particularly of young birds (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997).
Lead exposure may affect this species on some of the islands (Youl 2009, pp. 79-83). Lead levels in the island populations were found to be higher
Conservation Status. The takahe is listed as “Endangered” on the IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small population (BLI 2010c). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES. New Zealand considers the takahe to be an endangered species and it is classified as “Nationally Critical” under the New Zealand Threat Classification System. The NZDOC, through its 2007-2012 takahe Recovery Plan, is managing the populations of the species through various conservation efforts such as captive breeding, population management, eradication of predators, and management of grasslands.
Since 1983, the NZDOC has been involved in managing a captive-breeding and release program to boost takahe recovery (NZDOC 2009, p. 29). Excess eggs from wild nests are managed to produce birds suitable for releasing back into the wild population in the Murchison Mountains. Some of these captive-reared birds were used to establish five predator-free, offshore island reserves. These captive-breeding efforts have increased the rate of survival of chicks reaching one year of age from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997; NZDOC 2009d). Takahe that have been translocated to the islands have higher rates of egg infertility and low hatching success when they breed (Jamieson & Ryan 2000). Researchers postulated that the difference in vegetation between the native mainland grassland tussocks and the grasses found on the islands might affect reproductive success
reaching one year of age from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997; NZDOC 2009d). Takahe that have been translocated to the islands have higher rates of egg infertility and low hatching success when they breed (Jamieson & Ryan 2000). Researchers postulated that the difference in vegetation between the native mainland grassland tussocks and the grasses found on the islands might affect reproductive success. After testing nutrients from available food sources, it remains unclear whether the islands contain adequate nutrients in the available food sources (James et al. 2004, pp. 342-344). Research on takahe that are established on Tiritiri Matangi Island estimated that the island can currently support up to 8 breeding pairs, but suggested that the ability of the island to support takahe is likely to decrease as the grass and shrub ecosystem reverts to forest. The researchers concluded that, although the four island populations fulfilled their role as insurance against extinction on the mainland at the time of the study, given impending habitat changes on the islands, it is unclear whether these island populations will continue to be viable in the future without an active management plan (Baber and Craig 2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b). Maxwell and Jamieson (1997) studied survival and recruitment of captive-reared and wild-reared takahe on Fiordland. They concluded that captive rearing of takahe for release into the wild increases recruitment of juveniles into the population.
In our 2009 ANOR, the takahe received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the takahe, we have determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of threats to the species is warranted at this time. The takahe does not represent a monotypic genus. The current population is small (between 150-220 individuals), and the species' distribution is extremely limited
In our 2009 ANOR, the takahe received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the takahe, we have determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of threats to the species is warranted at this time. The takahe does not represent a monotypic genus. The current population is small (between 150-220 individuals), and the species' distribution is extremely limited. It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude (extremely small population, limited suitable habitat, inbreeding depression, and to some extent predation) because the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the recovery of the species (NZDOC 2009d, 58 pp.; NZDOC 2009e, 3 pp.) and is active in the species conservation and recovery. The NZDOC has implemented a successful deer control program, implemented a captive-breeding and release program to augment the mainland population, and established four offshore island reserves. However, we find that the threats are on-going and therefore, imminent. Predation by introduced species and reduced survivorship resulting from severe winters, combined with the takahe's small population size and naturally low reproductive rate are threats to this species that are moderate in magnitude. Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
D. Chatham Oystercatcher ( Haematopus chathamensis ), LPN = 8
The Chatham oystercatcher is the most rare oystercatcher species in the world (NZDOC 2001). It is endemic to the Chatham Island group (Marchant and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), which lies 860 km (534 mi) east of mainland New Zealand. The Chatham Island group consists of two large, inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) and numerous smaller islands. Two of the smaller islands (Rangatira and Mangere) are nature reserves, which provide vitally needed habitat for the Chatham oystercatcher. The Chatham Island group has a biota quite different from the mainland
d Paterson 2005), which lies 860 km (534 mi) east of mainland New Zealand. The Chatham Island group consists of two large, inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) and numerous smaller islands. Two of the smaller islands (Rangatira and Mangere) are nature reserves, which provide vitally needed habitat for the Chatham oystercatcher. The Chatham Island group has a biota quite different from the mainland. The remote marine setting, distinct climate, and physical makeup have led to a high degree of endemism (Aikman et al. 2001). The southern part of the Chatham oystercatcher range is dominated by rocky habitats with extensive rocky platforms. The northern part of the range is a mix of sandy beach and rock platforms (Aikman et al. 2001).
Pairs of Chatham oystercatchers occupy their territory all year, while juveniles and subadults form small flocks or occur alone on vacant sections of the coast. Their scrape nests (shallow-rimmed depressions in soil or vegetation) are usually on sandy beaches just above spring-tide and storm surge level or among rocks above the shoreline and are often under the cover of small bushes or rock overhangs (Heather and Robertson 1997).
In the early 1970s, the Chatham oystercatcher population was approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 1996). The population increased by 30 percent overall between 1987 and 1999, except trends varied in different areas of the Chatham Islands (Moore et al. 2001). Surveys taken over a 6-year period recorded an increase in Chatham oystercatchers from approximately 100 individuals in 1998 to 320 individuals (including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005 (Moore 2005a; Moore 2009b, p. 32). Although the overall population has significantly increased over the last 20 years, the population on South East Island (Rangatira), an island free of mammalian predators, has gradually declined since the 1970s. The reason for the decline is unknown (Schmechel and O'Connor 1999) but is likely due to large waves during sea storms which destroy the nests (Moore 2009a, p. 9)
05a; Moore 2009b, p. 32). Although the overall population has significantly increased over the last 20 years, the population on South East Island (Rangatira), an island free of mammalian predators, has gradually declined since the 1970s. The reason for the decline is unknown (Schmechel and O'Connor 1999) but is likely due to large waves during sea storms which destroy the nests (Moore 2009a, p. 9).
Predation, nest disturbance, invasive plants, and spring tides and storm surges are factors threatening the Chatham oystercatcher population (NZDOC 2001, Moore 2005; Moore 2009a, pp. 8-9). Feral cats ( Felis catus ) have become established on two of the Chatham Islands after being introduced as pets. Severe reduction in Chatham oystercatcher numbers is attributed in part to heavy cat predation. Video cameras placed to observe nests indicated that feral cats are a major nest predator. After three summers of video recording, 13 of the 19 nests recorded were predated by cats. When a cat was present eggs usually lasted only 1 or 2 days.
Another predator, the weka ( Gallirallus australis ), an endemic New Zealand rail was introduced to the Chatham Islands in the early 1900s. Weka was observed preying upon this species three times through camera trapping between 1999 and 2001 (Moore
Other potential predators include the Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ), ship rat ( R. rattus ), Australian brush-tailed possum ( Trichsurus vulpeculs ), and hedgehog ( Erinaceus europaeus ). However, these predators are not considered serious threats because of the large size of the oystercatcher eggs. Native predators include the red-billed gull ( Larus scopulinus ), and southern black-backed gull ( L. dominicanus ) (Moore 2005b). Nest destruction and disturbance is caused by people fishing, walking, or driving on or near nests. When a nesting area is disturbed, adult Chatham oystercatchers often abandon their eggs for up to an hour or more, leaving the eggs vulnerable to opportunistic predators
ative predators include the red-billed gull ( Larus scopulinus ), and southern black-backed gull ( L. dominicanus ) (Moore 2005b). Nest destruction and disturbance is caused by people fishing, walking, or driving on or near nests. When a nesting area is disturbed, adult Chatham oystercatchers often abandon their eggs for up to an hour or more, leaving the eggs vulnerable to opportunistic predators. Eggs are also trampled by livestock (Moore 2005a). In one case, a sheep was observed to lie on a nest (Moore 2009b, p. 21).
