[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64691-64733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25070]
[[Page 64691]]
Vol. 78
Tuesday,
No. 209
October 29, 2013
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Five Foreign
Bird Species in Colombia and Ecuador, South America, as Endangered
Throughout Their Range; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 64692]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2009-12; 4500030115]
RIN 1018-AV75
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Five
Foreign Bird Species in Colombia and Ecuador, South America, as
Endangered Throughout Their Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), hereby list
four Colombian species, the blue-billed curassow (Crax alberti), brown-
banded antpitta (Grallaria milleri), Cauca guan (Penelope perspicax),
and gorgeted wood-quail (Odontophorus strophium), and one Ecuadorian
species, the Esmeraldas woodstar (Chaetocercus berlepschi), as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), as amended. This final rule implements the Federal
protections provided by the Act for these species.
DATES: This rule becomes effective November 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite
400, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
Under the Endangered Species Act (Act), a species may warrant
protection through listing if it is an endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Under the Act, if
a species is determined to be endangered or threatened we are required
to publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule to list the species
and, within 1 year of publication of the proposed rule, a final rule to
add the species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. On July 7, 2009, we published a proposed rule in which we
determined that the blue-billed curassow, brown-banded antpitta, Cauca
guan, gorgeted wood-quail, and Esmeraldas woodstar currently face
numerous threats and warrant listing under the Act as endangered
species (74 FR 32308). Therefore, we proposed listing all five species
as endangered. This final rule constitutes our final determination for
these species as required by the Act.
II. Major Provision of the Regulatory Action
Under the Endangered Species Act, we are required to determine
whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any of the
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the blue-
billed curassow, Cauca guan, and gorgeted wood-quail are facing threats
due to all of these five factors, and the brown-banded antpitta and
Esmeraldas woodstar are facing threats due to four of these five
factors (factors A, C, D, and E).
In this final rule, we utilize public comments and peer review to
inform our final determination, as required under the Act. When we
published the proposed rule on July 7, 2009, we opened a 60-day comment
period on the proposed listing for these five species. On November 10,
2009, we reopened the comment period for an additional 60 days (74 FR
57987). During the comment periods, we sought comments from independent
specialists (peer reviewers) on the specific assumptions and
conclusions in our listing proposal to ensure that the designation of
these species as endangered is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. In addition, we sought comments from
interested parties and the general public. We considered all comments
and information received during the comment periods. In this final
rule, we present and respond to peer reviewer and public comments. This
rule finalizes the protection proposed for these five foreign bird
species as endangered, following careful consideration of all comments
we received during the public comment periods.
III. Costs and Benefits
We have not analyzed the costs or benefits of this rulemaking
action because the Act precludes consideration of such impacts on
listing and delisting determinations. Instead, listing and delisting
decisions are based solely on the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the status of the subject species.
Previous Federal Action
On November 24, 1980, the Service received a petition (1980
petition) from Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman of the International
Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign bird species to
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)),
including two species from Colombia (the Cauca guan and the gorgeted
wood-quail). In response to the 1980 petition, we published a positive
90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464), to initiate a status
review for 58 foreign species, noting that two of the species
identified in the petition were already listed under the Act. On
January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485), we published a 12-month finding within
an annual review on pending petitions and description of progress on
all species petition findings addressed therein. In that notice, we
found that all 58 foreign bird species from the 1980 petition were
warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing actions. On May 10,
1985, we published the first annual notice (50 FR 19761), in which we
continued to find that listing all 58 foreign bird species from the
1980 petition was warranted but precluded. In our next annual notice,
published on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996), we found that listing 54
species from the 1980 petition, including the two Colombian species
mentioned above, continued to be warranted but precluded, whereas new
information caused us to find that listing four other species in the
1980 petition was no longer warranted. We published additional annual
notices on the remaining 54 species included in the 1980 petition on
July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746); and
November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664), in which we indicated that the Cauca
guan and the gorgeted wood-quail, along with the remaining species in
the 1980 petition, continued to be warranted but precluded.
On May 6, 1991, we received a petition (1991 petition) from Alison
[[Page 64693]]
Stattersfield, of ICBP, to add 53 species of foreign birds to the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, including the blue-billed
curassow and the brown-banded antpitta, from Colombia, and Esmeraldas
woodstar, from Ecuador. In response to the 1991 petition, we published
a positive 90-day finding on December 16, 1991 (56 FR 65207), for all
53 species and announced the initiation of a status review. On March
28, 1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a 12-month finding on the 1991
petition, along with a proposed rule to list 30 African birds under the
Act (15 each from the 1980 petition and 1991 petition). In that
document, we announced our finding that listing the remaining 38
species from the 1991 petition, including the blue-billed curassow and
the brown-banded antpitta, from Colombia, and Esmeraldas woodstar, from
Ecuador, was warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing
actions. On January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2899), we reiterated the warranted-
but-precluded status of the remaining species from the 1991 petition.
We made subsequent warranted but precluded findings for all outstanding
foreign species from the 1980 and 1991 petitions, including all five of
the Colombian and Ecuadorian bird species that are the subject of this
final rule, as published in our annual notices of review (ANOR) on May
21, 2004 (69 FR 29354), and April 23, 2007 (72 FR 20184).
Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983;
48 FR 43098), we identified the listing priority numbers (LPNs)
(ranging from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign species in our 2007
ANOR (72 FR 20184), published on April 23, 2007. In that notice, the
five species included in this final rule were designated with an LPN of
2, and it was determined that their listing continued to be warranted
but precluded because of other listing activity. A listing priority of
2 indicates that the subject species face imminent threats of high
magnitude. With the exception of LPN 1, which addresses monotypic
genera that face imminent threats of high magnitude, category 2
represents the Service's highest priority.
On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we published in the Federal
Register a notice announcing our annual petition findings for foreign
species (2008 ANOR). In that notice, we announced that listing was
warranted for 30 foreign bird species, including the 5 species that are
the subject of this final rule. The five species were selected from the
list of warranted-but-precluded species because of their LPN, their
similarity of habitat, and the similarity of threats to these species.
Combining species that face similar threats within the same general
geographic area into one proposed rule allows us to maximize our
limited staff resources, thus increasing our ability to complete the
listing process for warranted-but-precluded species.
On July 7, 2009, the Service published in the Federal Register a
rule proposing to list these five foreign bird species as endangered
under the Act (74 FR 32308). Following publication of the proposed
rule, we implemented the Service's peer review process and opened a 60-
day comment period to solicit scientific and commercial information on
the species from all interested parties. For more detailed information
on previous Federal actions, please refer to the July 2009 proposed
rule.
On November 10, 2009, the Service published in the Federal Register
a reopening of the public comment period (74 FR 57987) for a rule
proposing to list these five foreign bird species as endangered under
the Act (74 FR 32308). Following publication of the reopening of the
public comment period, we implemented the Service's peer review process
and opened a 60-day comment period to solicit scientific and commercial
information on the species from all interested parties. For more
detailed information on previous Federal actions, please refer to the
July 2009 proposed rule.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We base this finding on a review of the best scientific and
commercial information available, including all information received
during the public comment period. In the July 7, 2009, proposed rule,
we requested that all interested parties submit information that might
contribute to development of a final rule. On November 10, 2009, we
reopened the public comment period where we again requested that all
interested parties submit information that might contribute to
development of a final rule. We also contacted appropriate scientific
experts and organizations and invited them to comment on the proposed
listings. We received comments from five individuals; four of which
were from peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments we received from the public and peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the
proposed listing of these species, and we address those comments below.
All the commenters and peer reviewers supported the proposed listing.
Two comments included additional information for consideration; the
remaining three comments simply supported the proposed listing without
providing scientific or commercial data.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from individuals with scientific
expertise that included familiarity with the species, the geographic
region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from four of the peer reviewers from
whom we requested comments. They generally agreed that the description
of the biology and habitat for the species was accurate and based on
all relevant literature. Some new information was provided for one of
the species, as described below. Some of the new information has been
incorporated into this final rule. In some cases, it has been indicated
in the citations by ``personal communication'' (pers. comm.), which
indicates an email, facsimile, or telephone conversation; while in
other cases, the research citation is provided.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that he found active blue-
billed curassow nests and reproductive behaviors in June, July, and
August confirming a second or alternative reproductive season.
Our Response: We reviewed additional literature and revised the
blue-billed curassow life-history description to state that a breeding
season also occurs from June through August.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that, despite the El
Pauj[iacute]l Bird Reserve's increased community environmental
education effort, the program has little effect on a continually
changing migratory worker population. These workers include loggers and
coca plant cultivators, and their environmental impact negatively
affects the blue-billed curassow's survival.
Our Response: Each year, the El Pauj[iacute]l Bird Reserve's
educational outreach efforts continue to expand. The 2012 Eighth Annual
El Paujil Blue Billed Curassow Festival included over 400 participants
and focused on raising conservation awareness among communities living
near the El Pauj[iacute]l Bird Reserve. However, these efforts are not
aimed toward migratory workers. Therefore, we included information
about the diminished impact of outreach efforts on transitory
[[Page 64694]]
populations in our discussion of blue-billed curassow conservation
education.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the El Pauj[iacute]l
Bird Reserve's acquisition of additional land since 2004 has created a
shortage of field staff. The reviewer recommends an increase in funding
to ensure adequate protection of the blue-billed curassow within the
reserve.
Our Response: The Act authorizes the provision of limited financial
assistance for the development and management of programs that the
Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the
conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign countries.
It is unknown at this time whether funds will be available to support
the El Pauj[iacute]l Bird Reserve.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer commented on the need to establish
new natural reserves for the blue-billed curassow in Cuchilla del Rio
Minero and to support the recent reserves established in the Serrania
de las Quinchas.
Our Response: The Service does not have the authority to purchase
or similarly protect habitat in areas under the jurisdiction of other
countries. However, recognition through listing results in public
awareness, and encourages conservation actions by Federal and State
governments, private agencies and groups, and individuals; these
actions may address the conservation of habitat needed by foreign-
listed species. The Act also authorizes the provision of limited
financial assistance for the development and management of programs
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign
countries; these programs may also be aimed at the conservation of
habitat needed by listed species.
Summary of Changes to the Proposed Rule
Based on the comments we received during the comment period, we
revised the blue-billed curassow life-history description to state that
a breeding season also occurs in June through August. We also included
information about the diminished impact of outreach efforts on
transitory populations in our discussion of blue-billed curassow
conservation education. In addition to these revisions, we made several
minor editorial changes and corrections to text in this final rule.
Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
Under the Act, we may determine a species to be endangered or
threatened. An endangered species is defined as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A threatened species is defined as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we evaluated the
best available scientific and commercial information on each species
under the five listing factors to determine whether they met the
definition of endangered or threatened.
On a species-by-species basis, a summary of the biology and
distribution of each species, followed by information regarding the
status of, and threats to, the species in relation to the five factors
provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act are discussed below. The
Colombian species are considered first, in alphabetical order, as
follows: Blue-billed curassow, brown-banded antpitta, Cauca guan, and
gorgeted wood-quail. These are followed by the Ecuadorian species, the
Esmeraldas woodstar.
Blue-billed Curassow (Crax Alberti) Biology and Distribution
Species Description
The blue-billed curassow, endemic to Colombia, is a large (82-92
centimeters (cm) (32-36 inches (in)), tree-dwelling member of the
Cracid family (Cracidae) (Salaman et al. 2001, p. 183; del Hoyo 1994,
p. 36; Collar et al. 1992, p. 154). The species is locally known as
``Pauj[iacute]l de pico azul'' or ``Pav[oacute]n Colombiano'' and is
also referred to in English as the blue-knobbed curassow (United
Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(UNEP-WCMC) 2008c, p. 1; Cuervo 2002, p. 138). In older literature, the
species is referred to as Prince Albert's curassow (Throp 1964, p.
124). The blue-billed curassow is described as mainly black with blue
at the base of its bill. The male has a white-plumaged crissum (the
area under the tail), whereas the female has a black and white crest
and black and white barring on her wings (BirdLife International (BLI)
2007d, p. 1; Throp 1964, p. 124).
Taxonomy
The blue-billed currassow was first taxonomically described by
Fraser in 1852 and placed in the family Cracidae, within the order
Galliformes.
Habitat and Life History
Blue-billed curassows prefer undisturbed, heterogeneous primary
forests in the humid lowlands of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta
Mountains at elevations up to 1,200 meters (m) (3,937 feet (ft))
(Salaman et al. 2001, p. 183; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Collar et al.
1992, p. 154). The blue-billed curassow requires a large home range of
primary tropical forest (Cuervo 2002, pp. 138-140). The species will
rarely cross narrow deforested corridors, such as those caused by roads
or oil pipelines, and will not cross large open areas between forest
fragments (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7). The species is described as
being trusting of humans (del Hoyo 1994, p. 336).
The blue-billed curassow is terrestrial and feeds mostly on fruit
and leaves, and sometimes on worms and carrion. It plays an important
role in dispersing seeds and regenerating tropical forests (BLI 2007d,
p. 1; Brooks 2006, p. 17; Brooks and Strahl 2000, pp. 5-8; Cuervo and
Salaman 1999, p. 8).
Cracids are slow to reproduce, with a replacement rate of at least
6 years (Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 50). Curassows reach sexual maturity
in their second year (Throp 1964, p. 130). Blue-billed curassows form
monogamous pairs that share responsibilities for young (Todd et al.
2008; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 9). The breeding season begins in
December and extends through March (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 8). A
breeding season also occurs from June through August (Urue[ntilde]a,
2008, p. 71).
During the mating season, the male blue-billed curassows make
``booming'' calls that can be heard 500 m (1,640 ft) away (Ochoa-
Quintero et al. 2005, pp. 42, 44). Adults build large nests made of
sticks and leaves in dense lianas (woody vines) (Cuervo and Salaman
1999, p. 8). The typical blue-billed curassow clutch size is 1-2 large
white eggs, which is a small clutch size
[[Page 64695]]
relative to other species in the order Galliformes (del Hoyo 1994, p.
336; Throp 1964, p. 130). Young hatch in July after an approximately
29-day incubation period (del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Hilty and Brown 1986,
p. 129; Throp 1964, p. 131). In captivity, curassows are long-lived
species (Todd et al. 2008, p. 7). Throp (1964, p. 132) recorded a blue-
billed curassow still laying eggs at 20 years of age. However, in the
wild, one generation is considered to be 10 years (Cuervo 2002, p.
141).
Historical Range and Distribution
The blue-billed curassow historically occurred in northern
Colombia, from the base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (in the
northern Departments of Magdalena La Guijaira, and Cesar), west to the
Sin[uacute] valley (Department of C[oacute]rdoba), through the
R[iacute]o Magdalena (through the Departments (from south to north) of
Huila, Tolima, Caldas, Antioquia, Santander, Bolivar, Magdalena, and La
Guajira) (BLI 2007a, p. 1; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo
1994, p. 361). The species' historic range encompassed an area of
approximately 106,700 square kilometers (km\2\) (41,197 square miles
(mi\2\)) (Cuervo 2002, p. 141). There were no confirmed observations of
blue-billed curassows between 1978 and 1997 (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia
2001, p. 183), and surveys conducted in 1998 failed to locate any males
(BLI 2007d, p. 3) (as detailed under Factor B, below), prompting
researchers to believe the species to be extinct in the wild (del Hoyo
1994, p. 361). However, a series of reported observations made in 1993
were confirmed in the year 2000 (Cuervo 2002, pp. 136-137).
Current Range and Distribution
The current range of the blue-billed curassow is estimated to be a
2,090-km\2\ (807-mi\2\) area (BLI 2007d, p. 2) of fragmented, disjunct,
and isolated tropical moist and humid lowlands and premontane forested
foothills in the Rio Magdalena and lower Cauca Valleys of the Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta Mountains. The species may be found at elevations
up to 1,200 m (3,937 ft) (Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Salaman et
al. 2001, p. 183; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 154), but it is more commonly found below 600 m
(del Hoyo 1994, p. 361). Little information is available on the size of
the forest fragments where the species has been observed. However,
researchers conducting fieldwork in the Department of Antioqu[iacute]a
in 1999 and 2001 noted that the patch sizes varied from 3 km\2\ (1.2
mi\2\) to 10 km\2\ (3.9 mi\2\) in size (Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, p.
46).
In 1993, sightings were reported in the northern Departments of
C[oacute]rdoba (at La Terretera, near Alto Sin[uacute]) and
Bol[iacute]var (in the Serran[iacute]a de San Jacinto (San Jacinto
Mountains)) (Williams, in litt., as cited in BLI 2007d, p. 2).
Additional observations were made in the northernmost Department of La
Guajira in 2003 (in the Valle de San Salvador Valley) (Strewe and
Navarro 2003, p. 32). More recently, individuals have been observed in
the tropical forests of the central Departments of Antioqu[iacute]a (on
the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-
Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve area), the Departments of Santander and
Boyac[aacute] (on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas),
and in the southeastern Department of Cauca (in northeastern and lower
Cauca Valley) (BLI 2007d, p. 2; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42;
Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, pp. 43-44;
Cuervo 2002, pp. 135-138;). Experts consider the most important refuges
for this species to be: (1) Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas
(Antioqu[iacute]a); (2) Paramillo National Park (Antioqu[iacute]a and
C[oacute]rdoba Departments); (3) Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional
Reserve (Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba Departments); and (4)
Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas Bird Reserve (Santander and
Boyac[aacute] Departments) (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, p. 139).