Another obstacle to Chatham oystercatcher populations is marram grass ( Ammophila arenaria ), introduced to New Zealand from Europe to protect farmland from sand encroachment. Marram grass has spread to the Chatham Islands where it binds beach sands forming tall dunes with steep fronts. In many marram-infested areas, the strip between the high tide mark and the fore dunes narrows as the marram advances seaward. Consequently, the Chatham oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to shore where nests are vulnerable to tides and storm surges. The dense marram grass is unsuitable for nesting (Moore and Davis 2005). In a study done by Moore and Williams (2005), the authors found that, along the narrow shoreline, many eggs were washed away and the adults would not successfully breed without human intervention. Oystercatcher eggs could easily be moved away from the shoreline by fieldworkers and placed in hand-dug scrapes surrounded by tidal debris and kelp. After three summers of video recording, 13 of the 19 nests recorded were predated by cats, but of the remaining six nest failures, weka were responsible for three; red-billed gull, one; sheep-trampling, one; and sea wash, one (Moore 2005b).
Conservation Status. Chatham oystercatcher is listed as critically endangered by the NZDOC (2010d), making it a high priority for conservation management (NZDOC 2007). It is classified as “Endangered” on the IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small population (BLI 2010d)
failures, weka were responsible for three; red-billed gull, one; sheep-trampling, one; and sea wash, one (Moore 2005b).
Conservation Status. Chatham oystercatcher is listed as critically endangered by the NZDOC (2010d), making it a high priority for conservation management (NZDOC 2007). It is classified as “Endangered” on the IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small population (BLI 2010d). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
The birds of the Chatham Island group are protected. The NZDOC focused conservation efforts in the early 1990s on predator trapping and fencing to limit domestic stock access to nesting areas. In 2001, the NZDOC published the Chatham Island Oystercatcher Recovery Plan 2001-2011 (NZDOC 2001, 24 pp.), which outlines actions such as translocation of nests away from the high tide mark and nest manipulation to further the conservation of this species. These actions may have helped to increase hatching success (NZDOC 2008b). Artificial incubation has been attempted but has not increased productivity. Additionally, livestock have been fenced and signs erected to reduce human and dog disturbance. Marram grass control has been successful in some areas. Intensive predator control combined with nest manipulation has resulted in a high number of fledglings (BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Chatham oystercatcher received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of threats to the species is warranted at this time. The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The current population estimate is very small—between 50 and 300 individuals—and the species only occurs in a small area
tcher received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of threats to the species is warranted at this time. The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The current population estimate is very small—between 50 and 300 individuals—and the species only occurs in a small area. Although it faces threats that are moderate in magnitude (predation, low population numbers, and potential loss due to storm surges); the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the recovery of the species that appear to be effective (the species' population is increasing), However, we find that the threats are still on-going and therefore, imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
E. Orange-Fronted Parakeet ( Cyanoramphus malherbi ), LPN = 8
The orange-fronted parakeet, also known as Malherbe's parakeet is endemic to New Zealand. It was treated as an individual species until it was proposed to be a color morph of the yellow-crowned parakeet, C. auriceps, in 1974 (Holyoak 1974). Further taxonomic analysis suggested that it should once again be considered a distinct species (Kearvell et al. 2003). ITIS recognizes Cyanoramphus malherbi as a full species (ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). Absent peer-reviewed information to the contrary, we consider the orange-fronted parakeet to be a valid species.
At one time, the orange-fronted parakeet was scattered throughout most of New Zealand (Harrison 1970). This species has been described as never being common (Mills and Williams 1979). During the 19th century, the species' distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a few other offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a). Currently, there are three known remaining populations. The South Island populations are managed and located within a 30-km (18.6-mi) radius in beech ( Nothofagus spp.) forests of upland valleys (Hawdon and Poulter valleys)
lls and Williams 1979). During the 19th century, the species' distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a few other offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a). Currently, there are three known remaining populations. The South Island populations are managed and located within a 30-km (18.6-mi) radius in beech ( Nothofagus spp.) forests of upland valleys (Hawdon and Poulter valleys). These valleys are within Arthur's Pass National Park and the Hurunui South Branch in Lake Sumner Forest Park in Canterbury, South Island (NZDOC 2009a). Two populations of this species have also been established on Chalky and Maud Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007; Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). Between 2007 and 2009, 62 birds were introduced to Maud Island.
This species inhabits southern beech forests, with a preference for locales bordering stands of N. solandri (mountain beech) (del Hoyo 1997; Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002). The species is reliant on old mature beech trees with natural cavities or hollows for nesting. Breeding is linked with the irregular seed production by Nothofagus; in mast years (years yielding a high abundance of seeds), parakeet numbers can increase substantially. On South Island, Nothofagus species were observed to be a major component of its diet (Kearvall et al. 2002, pp. 140-145). On Maud Island, a primary component of its diet was Melicytus ramiflorus (mahoe) (Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). In addition to eating seeds, the orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits, leaves, flowers, buds, and small invertebrates (BLI 2009).
The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small, fragmented population and limited range, and its population has declined during the past 10 years (BLI 2010e). Currently, BLI estimates its population in the wild to be between 50 and 249 individuals (BLI 2010e, p. 1). NZDOC's population estimate is between 100 to 200 individuals in the wild and they also believe the population is declining (NZDOC 2009a)
ge-fronted parakeet has an extremely small, fragmented population and limited range, and its population has declined during the past 10 years (BLI 2010e). Currently, BLI estimates its population in the wild to be between 50 and 249 individuals (BLI 2010e, p. 1). NZDOC's population estimate is between 100 to 200 individuals in the wild and they also believe the population is declining (NZDOC 2009a).
There are several reasons for the species' continuing decline; one of the most prominent risks to the species is believed to be predation by introduced species, such as stoats ( Mustela erminea ) and rats ( Rattus spp.) (BLI 2009). Large numbers of stoats and rats
In 2007, habitat loss and degradation were considered threats to the orange-fronted parakeet (BLI 2007b). Large areas of native forest have been felled or burnt, decreasing the habitat available for parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Silviculture of beech forests aims to harvest trees at an age when few will become mature enough to develop suitable cavities for orange-fronted parakeets (Kearvell 2002). The habitat is also degraded by brush-tailed possum ( Trichosurus vulpecula ), cattle, and deer, which browse on plants, changing the forest structure (NZDOC 2009c). This is problematic for the orange-fronted parakeet, which utilizes the ground and low-growing shrubs while feeding (Kearvell et al. 2002).
Other risks to this species' viability exist. Some of these other potential threats include increased competition between the orange-fronted parakeet and the yellow-crowned parakeet for nest sites and food in a habitat substantially modified by humans; competition with introduced finch species; and competition with introduced wasps ( Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica ) which compete with parakeets for invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 2002). Hybridization is also a concern. The orange-fronted parakeet may hybridize with other species. Snyder et al. reported that hybridization with yellow-crowned parakeets ( C
modified by humans; competition with introduced finch species; and competition with introduced wasps ( Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica ) which compete with parakeets for invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 2002). Hybridization is also a concern. The orange-fronted parakeet may hybridize with other species. Snyder et al. reported that hybridization with yellow-crowned parakeets ( C. auriceps ) had been observed at Lake Sumner (2000). In some cases, we are not able to distinguish between hybridized birds and full species due to similarities in color (Chan 2006, p. 5).
Conservation Status. The NZDOC (2009b) considers the orange-fronted parakeet, or käkäriki, to be the rarest parakeet in New Zealand. Because it is classified as “Nationally Critical” with a high risk of extinction, the NZDOC has been working intensively on the species to ensure its survival. The species is listed as “Critically Endangered” on the IUCN Red List, “because it underwent a population crash following rat invasions between 1990-2000.” It is listed in Appendix II of CITES as part of a general listing for all parrots (CITES 2010).
The NZDOC closely monitors all known populations of the orange-fronted parakeet. Nest searches are conducted, nest holes are inspected, and surveys are carried out in other areas to look for evidence of other populations. For example, the surveys successfully located another orange-fronted parakeet population in May 2003 (NZDOC 2009d). A new population was established in 2006 on the predator-free Chalky Island. Eggs were removed from nests in the wild, and foster parakeet parents incubated the eggs and cared for the hatchlings until they fledged and were transferred to the island. Monitoring later in the year (2006) indicated that the birds had successfully nested and reared chicks. Additional birds will be added to the Chalky Island population in an effort to increase the genetic diversity of the population (NZDOC 2009d)
from nests in the wild, and foster parakeet parents incubated the eggs and cared for the hatchlings until they fledged and were transferred to the island. Monitoring later in the year (2006) indicated that the birds had successfully nested and reared chicks. Additional birds will be added to the Chalky Island population in an effort to increase the genetic diversity of the population (NZDOC 2009d). A second self-sustaining population has been established on Maud Island (NZDOC 2008).
Because the NZDOC determined that the species' largest threat is predation, they initiated a program to remove predators in some parts of the species' range. “Operation ARK” is their initiative to respond to predator problems in beech forests to prevent species' extinctions, including orange-fronted parakeets. Predators are methodically controlled with traps, toxins in bait stations, bait bags, and aerial spraying, when necessary (NZDOC 2009d). The NZDOC also implemented a captive-breeding program for the orange-fronted parakeet. Using captive-bred birds from the program, NZDOC established two self-sustaining populations of the orange-fronted parakeet on predator-free islands. The NZDOC monitors wild nest sites and is actively managing the conservation of the species, as evidenced by the 2003 discovery of a new population. Despite these controls, predation by introduced species is still a threat because predators have not been eradicated from this species' range.
In our 2009 ANOR, the orange-fronted parakeet received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the orange-fronted parakeet, we have determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude of threats to the species is warranted because NZDOC is actively managing the species. The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. Although the species' available suitable nesting habitat in beech forests is extremely restricted, translocations have taken place and seem to be successful (BLI 2010e, p. 2)
we have determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude of threats to the species is warranted because NZDOC is actively managing the species. The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. Although the species' available suitable nesting habitat in beech forests is extremely restricted, translocations have taken place and seem to be successful (BLI 2010e, p. 2). Although the current population is small and declining (between 50 and 249 individuals), and the species' distribution is extremely limited, threats are being mitigated. It has a very small and severely fragmented population that has declined over the past 10 years (BLI 2010e) but it is being closely monitored and may slowly be increasing (van Hal in litt, in BLI 2010e). The species faces threats that are moderate in magnitude (competition for food and suitable nesting habitat within highly altered habitat, predation, and habitat degradation) because the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the recovery of the species. However, because the threats are on-going, we find that the threats to this species are still imminent. Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
F. Uvea Parakeet ( Eunymphicus uvaeensis ), LPN = 2
The Uvea parakeet, previously known as Eunymphicus cornutus, is currently known as both E. uvaeensis and E. c. cornutus (Boon et al. 2008, p 251; BLI 2010f). BLI recognizes the Uvea parakeet as E. uvaeensis. ITIS considers the Uvea parakeet to be a subspecies, Eunymphicus cornutus uvaeensis (ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). Research presented in 2008 indicates that the Uvea parakeet, based on genetic, ecological, behavioral, and biogeographical evidence, is so markedly distinct that it warrants status as its own species (Boon 2008 et al., p. 259). Thus, in this ANOR, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we consider the Uvea parakeet to be the species E. uvaeensis
2010, accessed July 16, 2010). Research presented in 2008 indicates that the Uvea parakeet, based on genetic, ecological, behavioral, and biogeographical evidence, is so markedly distinct that it warrants status as its own species (Boon 2008 et al., p. 259). Thus, in this ANOR, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we consider the Uvea parakeet to be the species E. uvaeensis. We are evaluating the threats to the Uvea parakeet at the taxonomic level of a species.
The Uvea parakeet is found only on the small island of Uvea (also known as both Ouvéa Island and Wallis Island) in the Loyalty Archipelago, New Caledonia (a territory of France) in the South Pacific Ocean. The island is approximately 1,500 km (932 mi) east of Australia. Uvea Island is 110 km 2 (42 mi 2 ) in size (Juniper and Parr 1998). The Uvea parakeet is found primarily in old-growth forests, specifically those dominated by the pine tree Agathis australis (del Hoyo et al. 1997). The island is predominantly limestone and lacks deep soil layers (Boon et al. 2008, p. 257). Most birds occur in about 20 km 2 (7.7 mi 2 ) of forest in the north, although some individuals are found in strips of forest on the northwest isthmus and in the southern part of the island, with a total area of potential habitat of approximately 66 km 2 (25.5 mi 2 ) (BLI 2010f).
Uvea parakeets feed on fruit, the berries of vines, and the flowers and seeds of native trees and shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1997; Robinet and Salas 2003, p. 71). They also feed on a few types of crops in cultivated land
One survey of Uvea parakeet in the early 1990s estimated that the population was between 70 and 90 individuals (Hahn 1993). However, another survey in 1993 (Robinet et al. 1996) yielded an estimate of between 270 and 617 individuals. In 1999, it was believed that 742 individuals lived in northern Uvea, and 82 in the south (Primot 1999 as cited in BLI 2010f)
few types of crops in cultivated land
One survey of Uvea parakeet in the early 1990s estimated that the population was between 70 and 90 individuals (Hahn 1993). However, another survey in 1993 (Robinet et al. 1996) yielded an estimate of between 270 and 617 individuals. In 1999, it was believed that 742 individuals lived in northern Uvea, and 82 in the south (Primot 1999 as cited in BLI 2010f). Six surveys conducted between 1993 and 2007 indicated a steady increase in population numbers in both areas (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010f). The current population estimate is 750 individuals (BLI 2010f).