These refugia are discussed under Factor A, below.
Population Estimates
There is little information on population numbers for the various
reported locations of the species, and political instability within the
country makes it difficult to know the exact population size of this
species (Houston Zoo 2008). In 2002, Cuervo (2002, p. 141) considered
the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas and Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas
populations to be the stronghold of the species. However, surveys in
2003 led researchers to believe that Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas
serves as the species' stronghold (BLI 2007d, pp. 2, 5-6). In 2003, the
population at Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas (Boyac[aacute]
Department) location was estimated to be between 250 and 1,000 birds.
The only other information on the subpopulation level is a report from
Strewe and Navarro (2003, p. 32), based on field studies conducted
between 2000 and 2001, that hunting had nearly extirpated the blue-
billed curassow from a site in San Salvador (La Guijara) (Factor B).
Using the International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN) categories, the blue-billed curassow
population was estimated according to IUCN criteria to be more than
1,000 but fewer than 2,500 in 1994 (BLI 2007d, p. 2). In 2001, Brooks
and Gonzalez-Garcia (2001, p. 184) estimated the total population to be
much fewer than 2,000 individuals. In 2002, it was estimated that the
species had lost 88 percent of its habitat and half of its population
within the last three generations, or 30 years (Cuervo 2002, p. 141).
Local reports indicate an overall declining trend characterized by
recent rapid declines of all subpopulations (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Cuervo
2002, p. 138; Strahl et al. 1995, p. 25). For further information on
population size, see Factor E, below.
Conservation Status
The blue-billed curassow is identified as a critically endangered
species under Colombian law (EcoLex 2002, p. 12). The species is
considered one of the most threatened cracids by the IUCN Cracid
Specialist Group. The species is categorized by the IUCN as `Critically
Endangered,' with habitat loss as a primary threat (BLI 2004b, p. 1;
Cuervo 2002, p. 141; del Hoyo 1994 p. 340; Strahl et al. 1995, pp. 4-5;
Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, pp. 41-42).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Blue-Billed Curassow
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Habitat or Range
The blue-billed curassow prefers undisturbed, heterogeneous forests
and is rarely found in secondary or even slightly disturbed forests
(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7). The blue-billed curassow occurs today
in several disjunct locations along a much-restricted part of its
historic distribution (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Collar
et al. 1992, pp. 61-62; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7). Researchers
note that the blue-billed curassow requires large territories, but
there is little information as to the actual size of the remaining
forest fragments (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7). In 1999 and 2001,
researchers conducting fieldwork in the Department of Antioquia noted
that the patch sizes in which the species were observed or heard varied
from 3 km\2\ (1.2 mi\2\) to 10 km\2\ (3.9 mi\2\) in size (Ochoa-
Quintero et al. 2005, p. 46). Since the 1990s, the species has been
observed in the Departments of C[oacute]rdoba (at La Terretera, near
Alto Sin[uacute], 1993) and Bol[iacute]var (in the Serran[iacute]a de
San Jacinto, 1993) (Williams in litt., as cited in BLI 2007d, p. 2); La
Guajira (in the Valle de San Salvador Valley, 2003) (Strewe and
[[Page 64696]]
Navarro 2003, p. 32); Antioqu[iacute]a (on the slopes of the
Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional
Reserve area, 1999 and 2001) (Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, pp. 43-44);
Santander and Boyac[aacute] (on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de
las Quinchas); and Cauca (in northeastern and lower Cauca Valley) (BLI
2007d, p. 2; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42; Donegan and Huertas
2005, p. 29; Cuervo 2002, pp. 135-138.).
Deforestation
Primary forest habitats throughout Colombia have undergone
extensive deforestation. Vi[ntilde]a et al. (2004, pp. 123-124) used
satellite imagery to analyze deforestation rates and patterns along the
Colombian-Ecuadorian Border (in the Departments of Putumayo and
Sucumbios, respectively), finding that, from 1973 to 1996, a total of
829 km\2\ (320 mi\2\) of tropical forests within the study area were
converted to other uses. This corresponds to a nearly one-third total
loss of primary forest habitat, or a nearly 2 percent mean annual rate
of deforestation within the study area. During the study, the area
within Colombia experienced a three-times-larger annual rate of loss
than that in Ecuador, due to more intense pressures from human
colonization and illegal crop cultivation (Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004, p.
124). The human population within the area increased from approximately
50,000 to over 250,000 people during the 23-year period (Perz et al.
2005, pp. 26-28). A similar phenomenon occurred in the R[iacute]o
Magdalena Valley, which coincides with the species' historic range as
well as its disjunct and restricted current range. The R[iacute]o
Magdalena runs from south to north approximately 1,540 km (950 mi)
through western Colombia and served as the main waterway connecting
coffee (Coffea spp.) plantations to the ports on the Western Colombian
coast in the 1920s, when the river was reportedly plagued by occasional
droughts and erosion. In the 1930s, a railway was completed along much
of the R[iacute]o Magdalena Valley; this infrastructural improvement
contributed to a growth in several industries, including coffee
(throughout the R[iacute]o Magdalena valley), bananas (Musa spp.) (in
the Magdalena Department), and oil (in the Santander Department)
(Ocampo and Botero 2000, pp. 76-78). Deforestation and habitat loss
throughout the lowland forests across northern Colombia over the past
100 years contributed to the increasing rarity of the species, and
extirpated the species from a large portion of its previous range by
the 1980s (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Cuervo and Salaman
1999, p. 7; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 61-62.).
In a similar study specific to the western Andean Amazon area of
Colombia (in the Departments of Arauca, Casemere, Meta, Vichada,
Amazonas, Caquet[aacute], Guainia, Guaviare, Putumayo, and
Vaup[eacute]s), deforestation between 1980 and 1990 totaled 52,320
km\2\ (20,201 mi\2\) (Perz et al. 2005, pp. 26-28). The most recent
reports indicate that habitat loss is ongoing and may be accelerating.
Between the years 1990 and 2005, Colombia lost a total of 7,920 km\2\
(3,058 mi\2\) of primary forest (Butler 2006a, pp. 1-3; Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2003a, p. 1).
Researchers have observed that road building and other infrastructure
improvements in previously remote forested areas have increased
accessibility and facilitated further habitat destruction,
exploitation, and human settlement ([Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2042;
C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, pp. 125-130; Etter
et al. 2006, p. 1; Hunter 1996, pp. 158-159; Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004,
pp. 118-119). In Antioquia, cattle ranches are extensive in areas where
the blue-billed curassow occurs; cattle ranching is considered a less
labor-intensive land use, meaning that more people need to turn to
alternative sources of income generation, such as cultivation or
extractive industries (Melo and Ochoa 2004, as cited in Urue[ntilde]a
et al. 2006, p. 42). In Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas, the economy is
based principally on timber extraction, agriculture, and cattle
ranching (Urue[ntilde]a and Quevedo unpubl. data 2004, as cited in
Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 47). These activities contribute to
further habitat fragmentation and reduction. In terms of habitat
destruction, an influx of settlers displaced from the Departments of
Antioquia, Tolima, and Cundinamarca, due to violence and public
disorder in these Departments, are the principal threat to the
mountainous regions in these Departments (Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p.
42).
The decline in blue-billed curassow population numbers (see
Population estimates, above) is inextricably linked to habitat loss.
The blue-billed curassow became increasingly rare during the 20th
Century, as much of the lower-elevation forests in their historic range
of the R[iacute]o Magdalena and R[iacute]o Cauca Valleys were
deforested, forcing the blue-billed curassow to move to higher
elevations (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 8). By the 1980s, the species
had disappeared from a large portion of its previous range (Collar et
al. 1992, pp. 61-62), which historically encompassed approximately
106,700 km\2\ (41,197 mi\2\) (Cuervo 2002, p. 141). In 2002, it was
estimated that, within the three prior generations (30 years), the
species had lost 88 percent of its original habitat and that the
remaining suitable habitat had been reduced to 13,300 km\2\ (5,135
m\2\) (Cuervo 2002, p. 141). The current range of the blue-billed
curassow is estimated to be 2,090 km\2\ (807 mi\2\) (BLI 2007d, p. 2)
(see also ``Small Population Size,'' Factor E).
Deforestation and fragmentation caused by human encroachment are
ongoing throughout the blue-billed curassow's range, including:
Antioqu[iacute]a (on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas and
Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve area); Santander and
Boyac[aacute] Departments (on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de las
Quinchas); and in the southeastern Department of Cauca (in northeastern
and lower Cauca Valley), where timber extraction and mining continue
(Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42). Human activities that are
contributing to habitat loss include: forest clearing for subsistence
agriculture, cash crops (such as coffee), and grazing (BLI 2007d, p. 3;
Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42; [Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2,042;
C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and
Massey 2002, pp. 9-12) habitat alteration, human population
displacement, and hunting as a result of armed conflict ([Aacute]lvarez
2003, pp. 51-52; [Aacute]lvarez 2001, p. 305), habitat destruction and
alteration as a result of fire (Moreno et al. 2006, p. 1;
[Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2,041); habitat loss for dams and reservoir
development (Kreger 2005, pp. 5-6; Cuervo 2002, p. 139); illicit crop
cultivation (such as the coca plant (Erythroxylum coca))
([Aacute]lvarez 2007, pp. 133-135; C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez
Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12; [Aacute]lvarez
2001, pp. 1086-1087); gold mining activities (Cuervo 2002, p. 139);
habitat pollution due to oil development and distribution
([Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2041; C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez
Becerra 2004, p. 355); and increased access and habitat destruction
resulting from road development (Cuervo 2002, pp. 139-140). Roads
create barriers to animal movements, expose animals to traffic hazards,
and increase human access into habitat, thus facilitating further
exploitation and habitat destruction (Hunter 1996, pp. 158-159). Local
human populations have recently settled in forested areas that
previously provided habitat for blue-billed curassows. This human
settlement is accelerating habitat loss and fragmentation with only 5
percent of the species' restricted range now covered by forest (Brooks
and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, pp. 183-184), and is leaving only
[[Page 64697]]
fragmented, disjunct, and isolated populations in the remaining four or
five patches of tropical humid and premontane forests (Donegan and
Huertas 2005, p. 29; [Aacute]lvarez 2003, p. 51; Brooks and Strahl
2000, pp. 14-15; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; Collar et al. 1994, pp.
61-62).
Illegal Crop Cultivation and Eradication
The cultivation of illegal crops (including coca) poses additional
threats to the environment beyond encouraging the destruction of
montane forests (Balslev 1993, p. 3). Van Schoik and Schulberg (1993,
p. 21) noted that coca crop production destroys the soil quality by
causing the soil to become more acidic, which depletes the soil
nutrients and ultimately impedes the regrowth of secondary forests in
abandoned fields. Although Colombia continues to be the leading coca
bush producer (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) et al.
2007, p. 7), since 2003, cocaine cultivation has remained stable at
about 800 km\2\ (309 mi\2\) of land under cultivation (UNODC et al.
2007, p. 8). This stabilization of production is partially attributed
to alternative development projects that were implemented between 1999
and 2004 to encourage pursuits other than illegal crop cultivation
(UNODC et al. 2007, p. 77). This sustained level is also attributed to
heightened eradication efforts. Between 2002 and 2004, aerial spraying
occurred over more than 1,300 km\2\ (502 mi\2\) annually, peaking in
2004, when 1,360 km\2\ (525 mi\2\) of illicit crops were sprayed (UNODC
and the Government of Colombia (GOC) 2005, p. 11).
In 2006, eradication efforts were undertaken on over 2,130 km\2\
(822 mi\2\) of land, which included spraying of 1,720 km\2\ (664 mi\2\)
and manual eradication on the remaining land. Eradication efforts
undertaken in 2006 occurred over an area 2.7 times greater than the net
cultivation area (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 8). Drug eradication efforts in
Colombia have further degraded and destroyed primary forest habitat by
using nonspecific aerial herbicides to destroy illegal crops (BLI
2007d, p. 3; [Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2042; C[aacute]rdenas and
Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-
12). Herbicide spraying has introduced harmful chemicals into blue-
billed curassow habitat and has led to further destruction of the
habitat by forcing illicit growers to move to new, previously untouched
forested areas ([Aacute]lvarez 2007, pp. 133-143; BLI 2007d, p. 3;
[Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2042; C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez
Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12; [Aacute]lvarez
2002, pp. 1,088-1,093). Between 1998 and 2002, cultivation of illicit
crops increased by 21 percent each year, with a concomitant increase in
deforestation of formerly pristine areas of approximately 60 percent
([Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 1,088-1,093).
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation
A study conducted on the effects of habitat fragmentation on Andean
birds within western Colombia determined two primary conditions that
increased a species' vulnerability to habitat fragmentation and
susceptibility to local extirpation and extinction: (1) Species that
were located at the upper or lower limit of their altitudinal or
geographical distribution (as is the case for the blue-billed curassow,
which formerly occupied the now-cleared lower elevation forests and is
relegated to isolated forest fragments within its current range), and
(2) species that were large fruit-eating birds with limited
distributions and narrow habitat preferences (also traits of the blue-
billed curassow) (Kattan and [Aacute]lvarez-Lopez 1996, pp. 5-6). The
study also determined that 31 percent of the historical bird
populations in western Colombia had become extinct or locally
extirpated by 1990, largely as a result of habitat fragmentation from
deforestation and human encroachment (Kattan and [Aacute]lvarez-Lopez
1996, p. 5; Kattan et al. 1994, p. 141).
The most direct physical consequence of habitat fragmentation is
loss of habitat heterogeneity (the variety, relative abundance, and
spatial configuration of differing habitat types); habitat
heterogeneity is a characteristic preferred by the blue-billed curassow
(see Habitat and Life History, above) (Kattan and [Aacute]lvarez-Lopez
1996, p. 6). Local reports indicate an overall declining trend,
characterized by recent rapid declines of all populations of blue-
billed curassows (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Cuervo 2002, p. 138; Strahl et al.
1995, p. 25). Moreover, the ability of the blue-billed curassow to
repopulate an isolated patch of suitable habitat following decline or
extirpation is highly unlikely due to the species' small overall
population size, its tendency to avoid degraded habitats, and the large
distances between the remaining primary forest fragments, in addition
to the species' avoidance of crossing large areas of open habitat
(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46).
In addition to the direct detrimental effect of habitat loss, blue-
billed curassows and other cracids are susceptible to indirect effects
of habitat disturbance and fragmentation (Brooks and Strahl 2000, p.
10; Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 38). A study conducted in northwestern
Colombia suggests that habitat destruction and fragmentation may
increase a species' vulnerability to predation (Arango-V[eacute]lez and
Kattan 1997, pp. 140-142) (Factor C). Habitat fragmentation, in
combination with growing numbers of human settlements, has made the
species' habitat more accessible and more vulnerable to hunting (Factor
B) and predation (Factor C). Habitat loss also compounds the species'
decline in population numbers (estimated to be between 1,000 and 2,500
individuals) (BLI 2004b, p. 1) (see Factor E, Small population size).
Refugia
Several areas within the blue-billed curassow's current range are
designated as national parks or other types of preserves, including
Tayrona and Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta National Parks (both in
Antioqu[iacute]a Department) (Cuervo 2002, p. 140) and the Colorados
Sanctuary (Bol[iacute]var Department), which protects part of the
Serran[iacute]a de San Jacinto (BLI 2007d, pp. 2-3; Urue[ntilde]a et
al. 2006, p. 42). Experts consider the most important refuges for this
species, containing the largest remaining areas of suitable habitat, to
be in the following areas (arranged geographically, from north to
south): (1) Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas, (2) Paramillo National Park,
(3) Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve, and (4) El Pauj[iacute]l
Bird Reserve (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, pp. 139-140; Urue[ntilde]a
et al. 2006, p. 42), four of the five locations where the species has
been observed in the 21st Century (see Current Range, above). The
habitat within these refugia underserves the needs of the species for
various reasons, including past and ongoing habitat destruction and
incomplete habitat inclusion, as enumerated below. In addition,
inadequate regulatory mechanisms hamper protection of the species and
its habitat (Factor D).
(1) Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas (Antioqu[iacute]a) is not a
protected area, but is one of the largest remaining tracts of forest
that is the least disturbed (WWF 2001b, p. 1). Even so, only a few
isolated forest patches survive above 1,000 m (3,280 ft) in the
northern lowlands (Antioquia Department) (Donegan and Salaman 1999, p.
4). Ongoing pressures on this habitat include human encroachment for
natural resources, colonization, ranching, logging, and crop
production, as well as pollution of the Magdelena and Cauca Rivers (WWF
2001b, p. 3). In 1996, there was a gold rush that led to deforestation
for logging, settlements, conversion to agriculture, and coca
production (BLI 2007d, p. 3). Using
[[Page 64698]]
satellite imagery and fieldwork, Cuervo (2002, p. 140) determined that
deforestation on the eastern slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas
was extensive between 1995 and 1996. In 2005, highway construction was
underway as part of a national plan to connect the East Andes, the West
Andes, and the Pacific ports, including roadbuilding through the
Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas and adjacent lowlands ([Aacute]lvarez
2005, p. 2,042). Because the species prefers pristine habitat, this
ongoing habitat alteration negatively impacts the integrity of this
location and the survival of the species therein.