Various threats to this species exist. The Uvea parakeet is primarily threatened by lack of nesting sites due to competition from bees and historic habitat loss, and to lesser extents predation and possibly capture of juveniles for the pet trade (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78; BLI 2010f, p. 2). Although the forest habitat of the Uvea parakeet has been threatened by clearance for agriculture and logging in the past, the primary threats now appear to be competition by bees for nests and predation by goshawk ( Accipiter fasciatus ) (Robinet et al. 2003, p. 73). The invasion of bees into Uvea in 1996 resulted in competition with Uvea parakeet over nesting sites. This decreased known Uvea parakeet nesting sites by 10 percent between 2000 and 2002 (Barré in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI 2010f). Studies by Robinet et al. (2003) indicate the density of breeding Uvea parakeet is positively related to the distribution of suitable trees. Consequently, the limited number of suitable trees limits the number of breeding pairs. In two other cases, Robinet et al. (2003) observed successful nesting after human restoration of former nest sites that had been destroyed by illegal collectors. This further indicates the deleterious effect of nest-site limitation. Another limiting factor is forest fragmentation as a result of increased numbers of coconut plantations which acts as a barrier to dispersal
number of breeding pairs. In two other cases, Robinet et al. (2003) observed successful nesting after human restoration of former nest sites that had been destroyed by illegal collectors. This further indicates the deleterious effect of nest-site limitation. Another limiting factor is forest fragmentation as a result of increased numbers of coconut plantations which acts as a barrier to dispersal. This could possibly explain the lack of recolonization in southern Uvea (Robinet et al. 2003).
It is unknown if capture of young Uvea parakeets for the pet trade is still occurring, and if so, to what extent. Capture of juvenile parakeets involves cutting open nesting cavities to extract nestlings, which renders the holes unsuitable for future nesting. Robinet et al. (1996) suggested that the impact of capture of juveniles on the viability of populations is not obvious in long-lived species that are capable of re-nesting, such as Uvea parakeet.
In 1999, a study of the reproductive biology of Uvea parakeet found that the main cause of chick death was starvation of the third chick within the first week after hatching (Robinet and Salas). However, the reason underlying the starvation is unknown.
Norway rats are prolific invaders of islands and can rapidly establish large populations (Russell 2007). Additionally, impacts of the rat appear to be more severe on smaller islands (Martin et al. 2000). In one study, it was determined that the low rate of predation on nest sites of Uvea parakeet was related to the absence of the ship rat and Norway rat. However, these rat species are present on the other nearby Loyalty Islands and on Grande Terre (Robinet and Salas 1996); precautions need to be taken to ensure that rats do not reach Uvea Island. Egg predation rates were four times higher on Lifou (also known as Lifu Island) where R. rattus occurs (Robinet et al. 1998).
In 30 years, approximately 30 to 50 percent of primary forest was removed (Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a young and increasing human population
and on Grande Terre (Robinet and Salas 1996); precautions need to be taken to ensure that rats do not reach Uvea Island. Egg predation rates were four times higher on Lifou (also known as Lifu Island) where R. rattus occurs (Robinet et al. 1998).
In 30 years, approximately 30 to 50 percent of primary forest was removed (Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a young and increasing human population. A 2000 population estimate was 4,000 inhabitants; and the 2008 population census for Wallis (Uvea) was 9,731 ( www.insee.gov.fr , accessed March 19, 2011). The increase in human population may lead to more destruction of forest for housing, cultivated fields, and plantations. As of 2000, coconut palms plantations were the island's main source of income (CITES 2000a). As indicated earlier, the lack of nesting sites is believed to be the most significant limiting factor for the species (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78; BLI 2010, p. 2).
Conservation Status. Various conservation measures are in place for this species. This species is listed as “Endangered” on the 2010 IUCN Red List (BLI 2010f). It was uplisted from Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES in July 2000, due to its small population size, restricted area of distribution, loss of suitable habitat, and the illegal pet trade (CITES 2000b). A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet was prepared for the period 1997-2002, which included strong local participation in population and habitat monitoring (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). A second recovery plan was initiated in 2003. The species increased in popularity and is celebrated as an island emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997; Primot in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2009). Conservation actions, including in situ management (habitat protection and restoration), recovery efforts (providing nest boxes and food), and public education on the protection of Uvea parakeet and its habitat have occurred (Robinet et al. 1996), however the success of current conservation efforts is unknown
as an island emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997; Primot in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2009). Conservation actions, including in situ management (habitat protection and restoration), recovery efforts (providing nest boxes and food), and public education on the protection of Uvea parakeet and its habitat have occurred (Robinet et al. 1996), however the success of current conservation efforts is unknown. Increased awareness of the plight of the Uvea parakeet and improvements in law enforcement capability are helping to address illegal trade of the species.
Preventive measures have been taken at the port and airport to prevent introduction of invasive rats and should continue to be reinforced, but there is concern that these rats may be introduced in the future (BLI 2010, p. 3). As of 2007, the island remained rat-free (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010). Introductions of Uvea parakeets to the adjacent island of Lifou (to establish a second population) in 1925 and 1963 failed (Robinet et al. 1995 as cited in BLI 2009), possibly because of the presence of ship rats and Norway rats (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). Robinet et al. (1998) studied the impact of rats in Uvea and Lifou on the Uvea parakeet and concluded that Lifou is not a suitable place for translocating Uvea parakeet unless active habitat management is carried out to protect it from invasive rats. As a preventative measure in case rats reach the island, they also suggested it would be valuable to implement low-intensity rat control of the Polynesian rat ( R. exulans ) in Uvea immediately before the parakeet breeding season. Lifou may also lack suitable nesting sites (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78).
A captive-breeding program has been discussed but not begun (BLI 2010f). A translocation program to restock this species into the southern portion of Uvea was cancelled under the new recovery plan (2003) because the population was considered viable and was expected to increase naturally (Barré in litt
breeding season. Lifou may also lack suitable nesting sites (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78).
A captive-breeding program has been discussed but not begun (BLI 2010f). A translocation program to restock this species into the southern portion of Uvea was cancelled under the new recovery plan (2003) because the population was considered viable and was expected to increase naturally (Barré in litt. 2003; Anon 2004 as cited in BLI 2010f). Measures are being taken to control predators and prevent colonization by rats (BLI 2010f). Current Uvea parakeet numbers appear to be slowly increasing, but any relaxation of conservation efforts or introduction of nonnative rats or other predators could lead to a rapid decline (BLI 2010f). The Société Calédonienne d'Ornithologie (SCO) received funding to test artificial
Even though populations appear to be currently increasing, any reduction in conservation efforts or introduction of invasive species (particularly cavity-nesting bees, the ship rat, and the Norway rat) could lead to rapid declines (Robinet et al. 1998; BLI 2010f). Although the Uvea parakeet is affected by other threats, the absence of the ship rat and Norway rat on Uvea is a major factor contributing to its survival.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Uvea parakeet received an LPN of 8. We reevaluated the threats to the Uvea parakeet and determined that a change in the LPN for the species is warranted. The Uvea parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. Its population is estimated to be approximately 750 individuals, and it is an island endemic in limited locations with restricted and declining habitat. The Uvea parakeet faces threats that are high in magnitude primarily due to nest competition by bees, predation by goshawk, and the lack of the old-growth forest, on which the birds depend for nesting holes. The birds only occur in an area about 20 km 2 (7.7 mi 2 ) of forest with a total area of potential habitat of approximately 66 km 2 (25.5 mi 2 ) (BLI 2010f)
h restricted and declining habitat. The Uvea parakeet faces threats that are high in magnitude primarily due to nest competition by bees, predation by goshawk, and the lack of the old-growth forest, on which the birds depend for nesting holes. The birds only occur in an area about 20 km 2 (7.7 mi 2 ) of forest with a total area of potential habitat of approximately 66 km 2 (25.5 mi 2 ) (BLI 2010f). Because the human population on the island is increasing, there is likely an increase occurring in the magnitude of threats to this species. Management efforts have been put in place to aid in the recovery of the species, however, the threats to the species identified here continue. Based on new information, we find that the threats to this species are occurring now, ongoing, and are imminent. Thus, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
G. Blue-Throated Macaw ( Ara glaucogularis ), LPN = 2
The blue-throated macaw is endemic to forest islands in the seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de Mojos, also known as Lanos de Moxos) of central Bolivia (Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997; BLI 2010g). The taxonomic status of this species was long disputed, primarily because the species was unknown in the wild to biologists until fairly recently. Previously, it was considered an aberrant form of the blue-and-yellow macaw ( A. ararauna ), but the two species are now known to occur sympatrically without interbreeding (del Hoyo et al. 1997).