(2) The Paramillo National Park (Antioqu[iacute]a and
C[oacute]rdoba Departments), created in 1977, encompasses an area 4,600
km\2\ (1,776 mi\2\) in size and includes moist and cloud forest
habitats (Corantioquia 2008, p. 1). However, it only protects the upper
elevational limit of the habitat occupied by the species, where the
species is rarer (Cuervo 2002, p. 140). This Park is inhabited by an
indigenous community (Ember[aacute]), for whom the Park was created.
Farmers also inhabit the interior regions of the Park (BLI 2007a, pp.
1-2). The areas to the south of the Park have undergone intense habitat
disturbance from logging, drug crop production, and inundation from
flooding caused by the construction of the Urr[aacute] Dam (Cuervo
2002, p. 139). Deforestation has occurred throughout a large portion of
the Park's buffer zone as well as in the extreme southern reaches
within Park boundaries (Cuervo 2002, p. 140). Between 2003 and 2004,
the area of cocaine cultivation within the Paramillo National Park
increased from 1.1 km\2\ to 4.6 km\2\ (0.42 mi\2\ to 1.8 mi\2\) (UNODC
and GOC 2005, p. 45). The Urr[aacute] Dam was constructed on the
Sin[uacute] River between 1993 and 1998; the Sin[uacute] River Valley
was part of the blue-billed curassows' historic range (BirdLife
International (BLI) 2007a, p. 1; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del
Hoyo 1994, p. 361). The reservoir flooded the area and led to
displacement of human populations and other habitat alterations,
including fish kills caused by blocked spawning and migratory routes
(NGO Working Group on Export Development Canada 2003, p. 31).
(3) The Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve (Antioqu[iacute]a
and C[oacute]rdoba Departments), created in 1999, is located within a
large tract (450 km\2\ (174 mi\2\)) of forested land at an elevation of
800 m (2,625 ft). Bajo Cauca is the second most populated region in the
Department of Antioquia. Logging is important in this region, and the
Reserve allows commercial exploitation of wood (Fundaci[oacute]n Viztaz
2007, p. 2). Surveys are scant in this area, which is believed to be
home to many species as yet unidentified by science (Cuervo 2002, p.
137; Donegan and Salaman 1999, p. 12). Although the Reserve provides
suitable habitat for the species, and the blue-billed curassow is
presumed to inhabit this area, it has not been confirmed within the
Reserve (BLI 2007d, p. 3).
(4) El Pauj[iacute]l Bird Reserve (Santander and Boyac[aacute]
Departments) is a private reserve established in Serran[iacute]a de las
Quinchas (WorldTwitch Colombia 2004, p. 3). In the early 1990s, the
Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas (Boyac[aacute] Department, central
Colombia) was considered one of the last remaining well-preserved cloud
forests and the largest tract of lowland wet forest in the region, with
up to 500 km\2\ (193 mi\2\) of forest remaining. Within a decade, the
forest had dwindled to 120 km\2\ (46 mi\2\) (WorldTwitch Colombia 2004,
p. 3). In 2002, the largest known subpopulation of blue-billed curassow
was located in the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas and became regarded
as the stronghold of the species (BLI 2007d, p. 2). El Pauj[iacute]l
Bird Reserve was created in 2004 specifically to protect the blue-
billed curassow and its habitat (BLI 2007b, p. 2). Originally
comprising 10 km\2\ (3.9 mi\2\) of lowland tropical forest up to
elevations of 700 m (2,297 ft), the Reserve has expanded to 60 km\2\
(23 mi\2\) (ProAves 2010, p. 1; American Bird Conservancy 2010, p. 1).
The Reserve includes suitable habitat for the species. However,
collection of eggs and chicks are ongoing within the region (Cuervo
2002, p. 139; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42) (see Factor B), and
there are questions as to the effectiveness of this Reserve to protect
the species (see Factor D).
Summary of Factor A
The blue-billed curassow prefers undisturbed habitat, and the
remaining small populations are limited to four or five small,
disjunct, and isolated areas in seven different Departments. Within the
past 30 years, or three generations, the species is estimated to have
lost 88 percent of its habitat and half of its population.
Deforestation and conversion of primary forests for human settlements
and agriculture has led to habitat fragmentation throughout the
species' range and to isolation of remaining populations. Habitat loss
and fragmentation were factors in the species' historical decline (over
the past 50 years) and caused localized extirpations, and continue to
be factors negatively affecting the blue-billed curassow in the wild.
Human encroachment into the species' preferred primary forest habitat
has resulted in habitat alteration and disturbance activities that have
caused declines in the blue-billed curassow population. Cultivation of
illegal drug crops, such as cocaine, leads to further deforestation and
alters soil compositions, hindering regeneration of abandoned fields.
In addition, drug eradication programs involving the aerial spraying of
nonspecific herbicides lead to further environmental degradation and
destruction of primary forest habitat.
Three of the four most important refugia continue to undergo
habitat destruction, and regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to
mitigate the primary threats to this species (Factor D). A private
refuge, the El Pauj[iacute]l Bird Reserve, was formed to protect the
blue-billed curassow and its habitat, which includes a large amount of
suitable habitat, but may be lacking in its ability to adequately
protect the species (Factors B and D). Habitat fragmentation
contributes to the species' vulnerability to hunting (Factor B) and
predation (Factor C) by increasing human and predator access to the
habitat. The species' historic range, which encompassed approximately
106,700 km\2\ (41,197 mi\2\), has been reduced to 2,090 km\2\ (807
mi\2\). Experts estimate that 88 percent of this habitat loss has
occurred within the last 30 years, or three generations. Habitat
destruction and fragmentation of the remaining primary forest habitat
is expected to continue, as human encroachment and associated
activities continue within the blue-billed curassow's range. Therefore,
we find that the present destruction, modification, and curtailment of
habitat are threats to the blue-billed curassow throughout all of its
range.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Blue-billed curassows are hunted by indigenous people and local
residents for subsistence, sport, trade, and entertainment (Brooks and
Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 10; Cuervo and
Salaman 1999, p. 9; Throp 1964, p. 127; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p.
42). Cracids, including the blue-billed curassow, are considered
particularly vulnerable to hunting pressures and are among those
species most rapidly depleted by hunting (Redford 1992, p. 419).
Several factors contribute to the species' vulnerability to hunting and
collection: their large size, ease of location during the breeding
season, trusting nature, and low productivity (1-2 eggs) relative to
other Galliformes (del Hoyo 1994, p. 336). Cracids are also slow to
reproduce,
[[Page 64699]]
with a replacement rate of at least 6 years (Silva and Strahl 1991, p.
50), which makes it difficult for the species to rebound from hunting
pressures.
Hunting affects the blue-billed curassow in all life stages. In
1999, hunters in Antioqu[iacute]o (where the blue-billed curassow is
known on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-
Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve area) reported killing as many as 20
blue-billed curassows within the prior 20 years (Donegan and Salaman
1999, p. 21). In 2004, it was reported that hunting had abated
somewhat, because productive hunting grounds had become too remote from
villages and because the communities have access to domestic meat (Melo
and Ochoa 2004, as cited in Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42). However,
both eggs and chicks continue to be collected in some areas (such as
Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas, where El Pauj[iacute]l Reserve is
located) to be sold at local markets (Cuervo 2002, p. 139;
Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42), despite measures to protect the
species from collection (Factor D). In 1999, live trapped birds
(typically chicks) sold for up to US$100 (greater than the average
monthly income) (Donegan and Salaman 1999, p. 21). These birds are
either consumed or maintained as captive animals. The blue-billed
curassow, as well as other cracids (e.g., chachalacas (Ortalis spp.)
and guans (Penelope spp.)) serve as a major source of protein for
indigenous people and attract a great deal of ecotourism (Brooks and
Strahl 2000, p. 8). People colonizing forested areas capture juvenile
birds as pets and hold them in captivity in fenced yards or in cages
(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 8; Donegan and Salaman 1999, p. 21).
Indigenous people also collect feathers and other body parts of
curassows for rituals, ornamentation, arrowheads, and for sale to
tourists (Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 38).
Most hunting occurs during the mating season, when males are more
easily located by their booming mating calls (Cuervo and Salaman 1999,
p. 9; del Hoyo 1994, p. 336), which can be heard from up to 500 m
(1,640 ft) away (Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, pp. 42, 44). The direct
take of males leads to disequilibrium of sex ratios for this species,
which forms monogamous pairs (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 9; Todd et
al. 2008), and it also leads to the disruption of mating activities
(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 9; del Hoyo 1994, p. 336). Researchers
attribute hunting pressure as the cause for the near extinction of the
blue-billed curassow population in the San Salvador Valley (Strewe and
Navarro 2003, p. 32). Researchers also attribute to hunting the absence
of blue-billed curassows from parts of its historical range where
suitable habitat (primary forest) still exists (Brooks and Strahl 2000,
p. 10). In 1998, for instance, no males were observed during field
surveys, prompting researchers to conclude that hunting continued to be
a serious risk to the species (BLI 2007d, p. 3).
Habitat fragmentation and concomitant human encroachment (Factor A)
have made the species' habitat more accessible, resulting in the
species becoming more vulnerable to hunting. A study conducted in
French Guiana provided a quantitative estimate of the effect of hunting
on a related cracid species, the black curassow (Crax alector) (del
Hoyo 1994, p. 336). The black curassow has similar habitat requirements
(undisturbed primary tropical to subtropical humid forest at 0-1,400 m
(0-4,600 ft) elevation) as the blue-billed curassow (BLI 2007e). The
estimated population density of black curassows in nonhunted areas was
between 7 and 9 birds per 1 km\2\ (0.4 mi\2\); in areas with
intermittent hunting, the numbers fell to between 0.5 and 2.25 birds;
and in areas where hunting was regular, numbers fell to between 0.5 and
0.73 birds (del Hoyo 1994, p. 336). We believe that the effects of
hunting on the blue-billed curassow would result in similar population
reductions based on its similarity of habitat requirements and life-
history traits.
In 1988, Colombia listed the blue-billed curassow in Appendix III
of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) (UNEP-WCMC 2008c). An Appendix III listing
requires that the listing range country (in this case, Colombia) must
issue an export permit for all exports of the species when the
Management Authority of Colombia is satisfied that specimens have been
legally obtained and live specimens will be transported such that risk
of injury, damage, and cruelty are minimized. Imports require the prior
presentation of a certificate of origin and, where the import is from
Colombia, an export permit. In the case of rexports, a reexport
certificate issued by the country of re-export is required (UNEP-WCMC
2008a). According to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), a
total of 12 live birds have been traded internationally since 1990
(UNEP-WCMC 2008e). This trade consisted of imports of two individuals
into the United States and five birds into Mexico in the early 1990s,
and exports of five captive-bred specimens from the United States to
Colombia and Belgium. Therefore, commercial international trade in wild
specimens over the past 20 years has not been extensive.
The blue-billed curassow has been collected from the wild for use
in zoos and in captive-breeding programs, both domestically and abroad.
A small number of birds have been collected by the Cali Zoo and Santa
Fe de Medellin Zoo in Colombia (Cuervo 2002, p. 142), and small
collections are held in the United States, including the Houston Zoo
and San Diego Zoo, as well as in Japan and Mexico (Brooks and Strahl
2000, p. 15; Cuervo 2002, p. 142). The Cali and Houston Zoo collections
are being used for captive breeding, which we consider vital to
conserving and recovering this species (Factor E). International trade
for zoos and captive-breeding purposes does not contribute to the
endangerment of the species. We believe that this limited amount of
international trade, controlled via CITES, is not a threat to the
species.
Summary of Factor B
The blue-billed curassow is hunted and collected from the wild at
all life stages throughout its current range. Blue-billed curassow eggs
and chicks are collected for food and sale in local markets, or are
often captured and held in captivity as pets or as a future food
source. Hunting results in the direct removal of eggs, juveniles, and
adults from the population. Blue-billed curassows are slow to
reproduce, produce a low clutch size, and exhibit a poor replacement
rate (see Habitat and Life History). Hunting can destroy pair bonds and
remove potentially reproductive adults from the breeding pool. The
species is particularly vulnerable to hunting and collection pressures
due to the ease in locating this large bird during its breeding season.
The majority of hunting occurs during the mating season, when males are
heard calling for females, leading to disproportionate hunting of
males. Hunting disturbances during the breeding season disrupt breeding
activities, further compounding the threats associated with hunting
mortalities. There are continued reports of hunting pressures on the
species; these pressures have been and continue to be compounded by
ongoing human encroachment into previously undisturbed forests (Factor
A). Hunting and collection negatively affects the global population of
the blue-billed curassow, due to its small population size and
fragmented distribution. Hunting, combined with habitat fragmentation
(Factor A), increases the possibility of local extirpation since the
blue-billed curassow is unlikely to
[[Page 64700]]
reoccupy an area that has been depleted through hunting because it
avoids crossing large, open areas between habitat fragments (see Factor
E, Likelihood to Disperse). Therefore, we find that hunting,
collection, and associated disturbances are threats to the blue-billed
curassow.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
We are unaware of information regarding disease or the potential
for significant disease outbreaks in the blue-billed curassow. As a
result, we do not consider disease to be a threat to the species.
According to Delacour and Amadon (1973), predators of cracids
include snakes (suborder Serpentes), foxes (family Canidae), wild cats
(Felis silvestris), feral dogs (Canus lupus familiaris), and raptors
(order Falconiformes). Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan (1997, pp. 137-
143) studied predation rates on Andean bird nests within fragmented
forest habitats of northwestern Colombia. Although not specific to the
blue-billed curassow, the study focused on understory nesting birds
with similar nesting habits and in forest fragment sizes similar to
where the blue-billed curassow is currently found (Arango-V[eacute]lez
and Kattan 1997, p. 138). The study found that nest predation by
generalist predators is more prevalent in smaller, isolated forest
patches. However, in the study, increased predation in smaller habitat
fragments could not be solely attributed to the ``edge effect,''
whereby smaller patch sizes facilitate predators' access and ability to
capture prey throughout the fragments. Rather, reduced habitat patch
sizes caused a shift from larger to smaller predators, which tend to
prey upon the eggs and juveniles of understory birds, rendering ground-
dwelling birds, such as blue-billed curassows, particularly susceptible
(Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 140-142).
Other studies concerning the effects of habitat fragmentation on
avian predation show similar results (Keyser 2002, p. 186; Renjifo
1999, p. 1,133; Keyser et al. 1998, p. 991; Hoover et al. 1995, p. 151;
Wilcove 1985, p. 1,214). Gibbs (1991, p. 157) found that a larger
proportion of ground-nests and elevated nests were predated in patches
smaller than 1 km\2\ (0.39 mi\2\) and that ground-nesting birds were
predated more heavily than elevated-nesting birds. In addition to the
importance of patch size for influencing the level of predation, the
composition of the areas surrounding the patch is also important
(Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, p. 141). For instance, in lowland
Costa Rica, the edge effect (where predation is greater at the edge of
forest patches than in the interior of the patch) was greatest in
forest patches bordered by secondary growth than by pasture (Gibbs
1991, p. 157).
Summary of Factor C
Snakes, foxes, feral cats, feral dogs, and raptors are all
predators of cracids. Predation results in the direct removal of eggs,
juveniles, and adults from the population. Blue-billed curassows are
slow to reproduce, produce a low clutch size, and exhibit a poor
replacement rate (see Habitat and Life History). Predation can destroy
pair bonds and remove potentially reproductive adults from the breeding
pool. Studies on similar species in similar Andean habitats indicate
that vulnerability to predation by generalist predators increases with
increased habitat fragmentation and smaller patch sizes. Predation
exacerbates the genetic complications associated with the species'
small population size (Factor E). Because of the species' small
population size and inability to recolonize isolated habitat fragments
(Factor E), predation renders the species vulnerable to local
extirpation. Therefore, we find that predation, compounded by ongoing
habitat destruction (Factor A) and hunting (Factor B), is a threat to
the blue-billed curassow.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms may provide species-specific or habitat-
specific protections. An evaluation of the adequacy of regulatory
mechanisms within Colombia to mitigate or remove the threats to the
blue-billed curassow is provided below, beginning with species-specific
and followed by habitat-specific protection mechanisms.
The Colombian Government has enacted and ratified numerous domestic
and international laws, decrees, and resolutions for managing and
conserving wildlife and flora (Matallana-T 2005, p. 121). Colombian Law
No. 99 of 1993 (Creating the Ministry of the Environment and Renewable
Natural Resources and organizing the National Environmental System
(SINA)) sets out the principles governing environmental policy in
Colombia, and provides that the country's biodiversity be protected and
used primarily in a sustainable manner (EcoLex 1993, p. 2). Resolution
No. 584 of 2002 (Species that are endangered wildlife in the national
territory) provides a list of Colombian wildlife and flora that are
considered threatened. Threatened is defined as those species whose
natural populations are at risk of extinction, as their habitat, range,
or ecosystems that support them have been affected by either natural
causes or human actions. Threatened species are further categorized as
critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable. A critically
endangered species (CR) is one that faces a very high probability of
extinction in the wild in the immediate future, based on a drastic
reduction of its natural populations and a severe deterioration of its
range; an endangered species (EN) is one that has a high probability of
extinction in the wild in the near future, based on a declining trend
of its natural populations and a deterioration of its range; and a
vulnerable species (VU) is one that is not in imminent danger of
extinction in the near future, but it could be if natural population
trends continue downward and deterioration of its range continues
(EcoLex 2002, p. 10).
The blue-billed curassow is considered a critically endangered
species under Colombian law pursuant to paragraph 23 of Article 5 of
Law No. 99, as outlined in Resolution No. 584 (EcoLex 2002, p. 12).
This status confers certain protections upon the species. Resolution
No. 849 of 1973 (laws governing commercial hunting of sa[iacute]nos,
boas, anacondas, and birds throughout the country) and Resolution No.
787 of 1977 (laws governing sport hunting of mammals, birds, and
reptiles of wildlife), regulate and prohibit commercial and sport
hunting of all wild bird species, respectively, except those
specifically identified by the Ministry of the Environment or otherwise
permitted (EcoLex 1973, p. 1; EcoLex 1977, p. 3). The Ministry of the
Environment does not permit the blue-billed curassow to be hunted
commercially or for sport because of its status as a critically
endangered species. Neither Resolution prohibits subsistence hunting.
As discussed under Factor B, commercial and sport hunting are not
threats to this species, but subsistence hunting continues to threaten
the species throughout its range, including within protected areas.
Thus, these Resolutions are ineffective at reducing the existing threat
of subsistence hunting to the blue-billed curassow.
Additional efforts to protect the species from subsistence hunting
are inadequate. Within El Pauj[iacute]l Reserve, for instance, there
are penalties for shooting or trapping the species (BLI 2007d, p. 3).
However, as recently as 2006, it was reported that both chicks and eggs
continued to be collected in the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas
region, where the Reserve is located, for domestic use and for sale at
local markets (Cuervo 2002, p. 139; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42)
(Factor
[[Page 64701]]
B). Thus, private efforts to protect the species from hunting appear to
be inadequate within a region where national laws are ineffective at
protecting the species from such take.
The blue-billed curassow is listed in Appendix III of CITES (see
Factor B). CITES is an international treaty among 177 nations,
including Colombia (which became a Party in 1981) and the United States
(which became a Party in 1975) (UNEP-WCMC 2008a, p. 1). In the United
States, CITES is implemented through the U.S. Endangered Species Act
(Act). The Act designates the Secretary of the Interior as the
Scientific and Management Authorities to implement the treaty, with all
functions carried out by the Service. Under this treaty, countries work
together to ensure that international trade in animal and plant species
is not detrimental to the survival of wild populations by regulating
the import, export, reexport, and introduction from the sea of CITES-
listed animal and plant species (USFWS 2008, p. 1). As discussed under
Factor B, we do not consider commercial international trade to be a
threat impacting the blue-billed curassow.
Colombia has numerous laws and regulations pertaining to forests
and forestry management, including: The Forestry Law of 1959 (Law 2--
[On] forest economy [of the] nation and conservation [of] renewable
natural resources) (EcoLex 1959); the Forestry Code of 1974 (Decree
2,811--National code of renewable natural resources and protection of
the environment) (Faolex 1974), and the forest plan of 1996 (Decree
1,791--Forest Improvement Plan) (Faolex 1996). A new forest law was
developed and approved in 2006 (Law No. 1,021, General [Forestry] Law).
The new law seeks to: (1) Further promote forest plantations and create
financial mechanisms for investments, (2) provide for rigorous control
and expanded sustainable use of natural forests, (3) and regulate and
further develop forest concessions in the country (International
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) 2006, p. 218). However, the ITTO
considers the Colombian forestry sector to be lacking in law
enforcement and on-the-ground control of forest resources, with no
specific standards for large-scale forestry production, no forestry
concession policies, and a lack of transparency in the application of
the various laws regulating wildlife and their habitats (ITTO 2006, p.
222).
Resource management in Colombia is highly decentralized. Resources
are managed within local municipalities by one of 33 Autonomous
Regional Corporations known as CARs (Corporaciones Aut[oacute]nomas
Regionales) (Matallana-T 2005, p. 121). CARs are corporate bodies of a
public nature, endowed with administrative and financial autonomy to
manage the environment and renewable natural resources (Law 99 of
1993). The blue-billed curassow is currently known to occur within
seven different Departments, each of which is managed by a separate
local entity. These corporations grant concessions, permits, and
authorizations for forest harvesting (ITTO 2006, p. 219). Forty percent
of Colombia's public resources are managed by local municipalities,
making Colombia one of the most decentralized countries in terms of
forestry management in Latin America (Matallana-T 2005, p. 121).
Monitoring of resource use and forest development authorized by
these corporations is conducted mostly by local nongovernmental
organizations. Governmental institutions responsible for oversight
appear to be underresourced and unable to maintain an effective
presence in the field (ITTO 2006, p. 222). Consequently, there is no
vehicle for overall coordination of species management for
multijurisdictional species such as the blue-billed curassow. The
private Proaves-Colombia Foundation plans to generate a national
strategy for the conservation of the blue-billed curassow through the
project, ``Saving the Blue-billed Curassow'' (Quevedo et al. 2005, as
cited in Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42). In 2004, this project
evaluated and prioritized threats in Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas
region (Machado 2004, as cited in Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42),
assessed population density and structure (Arias 2005, as cited in
Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42), studied habitat use and behavioral
aspects in Pauj[iacute]l de Pico Bird Reserve (Urue[ntilde]a 2005, as
cited in Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42), and promoted an
environmental education campaign and the creation of El Pauj[iacute]l
Bird Reserve (Urue[ntilde]a and Quevedo 2005, as cited in Urue[ntilde]a
et al. 2006, p. 42). However, despite the increased community
environmental education effort, the transitory nature of migrant
workers in this region diminishes the program's effect (Urue[ntilde]a,
2009, pers. comm.).
Currently there are approximately 49 nationally recognized
protected areas in Colombia (Matallano-T 2005, p. 121). The five most
common categories of habitat protection are: (1) National Natural Park
(an area whose ecosystems have not been substantially altered by human
exploitation or occupation, and where plant and animal species, or
complex geomorphological landscapes have historical, cultural,
scientific, educational, aesthetic, or recreational value); (2)
Wildlife Sanctuary for Fauna and Flora (an area dedicated to preserve
species or communities of wildlife, and to conserve genetic resources
of wildlife); (3) National Natural Reserve (an area that preserves
flora and fauna and is established for the study of its natural
wealth); (4) Panoramic Park (a parcel of land of panoramic, cultural,
or natural value preserved for education and relaxation); and (5)
Unique National Area (a rare or unique ecosystem) (Matallano-T 2005, p.
121). Several areas considered to be important refuges for the blue-
billed curassow are protected areas and are managed by autonomous
corporations, including: (1) The Paramillo National Natural Park
(Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba Departments) and (2) The Bajo
Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional Natural Reserve (Antioqu[iacute]a and
C[oacute]rdoba Departments) (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, p. 139),
both of which are managed by Corantioquia (Corantioquia 2008, p. 1).
(1) The Paramillo National Natural Park (Antioqu[iacute]a and
C[oacute]rdoba Departments) is a large Park, but no protective measures
have been implemented to curb human impacts on the habitat and species
by the indigenous and farming residents within the park (BLI 2007a, pp.
1-2; BLI 2007d, p. 3) (Factor A). Cocaine cultivation is occurring
within the Park boundaries (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 45). Dam
construction on the Sin[uacute] River, part of the species' historic
range (BLI 2007a, p. 1; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994,
p. 361), has caused ongoing flooding in the area since its completion
in 1998 (NGO Working Group on Export Development Canada 2003, p. 31;
Cuervo 2002, p. 139). Thus, the designation of this area as a Park has
not mitigated human-induced habitat destruction (Factor A).
(2) The Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional Natural Reserve
(Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba Departments) encompasses suitable
habitat for the blue-billed curassow, but the species has not been
confirmed within the Reserve (BLI 2007d, p. 3). Nonetheless, it is
notable that this Reserve, which is designated to preserve and research
flora and fauna, allows logging (Fundaci[oacute]n Viztaz 2007, p. 2).
Thus, should the species be located therein, this Reserve's designation
as a preserve would not mitigate the threat from habitat destruction
(Factor A).
The privately owned El Pauj[iacute]l Bird Preserve, which was
established specifically to protect the blue-billed curassow and its
habitat (BLI 2007d, p. 2) (Factor A), has measures in place to penalize
shooting or trapping the
[[Page 64702]]
species (BLI 2007d, p. 3). However, egg and chick collection are
ongoing within the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas area, where the
private reserve is located (Factor B).
Aside from the Paramillo National Park, which includes habitat in
the upper elevational limit of the blue-billed curassow's preferred
range (Cuervo 2002, p. 140), no effective protective measures have been
undertaken (BLI 2007d, p. 2; Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183)
in that the regulatory mechanisms in these protected areas do not
mitigate habitat destruction, which is a primary risk factor for this
species (Factor A). Thus, these protected areas do not provide
sufficient protections to mitigate the effects from habitat loss
(Factor A) or reduce threats from hunting and collection (Factor B).
Summary of Factor D
Colombia has numerous laws and regulatory mechanisms intended to
protect and manage wildlife and their habitats. The blue-billed
curassow is considered critically endangered under Colombian law and
lives within several managed forests or protected areas. However, on-
the-ground enforcement of existing wildlife protection and forestry
laws and oversight of the local jurisdictions implementing and
regulating activities are ineffective at mitigating the primary threats
to the blue-billed curassow. As discussed in Factor A, habitat
destruction, degradation, and fragmentation continue throughout the
existing range of the blue-billed curassow. As discussed in Factor B,
uncontrolled hunting and commercial use of the blue-billed curassow are
ongoing and continue to negatively affect the continued existence of
the species. Moreover, the lack of a species conservation strategy and
the decentralized management of natural resources in Colombia provide
no overall coordination in the conservation efforts for species
including the blue-billed curassow, which ranges in multiple
jurisdictions. Despite ongoing work toward developing a national
conservation strategy for the species, it is not known whether it will
be formally adopted by the Government of Colombia, and at this time we
are unable to determine whether the strategy will be effective in
reducing the threats to this species on a local or rangewide basis.
Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms currently in
place for the blue-billed curassow do not reduce or remove the factors
threatening the species, thus we find that Factor D is a threat to the
blue-billed curassow.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Three additional factors affect the blue-billed curassow: Limited
ability to disperse to unoccupied habitat; small population size, and
unsuccessful captive-breeding programs.
Likelihood To Disperse
The blue-billed curassow exhibits several characteristics that make
it unlikely to disperse into isolated habitat fragments in order to
repopulate patches of suitable habitat. The blue-billed curassow
requires a large home range of primary tropical forest (Cuervo 2002,
pp. 138-140). The habitat patches within the blue-billed curassow's
current range are described by researchers as fragmented, disjunct, and
isolated (Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Salaman et al. 2001, p. 183;
Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Collar et al.
1992, p. 154). The species will rarely cross narrow deforested
corridors, such as those caused by roads or oil pipelines, and it will
not cross large open areas between forest fragments (Cuervo and Salaman
1999, p. 7). In addition to the species' small overall population size
(see below), researchers believe it is unlikely that the blue-billed
curassow would repopulate an isolated patch of suitable habitat
following decline or extirpation of the species from that patch (Cuervo
and Salaman 1999, p. 7; Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46) (see Factor E, Captive
Breeding Program).
Small Population Size
Deforestation and habitat loss throughout the blue-billed
curassow's historic range has resulted in fragmented, disjunct, and
isolated populations in the remaining four or five patches of tropical
humid and premontane forests and caused regional extirpations of the
blue-billed curassow (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Cuervo
and Salaman 1999, p. 7; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 61-62). It is estimated
that the largest subpopulation (in the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas,
Boyac[aacute] Department) contains between 250 and 999 birds (BLI
2007d, p. 2), and that the total population is much fewer than 2,000
individuals (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 184). Cuervo (2002, p.
141) estimated that the species had lost more than half of its
population over the last three generations, or 30 years. Further, it is
estimated that, at the current rate of decline, the blue-billed
curassow could lose up to 79 percent of its current population within
the next 10 years and could be extinct within the next three
generations, or 30 years (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, p. 141).
The blue-billed curassow's restricted and fragmented range,
combined with its small population size (Cuervo 2002, p. 138; Cuervo
and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361), makes the species
particularly vulnerable to the threat of adverse genetic effects and
susceptible to extinction through natural or manmade events that
destroy individuals and their habitat (BLI 2007d, pp. 1-2; Cuervo 2002,
p. 140; Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, pp. 185-190). Meta-population
analysis involves the study of the dynamics of an entire population by
studying movements within local populations (Hanski 1998, p. 41). ``A
meta-population composed of extinction-prone local populations in a
small patch network is necessarily more threatened than are meta-
populations in large and well connected networks'' (Hanski 1998, p.
42). Considering that not all blue-billed curassow individuals in a
population are breeding at any one time, the actual number of
individuals contributing to population growth will be a smaller number
than the total number of individuals.
Small population sizes render species vulnerable to any of several
risks, including loss of genetic variation, inbreeding depression, and
accumulation of deleterious genes. Inbreeding can have individual or
population-level consequences either by increasing the phenotypic
expression (the outward appearance or observable structure, function,
or behavior of a living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or
by reducing the overall fitness of individuals in the population
(Charlesworth and Charlesworth 1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, p. 131).
Small, isolated populations of wildlife species are also susceptible to
demographic problems (Shaffer 1981, p. 131), which may include reduced
reproductive success of individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex
ratios. Chance disequilibrium of sex ratios would be further
exacerbated by preferential hunting of male birds (Factor B). This
species' risk of extinction is further compounded by ongoing collection
of eggs and chicks, and by hunting-related disturbances that may
disrupt breeding pairs (Factor B). Once a population is reduced below a
certain number of individuals, it tends to rapidly decline towards
extinction (Franklin 1980, pp. 147-148; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986,
p. 25; Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; Soul[eacute] 1987, p. 181).
[[Page 64703]]
Captive-Breeding Program
A captive-breeding program is being developed within the species'
range (see Current Range and Distribution, above) by Fundaci[oacute]n
Ecolombia, based at the Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre in Los
Farallones (Antioqu[iacute]a Department, Colombia). The captive-held
population includes three males and two females. The program has met
with little success because attempts to breed the species in captivity
have been unsuccessful to date (two sterile eggs laid in 2003 and none
since). The species is historically known to be a poor breeder in
captivity (Throp 1964, p. 127). The program is exploring artificial
insemination for future breeding (Wildlife Protection Foundation (WPF)
2007, p. 2). The Houston Zoo, however, which has maintained cracids
since the 1960s, has bred the species for 30 years and has successfully
raised at least 10 blue-billed curassows in captivity (Houston Zoo
2008, p. 2; Todd et al. 2008, p. 1). The Houston Zoo also conducts
outreach and breeding research. While this has resulted in limited
exports of captive-bred birds for scientific purposes (i.e., to zoos;
see also Factor B), the number of birds in captivity has dropped
worldwide. In addition, the number of specimens originally imported
into the United States was small (Houston Zoo 2008, p. 2), which would
limit the number of breeding pairs and offspring and, therefore, their
conservation value for reintroduction into the wild. Thus, the captive
breeding program is not currently contributing to reintroduction, but
serves a conservation value by providing specimens for zoos that
conduct outreach and breeding research. Further, reintroduction would
appear to be important for recovery of this species because the species
is not likely to disperse into or repopulate suitable habitat on its
own.
Summary of Factor E
The blue-billed curassow's small population size increases its
vulnerability to genetic risks associated with small population sizes
that negatively impact the species' long-term viability and increase
the possibility of localized extirpations of the remaining fragmented
populations. Further, the species is unlikely to repopulate areas of
suitable habitat from which a subpopulation has been extirpated because
it avoids crossing the disturbed areas that separate the remaining
suitable habitat for this species. Range-country attempts at captive
breeding have been unsuccessful, and the stock in U.S. captive-breeding
programs is limited; therefore, the captive-breeding program is not
contributing to reintroduction of the species in the wild and so is not
currently mitigating the problem of small population size. Therefore,
we believe that, in combination with the risks to the species from
habitat destruction (Factor A), hunting (Factor B), and predation
(Factor C), the blue-billed curassow is vulnerable to localized
extirpation or extinction from which the species would be unable to
recover, due to its small population size and apparent inability to
repopulate fragmented, isolated habitats such as those currently
present within this species' range.
Blue-Billed Curassow Status Determination
The five primary factors that threaten the survival of the blue-
billed curassow are: (1) Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and
degradation (Factor A); (2) overexploitation due to hunting and
collecting of eggs and chicks (Factor B); (3) predation (Factor C); (4)
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to reduce the threats to the
species (Factor D); and (5) small population size and isolation of
remaining populations (Factor E).