The species inhabits a mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm groves, forest islands, and humid lowlands. This macaw species is found in areas where palm-fruit food and suitable nesting cavities are available (Herrera et al. 2007, pp. 18-24). They particularly like fruit mesocarp of palm trees (Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997; Bueno 2000; Herrera 2007, p
yo et al. 1997).
The species inhabits a mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm groves, forest islands, and humid lowlands. This macaw species is found in areas where palm-fruit food and suitable nesting cavities are available (Herrera et al. 2007, pp. 18-24). They particularly like fruit mesocarp of palm trees (Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997; Bueno 2000; Herrera 2007, p. 20) such as Attalea phalerata (motacu palm) , Mauritia flexuosa (common names: aguaje, it palm, buriti palm, moriche palm), and Acrocomia aculeata (common names include: coyoli palm, gru-gru palm, macaw palm, Paraguay palm, acrocome, gru-gru, noix de Coyol, Coyolipalme, amankayo, corojo, corozo, coyol, baboso, tucuma, and totai) ( http://www.ars-grin.gov, http://www.pacsoa.org.au ).
The blue-throated macaw also depends on motacu palms for nesting (BLI 2008d). In 2005, this species was found nesting in an area dominated by the Curupau tree ( Anadenanthera colubrina) (also known as Vilca, Huilco, Wilco, Cebil, or Angico) (Kyle 2005, p. 7). The species inhabits elevations between 200 and 300 m (656 and 984 ft) (Brace et al. 1995; Yamashita and de Barros 1997; BLI 2008c). These macaws are seen most commonly traveling in pairs, and have been seen in flocks of 7 to 9 birds, and on rare occasions may be found in small flocks (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 15). One flock of 70 birds was found in 2007 near the Rio Mamoré by the Armonia Association (Waugh 2007a, p. 53). The blue-throated macaw nests between November and March in large tree cavities where one to three young are raised (BLI 2010g).
BLI (2010g) estimates the total wild population to be between 50 and 300 birds and noted the population has some fragmentation. Surveys indicate the population may have slowly increased following dramatic declines in the 1970s and 1980s, but now the population is believed to be decreasing (BLI 2010g)
tween November and March in large tree cavities where one to three young are raised (BLI 2010g).
BLI (2010g) estimates the total wild population to be between 50 and 300 birds and noted the population has some fragmentation. Surveys indicate the population may have slowly increased following dramatic declines in the 1970s and 1980s, but now the population is believed to be decreasing (BLI 2010g). Biologists surveying for this species in 2004 found more birds than in previous surveys by searching specific habitat types (palm groves and forested islands) (Herrera et al. 2007). A population viability analysis (PVA) of this species found that it had a low probability of extinction over the next 50 years (Strem 2008). However, its small population size and its low population growth rate makes this species very vulnerable to any threat. The low probability of extinction may be reasonable given that the blue-throated macaw is a long-lived species, and the 50-year simulation timeframe is relatively short for such species. However, Strem found that impacts such as habitat destruction and harvesting had significantly increased the probability of extinction, which reemphasizes the importance of addressing these threats for this species (2008).
The blue-throated macaw was historically at risk from trapping for the national and international bird trade, and some illegal trade may still be occurring. Between the early 1980s and early 1990s, an estimated 1,200 or more wild-caught individuals were exported from Bolivia, and many are now in captivity in the European Union and in North America (World Parrot Trust 2003; BLI 2008b). Although Bolivia outlawed the export of live parrots in 1984 (Brace et al. 1995), illegal trade did occur after that. In 1993, investigators reported that an Argentinean bird dealer was offering illegal Bolivian dealers a “high price” for blue-throated macaws (Jordan and Munn 1993, p. 695)
nd many are now in captivity in the European Union and in North America (World Parrot Trust 2003; BLI 2008b). Although Bolivia outlawed the export of live parrots in 1984 (Brace et al. 1995), illegal trade did occur after that. In 1993, investigators reported that an Argentinean bird dealer was offering illegal Bolivian dealers a “high price” for blue-throated macaws (Jordan and Munn 1993, p. 695).
Armonia Association (a nonprofit organization in Bolivia) monitored the wild birds that passed through a pet market in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, from August 2004 to July 2005. Although nearly 7,300 parrots were recorded in trade, the blue-throated macaw was absent in the market during the monitoring period, which may point to the effectiveness of the ongoing conservation programs in Bolivia (BLI 2007), or it may be indicative of the scarcity of blue-throated macaws in the wild. There are a number of blue-throated macaws in captivity, with over 1,000 registered in the North American studbook (Waugh 2007c). Because these birds are not difficult to breed, the supply of captive-bred birds has increased (Waugh 2007a), helping to alleviate pressure on, but not completely eliminating illegal collection of wild birds. However, United Nations Environment Programme—World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) trade data indicates that no birds of wild origin of this species have been exported from Bolivia since 1993 (UNEP-WCMC, accessed September 3, 2010). A current internet search indicated that captive-bred specimens of this species sell for between $1,500 and $3,000 in the United States ( www.hoobly.com , accessed September 13, 2010). One search advertised that this is a “very rare species and there are only 300 left in the wild.” The high value of this species could lead to continued illegal trade.
Other threats to the blue-throated macaw include habitat loss, botfly parasites, and competition from other birds, such as other macaws, toucans, and large woodpeckers (Kyle 2005, pp. et al. 1995)
m , accessed September 13, 2010). One search advertised that this is a “very rare species and there are only 300 left in the wild.” The high value of this species could lead to continued illegal trade.
Other threats to the blue-throated macaw include habitat loss, botfly parasites, and competition from other birds, such as other macaws, toucans, and large woodpeckers (Kyle 2005, pp. et al. 1995). Although palm groves are more than 500 years old, Yamashita and de Barros (1977) concluded that the palm population structure suggests long-term decline. In 2004-2005, of 13 potential blue-throated macaw nests, researchers observed several of the threats identified above over the course of the survey. At the end of the survey, only two chicks had fledged (Kyle 2005, p. 9).
Conservation Status. This species is listed in Appendix I of CITES (CITES 2010) and is legally protected in Bolivia (Juniper and Parr 1998). Although conservation of this species is occurring, this species remains categorized as “Critically Endangered” on the 2010 IUCN Red List (BLI 2010g). The Eco Bolivia Foundation patrols existing macaw habitat by foot and motorbike, and the Armonia Association monitors the Beni lowlands for additional populations (Snyder et al. 2000). Additionally, the Armonia Association is building an awareness campaign aimed at the cattlemen's association to ensure that the protection and conservation of these birds is at a local level ( e.g., protection of macaws from trappers and the sensible management of key habitats, such as palm groves and forest islands, on their property) (Snyder et al. 2000; Llampa 2007; BLI 2008a).
In October 2008, Armonia Association announced it had purchased a large, 3,555-ha (8,785-ac) reserve for the purpose of establishing a protected area for the blue-throated macaw (BLI 2008d; Worldland Trust 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). The Barba Azul Nature Reserve protects savanna habitat, and 20 blue-throated macaws have been observed to nest here
(Snyder et al. 2000; Llampa 2007; BLI 2008a).
In October 2008, Armonia Association announced it had purchased a large, 3,555-ha (8,785-ac) reserve for the purpose of establishing a protected area for the blue-throated macaw (BLI 2008d; Worldland Trust 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). The Barba Azul Nature Reserve protects savanna habitat, and 20 blue-throated macaws have been observed to nest here. The organization has also been experimenting with artificial nest boxes; the macaws have been using these, and this promises to be a way to boost breeding success while habitat restoration is under way in the new reserve. Despite these efforts, only between 50 and 300 remain in the wild.
In our 2009 ANOR, the blue-throated macaw received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in the LPN is warranted for this species. The blue-throated macaw does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude such as limited and decreasing habitat suitability (nesting cavities), competition for nesting cavities from other species (toucans in particular and other more aggressive macaws), and parasitism by botflies. Wildlife managers in Bolivia are actively protecting the species and searching for additional populations, and the species is now protected in one nature reserve. Although wild birds may no longer be imported for commercial purposes as a result of the species' CITES listing, and it is legally protected in Bolivia, there are only between 50 and 300 of these birds left in the wild, and the population is decreasing rapidly, despite conservation efforts. The threats to the species identified are of high magnitude, ongoing, and imminent. Based on the rapidly declining population, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
H
g, and it is legally protected in Bolivia, there are only between 50 and 300 of these birds left in the wild, and the population is decreasing rapidly, despite conservation efforts. The threats to the species identified are of high magnitude, ongoing, and imminent. Based on the rapidly declining population, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
H. Helmeted Woodpecker ( Dryocopus galeatus ), LPN = 8
The helmeted woodpecker is endemic to the southern Atlantic forest region of southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern Argentina (BLI 2010h). Its estimated range spans 24,000 km 2 (9,266 mi 2 ). It is found in tall lowland Atlantic and primary and mature montane forest, and has been recorded in degraded and small forest patches. However, it is usually found near large forest tracts (Chebez 1995b as cited in BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in BLI 2010h). Helmeted woodpeckers forage primarily in the middle story of the forest interior (Brooks et al. 1993 cited in BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in BLI 2010h).
Field work on the helmeted woodpecker indicated that the species is less rare than once thought (BLI 2010h), although its range is restricted (Mattsson et al. 2008) by its habitat requirements. Numerous sightings since the mid-1980s include one pair in the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina in 1998, where the species had not been seen since 1946 (del Hoyo et al. 2002).
The most recent population estimate is between 10,000 and 19,999 individuals and decreasing (BLI 2010h); however it is unclear when the last census of this species was conducted. Because the helmeted woodpecker is difficult to locate except when vocalizing and it is silent most of the year, its numbers may be underestimated. Between 1997 and 2006, it was observed in the San Rafael National Park, Paraguay, although infrequently (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 310)
999 individuals and decreasing (BLI 2010h); however it is unclear when the last census of this species was conducted. Because the helmeted woodpecker is difficult to locate except when vocalizing and it is silent most of the year, its numbers may be underestimated. Between 1997 and 2006, it was observed in the San Rafael National Park, Paraguay, although infrequently (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 310). The overall conservation status of the helmeted woodpecker's population is unclear; however, it is not common anywhere it is known to exist (BLI 2010h).
The greatest threat to the helmeted woodpecker is widespread deforestation (Cockle 2008 as cited in BLI 2009; BLI 2010h). Other threats may be competition from other species, particularly more competitive woodpeckers, which may use fragmented and “edge” habitat more effectively (BLI 2010h).
The Atlantic Forest, habitat in which the helmeted woodpecker resides, extends along the Atlantic coast of Brazil from Rio Grande do Norte in the north to Rio Grande do Sul in the south, and inland as far as Paraguay and Misiones Province of northeastern Argentina (Morellato and Haddad 2000, pp. 786-787; Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; Höfling 2007, p. 1). The Atlantic Forest extends up to 600 km (373 mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. It consists of tropical and subtropical moist forests, tropical dry forests, and mangrove forests at mostly low-to-medium elevations less than 1,000 m (3,281 ft); however, altitude can reach as high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea level. It is likely that only between 7 and 10 percent of this habitat remains intact (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 2000, p. 794). Between 92 to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of various human activities (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853-854; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation International 2007a, p
ad 2000, p. 786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 2000, p. 794). Between 92 to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of various human activities (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853-854; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; Höfling 2007, p. 1; The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007, pp. 2-41). In addition to the overall loss and degradation of native habitats within this biome, the remaining tracts of habitat are severely fragmented. The current rate of habitat decline is unknown.
A significant portion of Atlantic Forest habitat has been, and continues to be, lost and degraded by various ongoing human activities, including logging, establishment and expansion of plantations and livestock pastures, et al. 1997, p. 1; CEPF 2001, p. 10; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270). Native habitats at many of the remaining sites where the helmeted woodpecker currently exists may be lost over the next several years (Rocha et al. 2005, p. 263). Furthermore, the helmeted woodpecker's population is already highly fragmented, and its population believed to be declining (BLI 2010h). Any further loss or degradation of its remaining suitable habitat represents a significant threat to the species. Further studies are needed to clarify this species' distribution and status.
In Paraguay, some viable, although fragmented habitat for this species remains in San Rafael National Park (Esquivel et al. 2007, pp. 301-302). The park has undergone logging and clearance, and is extremely isolated from other mature forested areas that might be suitable for the helmeted woodpecker (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 302).
Conservation Status. The helmeted woodpecker is listed as “Vulnerable” by the IUCN (IUCN 2010). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES (CITES 2010)
Rafael National Park (Esquivel et al. 2007, pp. 301-302). The park has undergone logging and clearance, and is extremely isolated from other mature forested areas that might be suitable for the helmeted woodpecker (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 302).
Conservation Status. The helmeted woodpecker is listed as “Vulnerable” by the IUCN (IUCN 2010). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES (CITES 2010). In one of the few remaining large fragments of Atlantic Forest in Paraguay, it is considered to be near threatened (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 301). It is protected by Brazilian law, and populations occur in numerous protected areas throughout its range (Lowen et al. 1996 as cited in BLI 2009; Chebez et al. 1998 as cited in BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the helmeted woodpecker received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in the LPN for the helmeted woodpecker is not warranted. The helmeted woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threat to the species is moderate because the species' range (24,000 km 2 (9,266 mi 2 )) and population (between 10,000 and 19,999 individuals) is believed to be much larger than previously thought. The threats are imminent because the forest habitat upon which the species depends is constantly being altered and destroyed by humans. We will continue to monitor the status of this species, however, a priority rank of 8 remains valid for this species.