The direct loss of habitat through widespread deforestation and
conversion of primary forests to human settlement and agricultural uses
has led to the fragmentation of habitat throughout the range of the
blue-billed curassow and isolation of the remaining populations (Factor
A). The species' historic range, which encompassed approximately
106,700 km\2\ (41,197 mi\2\), has been reduced to 2,090 km\2\ (807
mi\2\). Experts estimate that 88 percent of this habitat loss has
occurred within the last 30 years, or three generations. The best
available information indicates that the species' population was
reduced by 50 percent in the 30 years prior to 2002 and that ongoing
habitat destruction and degradation are continuing at a rate that would
lead to the extinction of the blue-billed curassow within the next 30
years if measures are not taken to ameliorate the loss of habitat.
Thus, habitat loss poses an imminent threat of extinction and is a
factor that currently endangers the species.
The blue-billed curassow is hunted or collected, whole or in parts,
in all life stages (eggs, juveniles, adults, feathers, and other body
parts) throughout its current range by both indigenous people and by
local settlers for both sustenance and sport; for domestic use in
rituals; and for sale to tourists (Factor B). Several life-history
traits of the species contribute to its vulnerability to hunting and
collection: Its large size, ease of location during breeding season,
trusting nature, low productivity (1-2 eggs), and a replacement rate of
6 years (taking an individual of the species an average of 6 years to
replace itself). Adults are hunted mainly during the breeding season,
when males are most vulnerable and more easily located by their loud
mating calls that are audible at long distances. The direct take of
males disrupts sex ratios in this species, which forms monogamous
pairs, and this take also disrupts mating activities. Hunting pressure
has caused severe depletion or near extirpation in portions of its
historical range, despite the continued availability of suitable
habitat (primary forest). The effects of hunting are exacerbated by
ongoing habitat fragmentation (Factor A), which increases accessibility
into the species' habitat, rendering it more vulnerable to hunting.
Concomitantly, increased conversion of primary forest habitat has
encouraged further human settlement within the blue-billed curassow's
habitat. Hunting poses an imminent threat of extinction and is a factor
that currently endangers the species.
Blue-billed curassows are vulnerable to predation by generalist
predators, including snakes, foxes, feral cats, feral dogs, and raptors
(Factor C). Habitat fragmentation (Factor A) contributes to this
vulnerability, because research indicates that predation increases with
increased habitat fragmentation and smaller patch sizes. Predation
leads to the direct removal of eggs, juveniles, and adults from the
population, exacerbating risks associated with the species' small
population size (see below). Predation can destroy pair bonds and
remove potentially reproductive adults from the breeding pool. The
blue-billed curassow is slow to reproduce and produces a low clutch
size, and predation exacerbates this species' already poor replacement
rate (see Habitat and Life History).
The threats from habitat destruction, hunting, and predation are
compounded by the species' small population size (Factor E). The blue-
billed curassow's population has been reduced by 50 percent within the
last 30 years. The species' low population estimate of fewer than 2,000
individuals, combined with its restricted, fragmented, and isolated
habitat, makes the species particularly vulnerable to numerous human
factors (e.g., agricultural development, armed conflict, fire, dams and
reservoir development, increased human settlement, illicit drug
production and control, mining activities, oil development and
distribution, and road development).
[[Page 64704]]
Further, the species' reticence to cross large open areas makes it
unlikely that the species would repopulate suitable habitat without
human intervention in remaining isolated forest patches that are
separated by large distances, all of which put the species at a risk of
extinction.
Finally, despite numerous laws and regulatory mechanisms (Factor D)
to administer and manage wildlife and their habitats, on-the-ground
enforcement of these laws and oversight of the local jurisdictions
implementing and regulating activities within the species' habitat are
inadequate to mitigate the effects of habitat loss (Factor A) and
hunting (Factor B). Habitat destruction and hunting continues within
the species' range and, aside from El Pauj[iacute]l Bird Preserve, no
other areas provide effective protective measures for protecting the
blue-billed curassow from ongoing hunting or its habitat from ongoing
destruction.
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the blue-billed curassow. We conclude that the
ongoing threats to the blue-billed curassow, habitat destruction
(Factor A), hunting (Factor B), and predation (Factor C), exacerbated
by the species' small population size and limited dispersal ability
(Factor E), and compounded by inadequate regulatory mechanisms to
mitigate these threats (Factor D), to be equally present and of the
same magnitude throughout the species' entire current range. We further
conclude, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, that the magnitude of these threats are of an extent that
places the species in danger of extinction at this time. Therefore, on
the basis of our analysis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we conclude that the blue-billed curassow is
endangered throughout its range, and thus should be designated an
endangered species under the Act.
Brown-Banded Antpitta (Grallaria Milleri)
Species Description
The brown-banded antpitta is a member of the ground-antbird Family
(Formicariidae), is approximately 18 cm (7 in) long from bill to tail,
and endemic to the west slope of the central Andes of Colombia (Krabbe
and Schulenberg 2003, p. 682; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 414;
Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 422). The species is locally known as
``Tororoi'' (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002). This bird is a uniform
dark brown, with a dingy white throat and underbelly.
Taxonomy
The brown-banded antpitta was first taxonomically described by
Chapman in 1911 and placed in the Ground-Antbird Family
(Formicariidae). The type specimen (the actual specimen that was first
described by Chapman) was obtained from Laguneta (Quind[iacute]o
Department) (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 327). Laguneta is,
therefore, referred to as the ``type locality.''
Habitat and Life History
The brown-banded antpitta currently inhabits the humid understory
and forest floor habitats of mid-montane and cloud forests between
2,400 and 2,600 m (7,874 and 8,530 ft) with high density of herbaceous
plants and shrubs (Krabbe and Schulenberg 2003, p. 719; Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 272). The species has been observed in older
(30-year-old) secondary-growth forest habitats and alder (Alnus
acuminata) plantations (Cuervo 2002, pp. 326-327; Krabbe and
Schulenberg 2003, p. 719).
Researchers consider antpitta life histories to be among the least
known of Neotropical bird species (Dobbs et al. 2001, p. 225). The
brown-banded antpitta, as with other antpittas, is a secretive species,
with a low population density and high habitat specificity (Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 2002, p. 232). Antpittas are considered to be nearly
flightless (Krabbe and Schulenberg 2003, p. 698) and their dispersal
capabilities are not well known (Cuervo 2002, p. 327), except that one
banded individual traveled a distance of 0.041 km\2\ (0.02 mi\2\)
(Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002, p. 234). This ground-dwelling species
lives either singly or in pairs (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p.
327) and has a high territorial fidelity (Cuervo 2002, p. 327). It can
be seen running along the forest floor picking up prey (Krabbe and
Schulenberg 2003, p. 719), which apparently consists of beetles
(Coleoptera spp.) and earthworms.
Nothing is known about the brown-banded antpitta's reproductive
ecology, except that its peak reproductive period is between March and
May (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, pp. 326-327) and that both parents
feed the young (del Hoyo 2003, p. 719). Drawing from studies on similar
species, including the Colombian species, scaled antpitta (Grallaria
guatimalensis) and chestnut-crowned antpitta (Grallaria ruficapilla),
the species tend to nest on fallen logs, on the forks of tree trunks,
or atop the crowns of low-growing palms, situated at nearly groundlevel
to no higher than 3 m (10 ft) off the ground (Dobbs et al. 2001, p.
226; Wiedenfeld 1982, p. 581). The typical clutch size for antpittas is
considered to be two eggs (Dobbs et al. 2001, p. 227; Wiedenfeld 1982,
p. 581). Antpitta nests are roughly circular cups, loosely constructed
of dead leaves that are generally hard to distinguish from the
surroundings (Dobbs et al. 2001, p. 227; Wiedenfeld 1982, p. 581).
Antpittas appear to rely on camouflage, both to hide the location of
their nests (Wiedenfeld 1982, p. 580), as well as in response to
disturbance, when birds remain absolutely still to avoid detection by
potential predators (Dobbs et al. 2001, p. 226).
Historical Range and Distribution
The brown-banded antpitta was historically known from a single
location, near Laguneta in the central Andes (centrally located in the
Department of Quind[iacute]o), which ranges in altitude from 1,859 m
(6,100 ft) in the surrounding valleys to 3,140 m (10,300 ft) at its
highest point (Chapman 1917, pp. 35-36, 396). In 1917, the valley
leading to Laguneta was described as gently rising until about 2,530 m
(8,300 ft), when the terrain rose steeply up to 2,896 ft (9,500 ft).
The vegetation was described as open, with scattered palms and little
other vegetation until about 2,835 m (9,300 ft), where the forest began
(Chapman 1917, p. 36). At 3,140 m (10,300 ft), the forest was described
as dense with little undergrowth, except in occasional clearings
dominated by dense shrubs so thick as to be impenetrable without a
knife (Chapman 1917, p. 35). Eleven specimens were collected between
1911 and 1942; the species was last observed and collections were made
at the type locality at Laguneta in 1942 (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan
2002, p. 325; Collar et al. 1992, p. 698).
Chapman (1917, p. 36) described the practice of slash-and-burn
agriculture around Laguneta in 1917, noting that much of the hillside
between 2,530 and 2,835 m (8,300-9,300 ft) was bare and close-cropped,
having been burned and cleared. By 1994, the forested area providing
habitat for the brown-banded antpitta in and around the type locality
near Laguneta had been mostly destroyed (Collar et al. 1994, p. 136),
and despite subsequent surveys (in 1986, 1988, and 1991), the species
was not observed. In 1992, researchers considered the brown-banded
antpitta to be locally extirpated, if not extinct throughout its range
(Cuervo 2002, pp. 326-327; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 367-369;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 689). Although the brown-banded antpitta was
rediscovered in 1994 (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 367-369),
researchers
[[Page 64705]]
continue to consider the species to be locally extinct (extirpated)
from its type locality of Laguneta (Quind[iacute]o Department)
(Beltr[aacute]n 2002 in litt., as cited in Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan,
p. 327) due to extensive deforestation (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002,
p. 327).
Current Range and Distribution
The current range of the brown-banded antpitta is described as
humid understory and forest floors of mid-montane and cloud forests,
preferring altitudes between 2,400 and 2,600 m (7,874 and 8,530 ft), in
areas with a high density of herbs and shrubs (Krabbe and Schulenberg
2003, p. 719; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 272). The current
range is estimated to be 300 km\2\ (116 mi\2\) (BLI 2007f, p. 1). The
species is known today from only three areas in the upper R[iacute]o
Magdalena valley. The first area is the humid forests in the Central
Andes of Colombia's Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park (Risaralda
Department), where it was first sighted in 1994 (Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 369-370) and recently observed in 2000
(Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 326). The site is approximately 44
km\2\ (17 mi\2\) in the Ot[uacute]n River watershed (Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 273). The second area is the southeastern slope
of Volc[aacute]n Tolima in the R[iacute]o Toche Valley on private land
(the house of La Carbonera) (Tolima Department), where it was first
observed in 1998 and recently observed in 2000 (Beltr[aacute]n and
Kattan 2002, p. 325). This location is 0.05 km\2\ (0.02 mi\2\) in size
at elevations ranging from 2,750 to 2,900 m (9,022 to 9,514 ft)
(Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 326). The third area is the
R[iacute]o Blanco river basin (Caldas Department), where it was most
recently observed in 2000 (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 326).
This site is a strip of land less than 200 linear km (124 linear mi) on
the Central Cordilla, between 2,300 and 3,100 m (7,546 and 10,171 ft)
in elevation (BLI 2004c, p. 2; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002, p. 238).
Experts consider the most important refuges for this species to be: (1)
The Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park (Risaralda Department), (2) the
R[iacute]o Toche Valley (Tolima), (3) the R[iacute]o Blanco river basin
(Caldas Department), and (4) the Reserve of Ca[ntilde]on and
Quind[iacute]o Departments, where suitable habitat exists but the
species may be extirpated. These refugia are further discussed under
Factor A, below.
Population Estimates
There have been few quantitative surveys of the brown-banded
antpitta. Available population information is provided for the four
areas considered to be important refugia for the species (as discussed
in Factor A). The population located within the Ucumar[iacute] Regional
Park has been surveyed twice. In the first survey, conducted from 1994
to 1997, 11 brown-banded antpittas were captured and banded. In a
subsequent survey of a 0.17-1 km\2\ (0.07-0.62 mi\2\) area within the
Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park during 1995 to 2000, Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n (2002, pp. 232-233) captured and banded 36 brown-banded
antpittas. Based on these surveys, the subpopulation within the 0.63
km\2\ (0.24 mi\2\) Park was estimated to include up to 106 individuals,
averaging approximately 1.3 individuals per 0.01 km\2\ (0.004 mi\2\)
(Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 276; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n
1997, pp. 367-369). Thus, this subpopulation contains at least 36, and
possibly as many as 106 individuals.
Qualitative surveys conducted from 1998 to 2000 in the R[iacute]o
Toche Valley determined that the brown-banded antpitta is uncommon and
local (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 326). One individual was
observed in 1999 (Cuervo in litt., as cited in Beltr[aacute]n (2002 p.
326). There is no information on the estimated population size of
brown-banded antpitta within the R[iacute]o Toche. Thus, this
subpopulation contains at least one individual, but there is no
estimate of the upper limit of the population.
A census of the population in the R[iacute]o Blanco river basin was
undertaken in June 2000, within an approximately 5 km (3 mi) transect.
Researchers inferred the presence of at least 30 individuals, based on
vocalizations they elicited in response to recordings of the species'
alarm call (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 326). There is no
information on the estimated population size of brown-banded antpitta
within the R[iacute]o Blanco area. Thus, this population may contain 30
individuals, but the upper limit of the population estimate is unknown.
The species is not currently known to inhabit the Reserve del
Ca[ntilde]on del Quind[iacute]o. Although the species was observed
there in 1911 and 1942 (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 325; Collar
et al. 1992, p. 698) and the area contains suitable habitat, the
species has not been observed there since 1942 (Beltr[aacute]n and
Kattan 2002, p. 235).
The IUCN estimates that the largest subpopulation contains 424
individuals (BLI 2007f, p. 4), but it is unclear as to which
subpopulation this estimate refers. The global population of brown-
banded antpitta is estimated by the IUCN to be larger than 250
individuals, but not more than 999 birds (BLI 2007f, p. 1), equating to
approximately 338 to 756 individuals (BLI 2007f, p. 4). It is estimated
that the species has lost up to 9 percent of its population in the last
10 years, or 3 generations, and that this rate of decline will continue
over the next 10 years (BLI 2007f, p. 4). Additional information on the
population size of this species is provided in the discussion of Factor
E, below.
Conservation Status
The brown-banded antpitta is identified as an endangered species
under Colombian law pursuant to paragraph 23 of Article 5 of the Law 99
of 1993, as outlined in Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (EcoLex 2002, p.
12). The IUCN has classified the species as `Endangered' since 1994
because it is known from very few locations and occupies a very small
range (BLI 2004c, p. 1).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Brown-Banded Antpitta
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Habitat or Range
The brown-banded antpitta inhabits the humid understory and forest
floor habitats of mid-montane and cloud forests between 1,800 and 2,600
m (5,905 and 8,530 ft) that have a high density of herbs and shrubs
(Krabbe and Schulenberg 2003, p. 719; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999,
p. 272). The current range is estimated to be 300 km\2\ (116 mi\2\)
(BLI 2007f, p. 1), and the species is known today in only three
locations: (1) Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n
1997, pp. 369-370) (Risaralda Department), (2) the southeastern slope
of Volc[aacute]n Tolima in the R[iacute]o Toche Valley (Tolima
Department), and (3) the R[iacute]o Blanco catchment (Caldas
Department). These locations are discussed further under Refugia,
below.
Deforestation
Colombia has experienced extensive deforestation in the last half
of the 20th Century as a result of habitat conversion for human
settlements, road building, agriculture, and timber extraction. A 23-
year study, from 1973 to 1996, demonstrated that these activities
reduced the amount of primary forest cover in Colombia by approximately
3,605 hectares (ha) (8,908 acres (ac)) annually, representing a nearly
one-third total loss of primary forest habitat (Vi[ntilde]a et al.
2004, pp. 123-124). Beginning in the 1980s, habitat loss increased
dramatically as a result of influxes of people settling in formerly
pristine areas (Perz et al. 2005, pp. 26-28; Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004,
p. 124). More recent studies indicate that the rate of habitat
destruction is accelerating. Between the years 1990 and 2005, Colombia
lost approximately 52,800 ha (130,471 ac) of
[[Page 64706]]
primary forest annually (Butler 2006a, pp. 1-3; FAO 2003a, p. 1). Human
activities, such as encroachment, cultivation, grazing, and
infrastructural development, have resulted in extensive deforestation
and environmental degradation of primary forests in the R[iacute]o
Magdalena valley, part of the brown-banded antpitta's range (Cuervo and
Salaman 1999, p. 8; Ocampo and Botero 2000, pp. 76-78). These studies
and activities in Colombia are described in greater detail under Factor
A for the blue-billed curassow, above.