I. Okinawa Woodpecker ( Dendrocopos noguchii ), LPN = 2
The Okinawa woodpecker (also known as Pryer's woodpecker) ( Dendrocopos noguchii, synonym Sapheopipo noguchii ) is endemic to Okinawa Island, Japan. ITIS recognizes the Okinawa woodpecker as belonging to the monotypic genus Sapheopipo (ITIS 2010i, accessed September 7, 2010). Winkler et al. (2005, pp. 103-109) analyzed partial nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial genes and concluded that this woodpecker belongs in the genus Dendrocopos. IUCN and BLI both recognize this species as Dendrocopos noguchii
hii ) is endemic to Okinawa Island, Japan. ITIS recognizes the Okinawa woodpecker as belonging to the monotypic genus Sapheopipo (ITIS 2010i, accessed September 7, 2010). Winkler et al. (2005, pp. 103-109) analyzed partial nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial genes and concluded that this woodpecker belongs in the genus Dendrocopos. IUCN and BLI both recognize this species as Dendrocopos noguchii. Japan references it as Sapheopipo noguchii ( http://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/reddata.html, accessed September 30, 2010). For the purpose of this finding and absent peer-reviewed information to the contrary, we recognize it as Dendrocopos noguchii. We welcome comments on the classification of this species.
Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyu Islands, a small island chain located between Japan and Taiwan (Brazil 1991; Stattersfield et al. 1998; Winkler et al. 2005). Okinawa is approximately 646 km (401 mi) from Taiwan and 1,539 km (956 mi) from Tokyo, Japan. The island is 108 km (67 miles) in length and its width varies between 3 and 27 km (2 to 17 mi). Okinawa's highest point is Mt. Yonaha at 455 m (1,494 ft). The Okinawa woodpecker is confined to forested areas in the northern part of the island, generally in the Yambaru (also known as Yanbaru) area, particularly in the Yonaha-dake Prefecture Protection Area. Yambaru refers to the mountainous areas of Kunigami County in northern Okinawa.
This species of woodpecker prefers undisturbed, mature, subtropical evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall trees greater than 20 cm (7.9 in) in diameter (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002). Trees of this size are generally more than 30 years old and as of 1991 were confined to hilltops (Brazil 1991). The species' main breeding areas are located along the mountain ridges between Mt. Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-take, although it has been observed nesting in well-forested coastal areas (Research Center, Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, as cited in BLI 2001)
ter (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002). Trees of this size are generally more than 30 years old and as of 1991 were confined to hilltops (Brazil 1991). The species' main breeding areas are located along the mountain ridges between Mt. Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-take, although it has been observed nesting in well-forested coastal areas (Research Center, Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, as cited in BLI 2001). The majority of the broadleaf trees in the Yanbaru area are oak and chinquapin ( Distylium racemosum and Schefflera octophylla ) (Ito et al. 2000, p. 305). Areas with conifers ( Coniferae, cone-bearing trees such as pines and firs) appear to be avoided (Short 1973; Winkler et al. 1995). The Okinawa woodpecker was also observed just south of the Mt. Tano-dake in an area of entirely secondary forest that was too immature for use by woodpeckers to excavate nest cavities, but these may have involved birds displaced by the clearing of mature forests (Brazil 1991).
The Okinawa woodpecker feeds on large arthropods, notably beetle larvae, spiders, moths, and centipedes, fruit, berries, seeds, acorns, and other nuts (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002; Winkler et al. 2005). They forage in old-growth forests with large, often moribund trees, accumulated fallen trees, rotting stumps, debris, and undergrowth (Short 1973; Brazil 1991). This species has been observed to nest in holes excavated in large, old growth trees such as Castanopsis cuspidate (Japanese chinquapin) and Machilus thunbergii (Tabu-no-ki tree) (Ogasawara and Ikehara 1977; Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002). Both of these tree species grow to approximately 20 meters (66 ft) in height. It is thought that Castanopsis is the preferred tree species for nesting because it tends to be hollow with hard wood, so that the nesting cavities are more secure (Kiyosu 1965 in BLI 2001, p. 1880). The number of fledglings per season range between one and three birds (BLI 2001, p. 1880).
This species is considered one of the world's most rare extant woodpecker species (Winkler et al. 2005)
ht. It is thought that Castanopsis is the preferred tree species for nesting because it tends to be hollow with hard wood, so that the nesting cavities are more secure (Kiyosu 1965 in BLI 2001, p. 1880). The number of fledglings per season range between one and three birds (BLI 2001, p. 1880).
This species is considered one of the world's most rare extant woodpecker species (Winkler et al. 2005). During the 1930s, the Okinawa woodpecker was considered nearly extinct. In the early 1970s, it was observed to be scattered among small colonies and isolated pairs (Short 1973). By the early 1990s, the breeding population was estimated to be about 75 birds (BLI 2008a). In 2008, its projected 10-year decline was between 30 to 49 percent (BLI 2008b). The current population estimate ranges between 146 and 584 individuals (BLI 2010i).
Deforestation and the fragmented nature of its habitat due to logging, dam construction, road-building, agricultural development, and golf course construction are cited to be the main causes of its small population size (BLI 2010i). Between 1979 and 1991, 2,443 ha (6,037 ac) of forest were destroyed in the Yanbaru area (Department of Agriculture, Okinawa Prefectural Government 1992, in Ito et al. 2000, p. 311). As of 2001, there was only 40 km 2 (15 mi 2 ) of suitable habitat available for this species (BLI 2001, p. 1882).
The limited range and tiny population make this species vulnerable to extinction from disease and natural disasters such as typhoons (BLI 2008). Feral dogs and cats, the introduced Javan mongoose ( Herpestes javanicus ), and weasel ( Mustela itatsi ) are possible
Conservation Status. Various protections and conservation measures are in place for this species. The species is categorized on the IUCN Red List as “Critically Endangered” because it consists of a small, declining population estimated to be between 150 and 584 individuals (BLI 2010i). The species is legally protected in Japan and it occurs in small protected areas on Mt. Ibu and Mt. Nishime (BLI 2008a)
vation Status. Various protections and conservation measures are in place for this species. The species is categorized on the IUCN Red List as “Critically Endangered” because it consists of a small, declining population estimated to be between 150 and 584 individuals (BLI 2010i). The species is legally protected in Japan and it occurs in small protected areas on Mt. Ibu and Mt. Nishime (BLI 2008a). The Yambaru, a forested area in the Okinawa Prefecture, was designated as a national park in 1996 (BLI 2010i). Additionally, conservation organizations have purchased sites where the woodpecker occurred in order to establish private wildlife preserves (del Hoyo et al. 2002; BLI 2008). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Okinawa woodpecker received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in the LPN for the Okinawa woodpecker is warranted. The Okinawa woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. It is considered one of the world's most rare extant woodpecker species and faces threats that are high in magnitude even though the species is legally protected in Japan. The best available information does not indicate that this species is being actively managed. The threats to the species are of high magnitude due to the scarcity of old-growth habitat (only 40 km 2 (15 mi 2 )) upon which the species is dependent. Its very small population is believed to be continually declining; and species with fragmented habitat in combination with small population sizes may be at greater risk of extinction due to synergistic effects (Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265-271). Although it exists in areas with protected status, the best available information indicates that the threats to the species are ongoing and imminent
ndent. Its very small population is believed to be continually declining; and species with fragmented habitat in combination with small population sizes may be at greater risk of extinction due to synergistic effects (Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265-271). Although it exists in areas with protected status, the best available information indicates that the threats to the species are ongoing and imminent. Because its projected 10-year decline was between 30 to 49 percent in 2008, (BLI 2008b), and because the current population estimate ranges between 146 and 584 individuals, we have changed the LPN for this species from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
J. Yellow-Browed Toucanet ( Aulacorhynchus huallagae ), LPN = 2
There is very little information available regarding the yellow-browed toucanet. This species is endemic to Peru and is known from only two localities in north-central Peru—La Libertad, where it is uncommon, and Rio Abiseo National Park, San Martin, where it is thought to be very rare (Wege and Long 1995; del Hoyo et al. 2002; BLI 2009). There was also a report of yellow-browed toucanets seen in the Leymebamba area (Mark in litt. 2003, as cited in BLI 2010j) of Peru, although there are no available photos of this species. The current population size is believed to be between 1,000 and 2,499 with a decreasing population trend (BLI 2010j).
The yellow-browed toucanet's estimated range is 450 km 2 (174 mi 2 ) (BLI 2010j). The species inhabits a narrow altitudinal range between 2,125 and 2,510 m (6,970 and 8,232 ft). It prefers the canopy of humid, epiphyte-laden montane cloud forests, particularly areas that support Clusia trees (sometimes known as autograph trees) (Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990; Schulenberg and Parker 1997, pp. 717-718; del Hoyo et al. 2002). Within the Clusia genus, there are about 20 species. The yellow-browed toucanet does not appear to occupy all potentially suitable forest available within its range (Schulenberg and Parker 1997)
yte-laden montane cloud forests, particularly areas that support Clusia trees (sometimes known as autograph trees) (Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990; Schulenberg and Parker 1997, pp. 717-718; del Hoyo et al. 2002). Within the Clusia genus, there are about 20 species. The yellow-browed toucanet does not appear to occupy all potentially suitable forest available within its range (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). Its restricted range remains unexplained.
The narrow distributional band in which yellow-browed toucanets are found may be related to the occurrence of other avian species that may out-compete the yellow-browed toucanet. Recent information indicates that both of the suggested competitors have wider altitudinal ranges that completely encompass that of the yellow-browed toucanet (Collar et al. 1992; Hornbuckle in litt. 1999, as cited in BLI 2009; Clements and Shany 2001, as cited in BLI 2008; del Hoyo et al. 2002). The larger grey-breasted mountain toucan ( Andigena hypoglauca ) occurs above 2,300 m (7,544 ft), and the emerald toucanet ( Aulacorhynchus prasinus ) occurs below 2,100 m (6,888 ft) (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). The yellow-browed toucanet may occur to the north and south of its known range, but the area between the Cordillera de Colán, Amazonas, and the Carpish region, Huánuco, is inaccessible, and its existence in other areas has not been confirmed.
Distinguishing features of the yellow-browed toucanet include a bright yellow vent or cloaca, a blackish bill, and a generally green face, (Schulenberg and Parker 1997, p. 719). Its call has been described as a series of 20 to 30 frog-like “krik” notes, delivered at a rate of slightly more than one note per second (recordings housed in Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Schulenberg and Parker 1997, p. 717).
Human-related threats to the species include deforestation, mining, and secondary impacts associated with those activities
ce, (Schulenberg and Parker 1997, p. 719). Its call has been described as a series of 20 to 30 frog-like “krik” notes, delivered at a rate of slightly more than one note per second (recordings housed in Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Schulenberg and Parker 1997, p. 717).
Human-related threats to the species include deforestation, mining, and secondary impacts associated with those activities. Deforestation has been widespread in this region, but has largely occurred at lower elevations than habitat occupied by the yellow-browed toucanet (Barnes et al. 1995; BLI 2009). However, coca growers have taken over forests within its altitudinal range, probably resulting in some reductions in this species' range and population (BLI 2009; Plenge in litt. 1993, as cited in BLI 2009). Most of the area in 1997 was described as being only lightly settled by humans (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). However, the human population surrounding the Rio Abiseo Park was steadily increasing during the 15 years prior to 2002, primarily because of the advent of mining operations in the area (Obenson 2002). Pressures in and around the park exist due to mining and those secondary impacts associated with mining (Vehkamäki and Bäckman, 2006, pp. 1-2).
Conservation Status. Protections for this species are minimal. The yellow-browed toucanet is listed as “Endangered” on the IUCN Red List due to its very small range and population records from only two locations (BLI 2010j). It occurs in at least one protected area, the Rio Abiseo National Park, a World Heritage Site which was established to protect fauna (UNEP-WCMC 2008, p. 1). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES (CITES 2010).
In our 2009 ANOR, the yellow-browed toucanet received an LPN of 11. After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in the LPN for the yellow-browed toucanet is warranted. The yellow-browed toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus
a World Heritage Site which was established to protect fauna (UNEP-WCMC 2008, p. 1). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES (CITES 2010).
In our 2009 ANOR, the yellow-browed toucanet received an LPN of 11. After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in the LPN for the yellow-browed toucanet is warranted. The yellow-browed toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus. Although the species is believed to exist in the protected Rio Abiseo National Park, there have been no documented sightings since 2003. As of 2010, BLI reported that coca-growers have taken over forest within its altitudinal range (BLI 2010j). The magnitude of threats to the species is high given that the species has a small range and rapidly declining population; and may be in competition for habitat with more competitive avian species. Further, pressures in and around the park exist due to mining and secondary impacts associated with mining. Additionally, the only records of this species are from two small locations and they have not been verified in several years. Based on these factors, we find that the threats are imminent and of high magnitude. Thus, we have reassessed and changed the LPN for this species from an 11 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
K. Brasilia Tapaculo ( Scytalopus novacapitalis ), LPN = 8
The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird endemic to Brazil, specifically in the central to southern-central region of the country. It is found in swampy gallery forests, which are forests that grow along streams and rivers in regions otherwise devoid of trees, within disturbed areas of thick streamside vegetation and dense secondary growth of Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fern). The Brasilia tapaculo is also strongly associated with two other plant

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [76 FR 78 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Engine Control Module Speed Limiter Device](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2010-33057.md)
- [76 FR 214 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2010-32316.md)
- [76 FR 291 Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model GVI Airplane; Single-Occupant Side-Facing Seats](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2010-33221.md)
- [76 FR 678 Requirements for Importers of Nonhuman Primates](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2010-32922.md)
- [76 FR 718 General Administrative Regulations; Good-Performance Refunds](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-14.md)
- [76 FR 721 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-1159 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-54.md)
- [76 FR 752 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule Revision](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-17.md)
- [76 FR 1121 Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-132.md)
- [76 FR 1579 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Idaho; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Interstate Transport Plan](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-249.md)
- [76 FR 2035 Procedures for Protests and Contracts Dispute](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-397.md)
- [76 FR 2070 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule Revision](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-495.md)
- [76 FR 2281 Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Model BAe 146 Airplanes, and Model Avro 146-RJ Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-585.md)
- [76 FR 2297 Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-565.md)
- [76 FR 2631 Certification; Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Safety, Bumper, and Theft Prevention Standards; Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured To Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-295.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-10286. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.