A study conducted on the effects of habitat fragmentation on Andean
birds within western Colombia determined that 31 percent of the
historical bird populations in western Colombia had become extinct or
locally extirpated by 1990, largely as a result of habitat
fragmentation from deforestation and human encroachment (Kattan and
[Aacute]lvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 5; Kattan et al. 1994, p. 141).
Deforestation has led to local extirpation of the brown-banded antpitta
in its type locality, near Laguneta in the central Andes
(Quind[iacute]o Department), where the natural vegetation has been
reduced to 10 percent of its former area (Beltr[aacute]n 2002 in litt.,
as cited in Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan, p. 327). Deforestation continues
in mid-montane and cloud forests in the Departments Caldas and
Risaralda, where this species has been observed (Dolphijn 2005, p. 2).
Human encroachment and ongoing deforestation throughout this species'
current range are discussed under Refugia, below.
In addition to the direct detrimental effect of habitat loss, there
are several indirect effects of habitat disturbance and fragmentation
(Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 10; Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 38). Roads
create barriers to animal movement, expose animals to traffic hazards,
and increase human access to habitat, facilitating further exploitation
and habitat destruction (Hunter 1996, pp. 158-159). Researchers have
observed that road building and other infrastructure improvements in
previously remote forested areas have increased accessibility and
facilitated further habitat destruction, exploitation, and human
settlement (Etter et al. 2006, p. 1; [Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2,042;
C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, pp. 125-130;
Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004, pp. 118-119; Hunter 1996, pp. 158-159).
Illegal Crops and Their Eradication
Illegal drug crops are cultivated within the brown-banded
antpitta's range. In 2003, nearly 80 percent of the heroin entering the
United States came from opium (Papaver somniferum) farms in the
Department of Tolima (Forero and Weiner 2003, p. 1). Cocaine
cultivation occurs in other parts of the species' range. In 2003,
authorities first detected cocaine cultivation in Caldas, traditionally
the center of the Colombian coffee-growing industry; it was estimated
that less than 1 km\2\ of land was under cocaine cultivation (0.54
km\2\ (0.21 mi\2\)). By 2004, cultivation had risen 563 percent,
covering a 36-km\2\ (14-mi\2\) area (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 27). Coca
crops deplete the soil of nutrients, which hampers regeneration
following abandonment of fields (Van Schoik and Schulberg 1993, p. 21).
Drug eradication efforts in Colombia have further degraded and
destroyed primary forest habitat by using nonspecific aerial herbicides
to destroy illegal crops ([Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2,042; BLI 2007d, p.
3; C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham
and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Herbicide spraying has introduced harmful
chemicals into brown-banded antpitta habitat and has led to further
destruction of the habitat by forcing illicit growers to move to new,
previously untouched forested areas ([Aacute]lvarez 2007, pp. 133-143;
BLI 2007d, p. 3; [Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2,042; C[aacute]rdenas and
Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 1,088-
1,093; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Between 1998 and 2002,
cultivation of illicit crops increased by 21 percent each year, with a
concomitant increase in deforestation of formerly pristine areas of
approximately 60 percent ([Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 1,088-1,093).
Refugia
The most important refugia for the brown-banded antpitta include:
(1) Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park, (2) the R[iacute]o Toche Valley, (3)
the R[iacute]o Blanco catchment, and (4) Reserva Departamental del
Ca[ntilde]on del Quind[iacute]o. These refugia are discussed below.
(1) Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park (Risaralda Department) covers an
area of approximately 44 km\2\ (17 mi\2\) in the Ot[uacute]n River
watershed, with elevations ranging from 1,700 to 2,600 m (5,577 to
8,530 ft) (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, pp. 325-326; Kattan et al.
2006, pp. 301-302; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 273). The brown-
banded antpitta prefers habitat within the upper range limits of this
Park, at altitudes between 2,400 and 2,600 m (7,874 and 8,530 ft)
(Krabbe and Schulenberg 2003, p. 719; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999,
p. 272). Most of the forested habitat within the park was cleared in
the 1960s for cattle ranching, leaving the remaining natural forests
only on the steepest slopes (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 273).
Much of the Park has been allowed to naturally regenerate, and
plantations of alder (Alnus acuminata) and ash (Fraxinus chinensis) are
overgrown with natural vegetation (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, p.
369). The Park also contains a small area of private pasturelands
(Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, p. 369), and agricultural expansion,
selective logging, and firewood collection are ongoing in the region
(BLI 2008a, p. 1).
(2) In R[iacute]o Toche Valley (Tolima Department), on the
southeastern slope of Volc[aacute]n Tolima, the brown-banded antpitta
is considered uncommon and local (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p.
326; BLI 2004c, p. 2; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002, p. 238). This
habitat is described as fragmented, and it is estimated that the
natural cover has been reduced by 15 percent at elevations between
1,900 and 3,200 m (6,234 and 10,499 ft). The majority of suitable
habitat is above 2,200 m (7,218 ft) in elevation, and Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n (2002, p. 238) consider it to be of sufficient size to
support a population of brown-banded antpitta, making this an important
area of suitable habitat for the species (p. 327).
(3) R[iacute]o Blanco catchment (Caldas Department) comprises a
strip less than 200 km (124 mi) long on the Central Cordilla, between
2,300 and 3,100 m (7,546 and 10,171 ft) (BLI 2004c, p. 2;
Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, pp. 325, 238). The area is considered
to be of sufficient size to support the species (Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 2002, p. 238). However, the species has been observed at
this location only once, in the year 2000 (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan
2002, p. 328).
(4) Reserva Departamental del Ca[ntilde]on del Quind[iacute]o
(Quind[iacute]o Department): The Department of Conservation and
Management of Alto Quind[iacute]o owns and manages this 56 km\2\ (22
mi\2\) reserve, which ranges in elevation from 2,600 to 4,000 m (ft)
(8,530 to 13,123 ft) (Corporaci[oacute]n Aut[oacute]noma Regional del
Quind[iacute]o 2008). The type locality for the brown-banded antpitta
(Laguneta) is located in the Department of Quind[iacute]o
(Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 325). Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan
(2002, pp. 238, 327) believe that this Reserve comprises habitat
suitable for the brown-banded antpitta (as described under Current
Range, above) and represents an important habitat conservation area for
the species (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 327). However, the
species has not been observed in Quind[iacute]o since 1942
(Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 325; Collar et al. 1992, p. 698)
and is considered to be locally extinct there (Beltr[aacute]n 2002 in
litt., as cited in Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 327).
[[Page 64707]]
Nearly all the other forested habitat below 3,300 m (10,827 ft) in
the Central Andes where the brown-banded antpitta occurred historically
has been deforested and cleared for agricultural land use (BLI 2004c,
p. 2). The remaining forests providing suitable habitat for the brown-
banded antpitta have become fragmented and isolated, and are surrounded
by or being converted to pasture and agricultural crops (e.g., coffee
plantations, potatoes, and beans) (BLI 2004c, p. 2). Approximately 85
percent of forested habitat at altitudes between 1,900 m (6,234 ft) and
3,200 m (10,499 ft) has been converted to other land uses (BLI 2004c,
p. 2; Cuervo 2002, p. 327; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 205). In 1998,
forest conversion within the range of the brown-banded antpitta was
projected to continue (Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 205). Cuervo
(2002, p. 328) estimated that the available suitable habitat for this
species totals no more than 500 km\2\ (310 mi\2\); BirdLife
International estimated that the species currently occupies an area 300
km\2\ (116 mi\2\) in size (BLI 2007f, p. 1).
Deforestation has greatly affected the current population size and
distributional range of the brown-banded antpitta (Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1997, p. 367; Collar et al. 1992, p. 698). The species
was thought to be extinct or on the verge of extinction (Beltr[aacute]n
and Kattan 2002, pp. 326-327; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 367-
369; Collar et al. 1992, p. 689), until its rediscovery in 1994 (Kattan
and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 367-369). The brown-banded antpitta is now
confirmed within three localities, including the Ucumar[iacute]
Regional Park, the R[iacute]o Toche Valley, and the R[iacute]o Blanco
basin. These habitats are characterized as heterogeneous and fragmented
(Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 327; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n
2002, p. 237). The species is considered extirpated from its type
locality (Beltr[aacute]n 2002 in litt., as cited in Beltr[aacute]n and
Kattan, p. 327), despite the existence of suitable habitat
(Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 328), suggesting that the species
is unable to recolonize areas from which it has been extirpated.
Summary of Factor A
The brown-banded antpitta prefers the humid understory and forest
floor habitats of midmontane and cloud forests between 2,400 and 2,600
m (7,874 and 8,530 ft) and has been observed in older (30-year-old)
secondary-growth forest habitats and alder plantations. Habitat
destruction, alteration, conversion, and fragmentation continue to be
factors affecting the brown-banded antpitta. The direct loss of habitat
through widespread deforestation and conversion of primary forests for
human settlement and agricultural uses has led to the habitat
fragmentation throughout the brown-banded antpitta's range. Cultivation
of illegal drug crops, such as cocaine, leads to further deforestation
and alters soil compositions, hindering regeneration of abandoned
fields. In addition, drug eradication programs involving the aerial
spraying of nonspecific herbicides lead to further environmental
degradation and destruction of primary forest habitat. The current
populations are small, very localized, and limited to a narrow
elevational band that contains fragmented, disjunct, and isolated
habitat. The species does not appear capable of recolonizing areas of
suitable habitat that are isolated from extant locations (see Factor E,
Likelihood to Disperse).
Historically, the species was known only in one location, near
Laguneta, which had been reduced to 10 percent of its original
vegetative cover by 1994. Currently, the species' range is estimated to
be 300 km\2\. The destruction and fragmentation of the remaining
primary forested habitat is expected to continue, with ongoing human
encroachment bringing increased population pressures and drug crop
production, along with infrastructural improvements that facilitate
encroachment into previously inaccessible areas. Therefore, we find
that the present destruction, modification, and curtailment of habitat
are a threat to the brown-banded antpitta throughout all of its range.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any information currently available that
addresses the occurrence of overutilization that may be causing a
decline of the brown-banded antpitta. Therefore, we do not consider
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes to be a threat to the brown-banded antpitta.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
We are unaware of information regarding disease or the potential
for significant disease outbreaks in the brown-banded antpitta. As a
result, we do not consider disease to be impacting the status of the
species in the wild.
Both terrestrial and avian predators prey upon antpittas, including
the mountain coati (Nasuella olivacea), tayra (Eira barbara--in the
weasel family), squirrel cuckoo (Piaya cayana), and crimson-rumped
toucanet (Aulacorhynchus haematopygus) (Dobbs et al. 2001, p. 231).
Brown-banded antpittas are a ground-dwelling, nearly flightless species
(Krabbe and Schulenberg 2003, p. 719; Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002,
p. 327). Antpittas generally react nonconfrontationally in response to
potential predators, relying on camouflage as a defense mechanism.
Nesting birds rarely call from atop their nests (Wiedenfeld 1982, p.
580); they rely on their cryptic plumage and remain still to avoid
detection when potential predators approach (Dobbs et al. 2001, pp.
226, 230). As discussed in detail above for the blue-billed curassow
(Factor C, Predation), research on Andean understory nesting birds that
are similar to the ground-dwelling brown-banded antpitta
(Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 327) indicated that predation rates
increase in isolated and fragmented forest habitats, especially smaller
forest patches that facilitate predator access to the understory
(Keyser 2002, p. 186; Renjifo 1999, p. 1,133; Wilcove 1985, p. 1,214;
Keyser et al. 1998, p. 991; Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, p.
138; Hoover et al. 1995, p. 151; Gibbs 1991, p. 157).
Summary of Factor C
Mountain coatis, tayras, squirrel cuckoos, and crimson-rumped
toucanets are known antpitta predators. Predation results in the direct
removal of eggs, juveniles, and adults from the population. The brown-
banded antpitta produces a low clutch size (see Habitat and Life
History), and predation can remove potentially reproductive adults from
the breeding pool. Moreover, habitat fragmentation has occurred and is
ongoing throughout the brown-banded antpitta's range (Factor A).
Studies on similar species in similar Andean habitats indicate that
vulnerability to predation increases with increased habitat
fragmentation and smaller patch sizes. The brown-banded antpitta does
not have sophisticated antipredator response mechanisms, making this
species particularly vulnerable to an increased risk of predation.
Predation exacerbates the genetic complications associated with the
species' small population size (Factor E). Because of the species'
small population size and inability to recolonize isolated habitat
fragments (Factor E), predation renders the species vulnerable to local
extirpation. Therefore, we find that predation, exacerbated by ongoing
habitat destruction (Factor A), is a threat to the brown-banded
antpitta.
[[Page 64708]]
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms may provide species-specific or habitat-
specific protections. An evaluation of the adequacy of regulatory
mechanisms within Colombia to mitigate or remove the threats to the
brown-banded antpitta is provided below, beginning with species-
specific and followed by habitat-specific protection mechanisms.
Colombia has enacted numerous laws to protect species and their
habitats (Matallana-T 2005, p. 121). The brown-banded antpitta is
listed as an endangered species under Colombian Law 99 of 1993 (EcoLex
1993, p. 2) and Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (EcoLex 2002, pp. 10, 12). A
full description of these laws and the categorization of threatened
species in Colombia were provided above, as part of the Factor D
analysis for the blue-billed curassow. This threat status confers
protections upon the species, including protection from commercial take
under Resolution No. 849 of 1973 and Resolution No. 787 of 1977 (EcoLex
1977, p. 3; EcoLex 1973, p. 1). Hunting is not a threat to this
species. Therefore, this law is not effective at reducing the primary
threat to the species--habitat destruction.
Colombia has enacted numerous forestry laws and forestry management
practices (Law No. 2 (EcoLex 1959); Decree No. 2,811 (Faolex 1974);
Decree No. 1,791 (Faolex 1996); Law No. 1,021 (EcoLex 2006)).
Weaknesses in the implementation of these laws and the decentralized
nature of Colombian resource management are described in detail above
for the blue-billed curassow (Factor D) (ITTO 2006, pp. 218-219, 222;
Matallana-T 2005, pp. 121-122). The brown-banded antpitta ranges in
multiple Departments (currently known in Risaralda, Caldas, and
Tolima), all of which are administered by different autonomous
corporations. Habitat destruction, the primary threat to the brown-
banded antpitta, is ongoing throughout the species' range (Factor A).
The lack of a national conservation strategy for the brown-banded
antpitta, combined with decentralized natural resource management in
Colombia, may hamper conservation of the brown-banded antpitta. The
existing laws and the decentralized nature of forestry management are
ineffective at protecting the brown-banded antpitta and its habitat
even within protected areas (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183).
Colombia has several categories of national habitat protection
(Matallana-T 2005, pp. 121-122), which were described above, as part of
the Factor D analysis for the blue-billed curassow (Matallana-T 2005,
pp. 121-122). Of the four areas identified as refugia for the brown-
banded antpitta, two are considered protected areas under Colombian
law: (1) The Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park and (2) Reserva del
Ca[ntilde]on del Quind[iacute]o.
(1) The Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park (Risaralda Department) is
managed by the Corporaci[oacute]n Aut[oacute]noma Regional de Risaralda
(CARDER) (BLI 2008a, p. 3), with the primary goals of conservation and
ecotourism. The Park is managed for multiple uses, including
agriculture and cattle grazing (BLI 2008a, p. 1), and includes
recreation and commercial areas for activities such as camping and
freshwater fishing (CARDER 1995, pp. 3-4). According to the management
plan for the Park that was instituted in 1995, recreational and
commercial activities are permitted only when they do not significantly
alter the environment (CARDER 1995, pp. 3-4). However, according to
BirdLife International (2008a, p. 3), there has been little in the way
of conservation planning, and the habitat within the protected area
continues to undergo pressures from agricultural expansion, firewood
collection, and selective cutting. Consequently, the threat from
habitat destruction (Factor A) is not reduced or ameliorated.
(2) Reserva del Ca[ntilde]on del Quind[iacute]o (Quind[iacute]o
Department) is managed by the Corporaci[oacute]n Aut[oacute]noma
Regional del Quind[iacute]o (2008, p. 1). According to the management
plan for the Department of Quind[iacute]o (www.crq.gov.co/documentos/
PAT_CRQ_2007_2009.pdf), between 2007 and 2009, forestry planning
commenced for the entire Department with the goal of completing forest
plans for four different areas within the Department by the end of
2009. However we are unaware of any information indicating that this
planning process has been completed, or what protections may exist for
brown-banded antpitta habitat within this Reserve. Moreover, as
discussed under Factor A, although this Reserve contains suitable
habitat for the brown-banded antpitta (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002,
p. 328), there are no known populations of the brown-banded antpitta
within this Reserve (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 325; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 698). Therefore, the threat from habitat destruction
(Factor A) is not reduced or ameliorated within this area.
Summary of Factor D
Colombia has numerous laws and regulatory mechanisms to administer
and manage wildlife and their habitats. The brown-banded antpitta is
listed as endangered under Colombian law and lives within forested or
protected areas that are regulated by law. However, on-the-ground
enforcement of existing wildlife protection and forestry laws and
oversight of the local jurisdictions implementing and regulating
activities are ineffective at mitigating the primary threat to the
brown-banded antpitta. As discussed for Factor A, habitat destruction,
degradation, and fragmentation continue throughout the existing range
of the brown-banded antpitta. Under Colombian law, there are two
protected areas containing suitable habitat for the brown-banded
antpitta. The species is known to occur in only one of these areas,
wherein resources are managed for commercial and recreational uses.
Conservation planning within both areas is lacking, so that the
existence of these protected areas does not mitigate the threat of
habitat loss. Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms currently in place are inadequate to mitigate the primary
threats to the brown-banded antpitta.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Two additional factors affect the brown-banded antpitta: Its
likelihood to disperse and small population size.
Likelihood To Disperse
The brown-banded antpitta exhibits several characteristics
indicative of its vulnerability to local extirpation and inability to
recolonize previously inhabited locations, despite the presence of
suitable habitat. This ground-dwelling species (Beltr[aacute]n and
Kattan 2002, p. 327) has a high territorial fidelity and, although
dispersal capabilities are not well-known (Cuervo 2002, p. 327), except
those in the banding study by Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n (2002, p. 234),
the farthest known distance traveled by any one individual bird was
0.041 km\2\ (0.02 mi\2\). This suggests that the brown-banded antpitta
is unable to repopulate an isolated patch of suitable habitat following
decline or local extirpation of that patch (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p.
7; Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46). The local extirpation of this species from
its type locality in Laguneta, Quind[iacute]o (Beltr[aacute]n and
Kattan 2002, p. 327), and the lack of recolonization despite the
existence of suitable habitat in the Ca[ntilde]on del Quind[iacute]o
Reserve, support the hypothesis that the species may be incapable of
dispersing to suitable habitat fragments without human intervention. To
the best of our knowledge, there are no recovery or
[[Page 64709]]
reintroduction programs in place for this species.
Small Population Size
There have been few quantitative studies of brown-banded antpitta
populations. A total of 48 individuals have been directly observed at 2
locations (Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park and R[iacute]o Toche) (Cuervo
in litt., as cited in Beltr[aacute]n 2002 p. 326; Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 2002, pp. 232-233; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p.
276; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 367-369), 30 have been
inferred at 1 location (R[iacute]o Blanco) (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan
2002, p. 326), and up to 106 have been predicted to occur in 1
subpopulation within the brown-banded antpitta's current range
(Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park) (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002, pp.
232-233; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 276; Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 367-369). From work at Ucumar[iacute] Regional
Park, Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p.
276; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 367-369) predicted a
population density of approximately 1.3 individuals per .01 km\2\
(0.004 mi\2\).
The IUCN has estimated the brown-banded antpitta's total population
size to be more than 250 and fewer than 999 adult individuals in a 300-
km\2\ (116-mi\2\) area (BLI 2007f, p. 1). However, this is a
categorical approximation based on the following extrapolation: An
expected average of 2.5 to 5.6 individuals per square kilometer
multiplied by 45 percent of the extent of occurrence (300 km\2\) (116
mi\2\) (BLI 2007f, p. 1), leading to estimated population numbers
between 338 and 756 individuals (BLI 2007f, p. 4). While this density
is well within Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n's (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n
1999, p. 276; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 367-369) predicted
population density of 1.3 individuals per .01 km\2\ (116 mi\2\), it
should be noted that extrapolating population sizes based on the
availability of suitable habitat may result in an overestimate for the
brown-banded antpitta for several reasons: (1) The species may not be
randomly distributed within the given habitat; (2) extrapolation does
not take into account human-induced threats, such as disturbance or
hunting; and (3) not all individuals within the population are breeding
at any one time, so that the actual number of individuals contributing
to population growth will be a smaller number than the total number of
individuals.
In a review by Jetz et al. (2008, p. 110) of 1,158 well-studied
bird species in Australia, North America, and southern Africa, Jetz et
al. (2008, p. 115) found that most species occurred in only 40-70
percent of the predicted range. They further noted that narrow-ranging
species, such as the brown-banded antpitta, are particularly subject to
population size overestimation, because they are unlikely to be
randomly distributed within the habitat (Jetz et al. 2008, p. 116).
Moreover, at-risk species, existing in declining, fragmented
populations (as is the case for the brown-banded antpitta), are often
absent from suitable but suboptimal habitat, thus exacerbating range
overestimates (Jetz et al. 2008, p. 115). For instance, although
suitable habitat exists in the species' type locality (Laguneta) in the
Ca[ntilde]on del Quind[iacute]o Reserve, the species has not been
observed there since 1942 and is considered extirpated from this
locality (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 327; Collar et al. 1992,
p. 698). Thus, the species appears to be incapable of repopulating
suitable habitat on its own accord (Jetz et al. 2008, p. 115;
Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 328) and the existence of suitable
habitat does not connote the presence of the species.
This conclusion is supported by Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan (2002, p.
328), who noted that, out of a potential habitat of 855 km\2\ (330
mi\2\), the species did not occupy two of the seven historical
localities, prompting them to reduce the estimated area of occupancy to
no more than 500 km\2\. Thus, ground-truthing is essential to accurate
population-size estimations. The IUCN is reviewing this situation to
improve upon conservation assessments (Jetz et al. 2008, p. 117), and
although it may be an overestimate, the figure ranging from 338 to 756
individuals represents the best information on population size.
Based on genetic considerations, in the absence of quantitative
studies specific to this species, a generally accepted approximation of
minimum viable population size is described by the 50/500 rule (Shaffer
1981, p. 133; Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 160-162). According to this rule,
the minimum viable population size is defined as the minimum number of
individuals that is sufficient to respond over time to unexpected
environmental conditions within the species' habitat (Shaffer 1981, pp.
132-133; Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 160-162). This rule states that an
effective population size (Ne) of 50 individuals is the
minimum size required to avoid imminent risks from inbreeding.
Ne represents the number of animals in a population that
actually contribute to reproduction, and is often much smaller than the
census, or total number of individuals in the population (N).
Furthermore, the rule states that the long-term fitness of a population
requires a Ne of at least 500 individuals, so that it will
not lose its genetic diversity over time and will maintain an enhanced
capacity to adapt to changing conditions. Therefore, an analysis of the
fitness of this population would be a good indicator of the species'
overall survivability. The available information for 2007 indicates
that the total global population of the brown-banded antpitta may range
between 338 and 756 individuals (BLI 2007f, p. 4); 338 is above the
minimum effective population size required to avoid risks from
inbreeding (Ne = 50), and 756 is above the upper threshold
for long-term fitness (Ne = 500).
Given that the global population size is a qualitative assessment
that may be an overestimate, that the actual number of breeding pairs
is unknown but smaller than this number, and that the species exists in
subpopulations that are unlikely to disperse into other locations, it
is beneficial to analyze the fitness of the subpopulations that have
been quantitatively assessed. The best-studied subpopulation is located
within the Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park. A total of 47 individuals have
been directly observed, and researchers estimate that the area may
support as many as 106 individuals (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002, pp.
232-233; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 276; Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 367-369). Forty-seven is just below the
minimum effective population size required to avoid risks from
inbreeding (Ne = 50 individuals). Moreover, the upper
estimate of 106 individuals (not all of which will be reproducing) is
approximately one-fifth of the upper threshold (Ne = 500
individuals) required for long-term fitness of a population that will
not lose its genetic diversity over time and will maintain an enhanced
capacity to adapt to changing conditions. Therefore, we currently
consider the species to be at risk due to the lack of near- and long-
term viability.
Small population sizes render species vulnerable to genetic risks
that can have individual or population-level consequences on the
genetic level and can increase the species' susceptibility to
demographic problems, as explained in more detail above for the blue-
billed curassow (Factor E, Small Population Size) (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Once a population is
reduced below a certain number of individuals, it tends to rapidly
decline toward extinction (Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; Soul[eacute]
1987, p. 181; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 25; Franklin 1980, pp.
147-148).
The brown-banded antpitta's restricted range, combined with its
small population size (Cuervo 2002, p. 138; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p.
7; del
[[Page 64710]]
Hoyo 1994, p. 361) and low prospect for dispersal (BLI 2004c, p. 2;
Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002, p. 326; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002,
p. 238; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Kattan
and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, pp. 369-370; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999,
p. 273) makes the species particularly vulnerable to the threat of
adverse natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or stochastic) and manmade
(e.g., habitat alteration and destruction) events that destroy
individuals and their habitats (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, pp.
185-190; Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; Young and Clarke 2000, pp. 361-366;
Primack 1998, pp. 279-308;).
Summary of Factor E
The brown-banded antpitta's small population size increases its
vulnerability to genetic risks associated with small population sizes
that negatively impact the species' long-term viability and increase
the possibility of localized extirpations of the remaining fragmented
populations. Further, the species is unlikely to repopulate areas of
suitable habitat from which it has been locally extirpated because it
exhibits high territorial fidelity and has never repopulated suitable
existing habitat within the Department of Quind[iacute]o, where the
species' type locality (Laguneta) is located and the species has not
been observed since 1942. Consequently, we believe that, in combination
with the risks to the species from habitat destruction (Factor A) and
predation (Factor C), the brown-banded antpitta is vulnerable to
localized extirpation or extinction from which the species would be
unable to recover, due to its small population size and apparent
inability to repopulate fragmented, isolated habitats such as that
currently present within this species' range.
Brown-Banded Antpitta Status Determination
The four primary factors that threaten the survival of the brown-
banded antpitta are: (1) Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and
degradation (Factor A); (2) predation (Factor C); (3) inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms to reduce the threats to the species (Factor D);
and (4) small population size and isolation of remaining populations
(Factor E).
The direct loss of habitat through widespread deforestation and
conversion of primary forests to human settlement and agricultural uses
has led to the fragmentation of habitat throughout the range of the
brown-banded antpitta and isolation of the remaining populations. The
species has been locally extirpated in its type locality and has
experienced a 55 percent reduction of suitable habitat, and its range
is estimated to be 300 km\2\ (116 mi\2\).
Brown-banded antpittas are vulnerable to predation by mountain
coatis, tayras, squirrel cuckoos, and crimson-rumped toucanets (Factor
C). Habitat fragmentation (Factor A) contributes to this vulnerability,
because research indicates that predation increases with increased
habitat fragmentation and smaller patch sizes. Predation leads to the
direct removal of eggs, juveniles, and adults from the population,
exacerbating risks associated with the species' small population size
and the risk of local extirpation (Factor E). Brown-banded antpittas,
as with other antpittas, produce a low clutch size (see Habitat and
Life History), and predation can destroy pair bonds and remove
potentially reproductive adults from the breeding pool.
The threats from habitat destruction (Factor A) and predation
(Factor C) are compounded by the species' small population size (Factor
E). The brown-banded antpitta has undergone a population decline that
is closely associated with a reduction in range caused by habitat
destruction (Factor A). The brown-banded antpitta's small population
size of between 338 and 756 individuals is likely to be an overestimate
based on the fact that population sizes for narrow-ranging species are
typically overestimated when based on extent of occurrence. The
species' subpopulations, one of which is estimated to include only 46
to 106 individuals, are isolated from each other. The species'
confirmed absence from suitable habitat within its historic range,
combined with the species' high territorial fidelity, suggests that the
species is incapable of repopulating suitable habitat without human
intervention. We are unaware of any reintroduction or recovery programs
for this species. The species' small population size increases its
vulnerability to natural and human factors (e.g., genetic isolation,
agricultural development, increased human settlement, and road
development) that could lead to local extirpation, which the species
has already experienced in its type locality due to habitat
destruction. Within the last three generations, or 10 years, the brown-
banded antpitta has undergone up to a 9 percent reduction in population
size and, at the current level of habitat destruction, this rate of
decline is projected to continue over the next 10 years. Below a
certain number, species' populations are unable to recover and, given
the small number and isolated nature of existing brown-banded antpitta
populations, such reductions in numbers could lead to extinction of the
brown-banded antpitta.
Although Colombia has adopted numerous laws and regulatory
mechanisms to administer and manage wildlife and their habitats, on-
the-ground enforcement of these laws and oversight of the local
jurisdictions implementing and regulating activities are inadequate to
address the primary threat to this species, which is habitat loss
(Factor A). Several populations of brown-banded antpitta are within
sanctuaries or preserves; however, habitat destruction and hunting
continues within these areas, and regulations are not uniformly
enforced, monitoring is limited, and management plans are not developed
or implemented, resulting in ineffective protective measures for
conservation of the species.
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the brown-banded antpitta. We consider the
ongoing threats to the brown-banded antpitta, habitat destruction
(Factor A) and predation (Factor C), exacerbated by the species' small
population size and limited dispersal ability (Factor E), and
compounded by inadequate regulatory mechanisms to mitigate these
threats (Factor D), to be equally present and of the same magnitude
throughout the species' entire current range. Based on this
information, we find that the brown-banded antpitta is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Cauca Guan (Penelope perspicax) Biology and Distribution
Species Description
The Cauca guan, a member of the Cracid family, is endemic to the
central and western slopes of the Andes of Colombia (Delacour and
Amadon 2004, pp. 133-135; Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 13; Hilty and
Brown 1986, p. 125). It is a large bird, measuring approximately 76 cm
(30 in) in length (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 125). The species is
locally known as ``Pava Caucana'' (Rios et al. 2006, p. 17; Renjifo
2002, p. 124). The Cauca guan is described as a ``drab'' brown-gray,
with a chestnut-colored rear part and tail, and a bright red dewlap (a
flap of skin hanging beneath its lower jaw) (BLI 2007h, p. 1).
Taxonomy
The Cauca guan was first taxonomically described by Bangs in
[[Page 64711]]
1911 and placed in the Cracidae family (BLI 2007h, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
The Cauca guan has been observed in mature tropical humid forests
and in fragmented secondary forests, forest edges, and plantations of
the exotic Chinese ash (Fraxinus chinensis) trees that are located
within 1 km (0.62 mi) of primary forest (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299;
Rios et al. 2006, pp. 17-18; Renjifo 2002, p. 127). Older reports
indicate that the species once inhabited dry forests in the Cauca,
Pat[iacute]a, and Dagua River valleys (Renjifo 2002, p. 126). The Cauca
guan requires large territories for foraging (Kattan 2004, p. 11), but
today is relegated mostly to small forest fragments (Kattan et al.
2006, p. 301). This species, as with other guans, tends to aggregate
within its habitat, generally based on resource availability. For
instance, Cauca guans tend to congregate around fruit trees at certain
times of year. Thus, depending on the time of year, improper sampling
might tend to overestimate or underestimate the population (Kattan et
al. 2006, p. 305). Cauca guans are reportedly timid in the presence of
humans (Rios et al. 2006, p. 21).
Cauca guans feed mostly on fruit and leaves (including those of the
nonnative Chinese ash trees) and occasionally on invertebrates and
flowers (Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006, p. 49; Rios et al. 2006, pp. 17-18;
Renjifo 2002, p. 127). Although primarily terrestrial, the species is
occasionally found in the upper stories of forests obtaining food.
Because fruit availability within a forest is spatially and temporally
variable, guans must undergo regional movements in pursuit of fruiting
plants. The species is usually found singly, in pairs, or in groups of
up to six individuals. The largest recorded gathering of Cauca guans
was 30 individuals (Rios et al. 2006, p. 16). There are two breeding
seasons coinciding with the rainy seasons, one at the beginning of the
year and another in August (Rios et al. 2006, p. 17). Nests are
circular cups made of leaves and small branches (Renjifo 2002, p. 127),
and the typical clutch size is two eggs, which is considered low. Guans
remain paired during the breeding period and until chicks are 1 year in
age; this is considered a long fledging period (Rios et al. 2006, p.
17). Cracids are also slow to reproduce, with a replacement rate of at
least 6 years (Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 50).
Historical Range and Distribution
The Cauca guan's historical distribution included the east slopes
of the West Andes and the Cauca, Pat[iacute]a, and Dagua Valleys, in
the Departments of Cauca, Quind[iacute]o, Risaralda, and Valle de
Cauca. The historic range is estimated to have been approximately
24,900 km\2\ (9,614 mi\2\) (Renjifo 2002, p. 128). In the early part of
the 20th Century, the Cauca guan inhabited the dry forests of the
Cauca, Dagua, and Pat[iacute]a Valleys (Renjifo 2002, p. 128). The
Cauca Valley lies between the central and western Andes and spans the
Departments of Cauca, Valle de Cauca, Quind[iacute]o, and Risaralda
(WWF 2001a, p. 1). The Dagua Valley lies on the Pacific side of the
western Andes, in Valle de Cauca; it is described as an isolated valley
of dry forest that changes in elevation from 400 to 2,000 m (1,312 to
6,562 ft) and is surrounded at upper elevations by humid forest to the
west and cloud forest to the north, south, and east (Silva 2003, p. 4).
The Pat[iacute]a Valley lies between the central and western Andes in
the Department of Cauca, in southwestern Colombia; it has a mean
altitude of 600-900 m (1,969-2,953 ft) (WWF 2001c, p. 1). This area was
once covered in wetlands, humid forests, and dry forests. Today, most
of the dry forests have been eliminated and highly fragmented, such
that continuous forest exists only above 2,000 m (6,562 ft) (Renjifo
2002, p. 128).
From the beginning of the 20th Century through the 1950s, the
species was considered common (BLI 2007h, p. 1; Renjifo 2002, p. 126).
Between the 1970s and 1980s, there was extensive deforestation in the
Cauca Valley, and the species went unobserved during this time, leading
researchers to suspect that the Cauca guan was either extinct or on the
verge of extinction (Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 14; del Hoyo 1994, pp.
337, 349; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 125; Hilty 1985, p. 1,004). The
species was rediscovered in 1987 (Renjifo 2002, p. 124).
Current Range and Distribution
Today, the Cauca guan inhabits the eastern and western slopes of
the West and Central Andes Mountain ranges, in the Departments of
Cauca, Quind[iacute]o, Risaralda, and Valle de Cauca (BLI 2007h, p. 1;
Kattan et al. 2006, pp. 299, 301; Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-126). Since
1987, most observations of this species have been at elevations ranging
from 1,400 to 2,000 m (4,593 to 6,562 ft) (Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125),
with an occasional sighting at altitudes well below (i.e., 816 m (2,677
ft)) or well above (i.e., 2,690 m (8,825 ft)) this altitudinal range
(Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006, p. 54; Rios et al. 2006, p. 17; Renjifo
2002, pp. 124-125). The Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park is considered the
stronghold of the species (BLI 2007h, p. 1) (see Population Estimates).
The habitat consists primarily of forest fragments, and although
continuous cover remains at elevations above 2,000 m (6,562 ft) (Kattan
et al. 2006, p. 303), researchers have not ascertained whether the
species inhabits these higher-altitude contiguous forest areas (Renjifo
2002, p. 129). The current range of the species totals less than 750
km\2\ (290 mi\2\), of which only 560 km\2\ (216 mi\2\) is considered
suitable habitat (BLI 2007h, p. 1; Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299; Rios et
al. 2006, p. 17).
Population Estimates
Cauca guan populations are characterized as small, ranging from
only tens of individuals or, in rare instances, hundreds (Renjifo 2002,
p. 12). BirdLife International reported that the largest subpopulation
contained an estimated 50 to 249 individuals; however, they do not
specify to which population this refers, and these figures are not
found in any of the other literature regarding population surveys of
the Cauca guan. Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park has been considered the
stronghold of the species (BLI 2007h, p. 1). Sixteen individuals were
counted in 1990, and the species was characterized as ``common'' in
plantations in 1994-1995 (Wege and Long 1995, p. 141). Since then,
there have been scant sightings of Cauca guan there (Renjifo 2002, p.
125; Wege and Long 1995, p. 141), including the observation of one
individual in the Park in 2004 (Scanlon 2004, pp. 1-3). There have been
no population surveys within the Park to determine the species' current
population size therein.
Munchique National Natural Park (Cauca) is considered to be the
most important locality for this species in the southern portion of its
range because of the extensive remaining forest habitat, although
habitat destruction is ongoing there (see Factor A). The species was
last recorded in Munchique in 1987, but has not been confirmed there
since (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 305; Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006, p. 54;
Salaman in litt. 1999, 2000, as cited in BLI 2007h, p. 2).
Kattan et al. (2006, p. 302) conducted the only two population
surveys in 2000 and 2001 (Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006 p. 55). They
estimated population densities at two locations, Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya
Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (Risaralda) and Reserva Forestal de Yotoco
(Valle de Cauca), to be 144-264 individuals and 35-61 individuals,
respectively (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 304). Kattan et al. (2006, p. 302)
also examined 10 additional localities, based on locality data reported
by Renjifo (2002, pp. 124-125). Visual confirmations were made at only
[[Page 64712]]
2 of the 10 localities (Reserva La Sirena and Chorro de Plata, both in
the Department of Valle de Cauca), where the extent and occurrence of
the populations have yet to be determined (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 303).
Auditory confirmations were made at 5 of the 10 localities, including:
La Zulia, Chicoral, Las Brisas, San Antonio, and Planes de San Rafael
(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 302).
In 2006, Kattan (in litt., as cited in Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006 p.
55) estimated the global population to be between 196 and 342
individuals. The IUCN has placed the Cauca guan in the population
category ranging from 250 to no more than 1,000 (BLI 2007h, pp. 1, 3).
Overall, the population is considered to be in decline (BLI 2007h, p.
2; Kattan 2004, p. 6; Renjifo 2002, p. 129).
Conservation Status
The Cauca guan is listed as endangered under Colombian law (EcoLex
2002, p. 12). The IUCN categorizes the species as `Endangered' due to
its small, contracted range composed of widely fragmented patches of
habitat (BLI 2004e, p. 1).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Cauca Guan
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Habitat or Range
Historically, Cauca guans were considered common (BLI 2007h, p. 1;
Renjifo 2002, p. 126). They inhabited the eastern slopes of the west
Andes and the dry forests of the Cauca, Dagua, and Pat[iacute]a
Valleys, in the Departments of Cauca, Quind[iacute]o, and Valle del
Cauca (Renjifo 2002, p. 124) (see Historical Distribution, above), in a
range extending over approximately 24,900 km\2\ (9,614 mi\2\).
Extensive habitat destruction and fragmentation since the 1950s has
resulted in an estimated 95 percent range reduction (Chapman 1917, p.
195; Collar et al. 1992, p. 126; Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299; Renjifo
2002, pp. 126-127; Rios et al. 2006, p. 17). As a result, although it
prefers mature tropical humid forests, the Cauca guan exists primarily
in fragmented and isolated secondary forest remnants, forest edges, and
in feral plantations of the exotic Chinese ash trees that are located
within 1 km (0.62 mi) of primary forest (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299;
Renjifo 2002, p. 127; Rios et al. 2006, pp. 17-18). Its current range
is estimated to be less than 750 km\2\ (290 mi\2\), of which only 560
km\2\ (216 mi\2\) is considered suitable habitat (BLI 2007h, p. 2;
Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299; Rios et al. 2006, p. 17). It is estimated
that more than 30 percent of this loss of habitat has occurred within
the last three generations, or 30 years (Renjifo 2002, p. 129).
Deforestation
Colombia has experienced extensive deforestation in the last half
of the 20th Century as a result of habitat conversion for human
settlements, road building, agriculture, and timber extraction. A 23-
year study, from 1973 to 1996, demonstrated that these activities
reduced the amount of primary forest cover in Colombia by approximately
3,605 ha (8,908 ac) annually, representing a nearly one-third total
loss of primary forest habitat (Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004, pp. 123-124).
Beginning in the 1980s, habitat loss increased dramatically as a result
of influxes of people settling in formerly pristine areas (Perz et al.
2005, pp. 26-28; Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004, p. 124). More recent studies
indicate that the rate of habitat destruction is accelerating. During
the period 1990-2005, Colombia lost approximately 52,800 ha (130,471
ac) of primary forest annually (Butler 2006a, pp. 1-3; FAO 2003a, p.
1). These studies and activities are described in greater detail under
Factor A for the blue-billed curassow, above.
Human-induced deforestation and environmental degradation have
caused the Cauca guan to shift its range and elevational distribution
to the few remaining forest remnants. The Cauca guan was once
considered to occur only on the eastern slopes of the West Andes and
Cauca, Pat[iacute]a, and Dagua Valleys (Renjifo 2002, p. 128). Today,
the species occurs on the western slopes of the central and western
Andes of Colombia (BLI 2007h, p. 1; Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299;
Delacour and Amadon 2004, p. 135; Renjifo 2002, p. 124). During the
latter half of the 20th Century, much of the lower-elevation forests in
the R[iacute]o Cauca Valley, where the species was observed most often
between 1937 and 1963, were deforested (Renjifo 2002, p. 124). Habitat
destruction and alteration in the sub-Andean slopes around the Cauca,
Dagua, and Pat[iacute]a Valleys has left only a few hundred hectares
(100 hectares = 1 km\2\ = 0.39 mi\2\) of isolated, small, fragmented
forest remnants, and the Cauca guan is absent from most of these
fragments (Renjifo 2002, p. 128). The species has been extirpated from
the Cauca and Dagua Valleys, but may still exist in patches within the
Pat[iacute]a Valley (Renjifo 2002, p. 128). Beginning in 1989, the
species was observed several times in the Department of Risaralda, in
an area and at elevations that were not part of the species' historic
range, but represent the extreme fringe of its former range (Renjifo
2002, pp. 124-125).
Habitat destruction and alteration, in addition to shifting the
species to the fringes of its former range, have caused the Cauca guan
to shift in its altitudinal distribution (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p.
8). Nearly all the forested habitat below 3,300 m (10,827 ft) in the
Central Andes, where the Cauca guan occurs today, has been deforested
and cleared for agricultural land use, such as pasture, coffee
plantations, potatoes, and beans (BLI 2004c, p. 2). Approximately 85
percent of forested habitat at altitudes between 1,900 m (6,234 ft) and
3,200 m (10,499 ft) has been converted to other land uses (BLI 2004c,
p. 2; Cuervo 2002, p. 327; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 205). By 1994,
in Quind[iacute]o, extensive deforestation at elevations between 1,800
and 2,600 m (5,905 and 8,530 ft) led to the destruction of much of the
Cauca guan's preferred habitat of mature humid forests (Collar et al.
1994, p. 136). Prior to the species' rediscovery in 1987, its
altitudinal range was between 1,300 and 2,100 m (4,265 and 6,890 ft)
(del Hoyo 1994, p. 349; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 125), with occasional
sightings at lower elevations in the Pat[iacute]a Valley (between 642
and 650 m (2,106 and 2,133 ft) (Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125; Hilty and
Brown 1986, p. 125).
Since 1987, the Cauca guan has been observed only in the remaining
and much-restricted forest remnants of the following Departments: Cauca
(in the years 1987, 1989, and 1992), Quind[iacute]o (1995-1997),
Risaralda (1989, 1995-1997, 2000, 2001), and Valle de Cauca (1988,
1999, 2000) (Delacour and Amadon 2004, p. 135; Kattan et al. 2006, p.
299; Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125). Renjifo (2002, pp. 124-125) provided
detailed observation records indicating that reports since 1987 ranged
in altitude between one sighting at 900 m (2,953 ft) in the
Pat[iacute]a Valley in 1992, and the rest between 1,350 and 2,690 m
(4,429 and 8,825 ft). In 2006, Mu[ntilde]oz et al. (2006, p. 54)
reported the species' range as being between 1,200 and 2,600 m (3,937
and 8,530 ft), and Rios et al. (2006, p. 17) reported the species'
range as 1,000-2,500 m (3,281-8,202 ft). These ranges are consistent
with recent observations of the species. Kattan et al. (2006, pp. 299,
301) reported its range as 1,000-2,000 m (3,281-6,562 ft), noting that
recent sightings at higher elevations demonstrated that the species has
shifted its altitudinal range, as deforestation throughout much of
Cauca, Dagua, and Pat[iacute]a Valley has left only isolated forest
fragments remaining at elevations below 2,000 m (6,562 ft).
[[Page 64713]]
Although continuous cover remains in some locations above 2,000 m
(6,562 ft) (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 303), researchers are uncertain
whether the species inhabits these areas (Renjifo 2002, p. 129). The
midmontane and cloud forests in the Department of Risaralda, where this
species was observed as recently as the year 2000 (Renjifo 2002, p.
124), continue to undergo deforestation (Dolphijn 2005, p. 2). In
Cauca, timber extraction and mining are ongoing (Urue[ntilde]a et al.
2006, p. 42). Deforestation and habitat alteration are ongoing
throughout the Cauca guan's limited range of 560 km\2\ (216 mi\2\).
Illegal Crops and Their Eradication
Cocaine and opium have been cultivated throughout the Cauca guan's
range. The cultivation of illegal crops (including coca and opium) in
Colombia destroys montane forests (Balslev 1993, p. 3). Coca production
destroys the soil quality by causing the soil to become more acidic,
which depletes the soil nutrients and ultimately impedes the regrowth
of secondary forests in abandoned fields (Van Schoik and Schulberg
1993, p. 21). As of 2004, the estimated total amount of land under
cultivation for cocaine equaled 80,000 ha (197,683 ac); 4,000 ha (9,884
ac) of land are under opium cultivation (UNODC et al. 2007, pp. 7-8).
These figures include habitat within the Cauca guan's range. Between
2003 and 2004, cocaine cultivation areas decreased from 1,445 to 1,266
ha (3,571 to 3,128 ac) in Cauca, and increased 22 percent from 37 ha
(91 ac) to 45 ha (111 ac) in Valle de Cauca (UNODC and GOC 2005, p.
15). At the same time, opium cultivation decreased in Cauca from 600 ha
(1,483 ac) to 450 ha (1,112 ac) (UNODC 2005, p. 50).
Colombia continues to be the leading coca bush producer (UNODC et
al. 2007, p. 7). However, since 2003, cocaine cultivation has remained
stable at about 800 km\2\ (309 mi\2\) of land under cultivation (UNODC
et al. 2007, p. 8). This is attributed, in part, to the implementation
of alternative development projects, which encourage people to pursue
alternative vocations to planting illegal crops (UNODC et al. 2007, p.
77). In 2004, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the
Government of Colombia reported that no coca had been cultivated in the
Departments of Quind[iacute]o and Risaralda since the year 2000 (UNODC
and GOC 2005, p. 48). This was attributed to alternative development
programs being implemented between 1999 and 2007, for which US$200,000
was provided to Quind[iacute]o and US$800,000 to Risaralda (UNODC and
GOC 2005, p. 48). During the same period, at least US$12.1 million was
spent in alternative development programs in Cauca, where coca
production decreased, and another 1.6 million was spent in Valle de
Cauca, where coca production increased (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 48).
This stabilization of the amount of land under cultivation for
illegal drug crops is also attributed to heightened eradication
efforts. Between 2002 and 2004, aerial spraying occurred over more than
1,300 km\2\ (502 mi\2\) annually, peaking in 2004, when 1,360 km\2\
(525 mi\2\) of illicit crops were sprayed (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 11).
In 2006, eradication efforts were undertaken on over 2,130 km\2\ (822
mi\2\) of land, consisting of 1,720 km\2\ (664 mi\2\) of land being
sprayed and manual eradication being used on the remaining land.
Eradication efforts undertaken in 2006 occurred over an area
representing 2.7 times more land than the net cultivation area (UNODC
et al. 2007, p. 8). In Cauca alone, 1,811 ha (4,475 ac) of coca fields
and 435 ha (1,075 ac) of opium fields were sprayed or manually
eradicated in 2004 (UNODC 2005, p. 66).
Drug eradication efforts in Colombia have further degraded and
destroyed primary forest habitat by using nonspecific aerial herbicides
to destroy illegal crops (BLI 2007d, p. 3; [Aacute]lvarez 2005, p.
2,042; C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355;
Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Herbicide spraying has introduced
harmful chemicals into Cauca guan habitat and has led to further
destruction of the habitat by forcing illicit growers to move to new,
previously untouched forested areas ([Aacute]lvarez 2007, pp. 133-143;
BLI 2007d, p. 3; [Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2,042; C[aacute]rdenas and
Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-
12; [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 1,088-1,093). Between 1998 and 2002,
cultivation of illicit crops increased 21 percent each year, with a
concomitant increase in deforestation of formerly pristine areas of
approximately 60 percent ([Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 1,088-1,093).
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation
The Cauca guan requires large territories for foraging (Kattan
2004, p. 11), but today is relegated mostly to small forest fragments
(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 301), making it more susceptible to habitat
disturbance, further fragmentation, and destruction from human activity
(Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 10; Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 38).
An analysis of the effects of habitat fragmentation on Andean birds
within western Colombia established that 31 percent of the historical
bird populations in western Colombia had become extinct or locally
extirpated by 1990, largely as a result of habitat fragmentation from
deforestation caused by human encroachment (Kattan and [Aacute]lvarez-
Lopez 1996, p. 5; Kattan et al. 1994, p. 141). Kattan and
[Aacute]lvarez-Lopez (1996, pp. 5-6) also identified two conditions
that increase a species' vulnerability to extinction or local
extirpation as a result of habitat fragmentation: (1) Species at the
upper or lower limit of their altitudinal distribution (which is the
case for the Cauca guan) are more susceptible to local extirpation and
extinction, and (2) large fruit-eating birds with limited distributions
and narrow habitat preferences were most vulnerable to extinction (also
the case for the Cauca guan). Deforestation has eradicated the Cauca
guan from much of its historic range and has led to local extirpation
(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299; Collar et al. 1994, pp. 61-62) in the
Cauca and Dagua Valleys (Renjifo 2002, p. 128), such as in San Antonio
(Valle de Cauca), where the species has not been observed since 1917
(Renjifo 2002, p. 124). Moreover, in light of the species'
characteristics, the Cauca guan is unlikely to repopulate an isolated
patch of suitable habitat following decline or local extirpation (see
Factor E, Likelihood to Disperse).
The Cauca guan, as with other cracids, is susceptible to indirect
effects of habitat disturbance and fragmentation (Brooks and Strahl
2000, p. 10; Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 38). A study conducted in
northwestern Colombia demonstrated that habitat destruction and
fragmentation may increase a species' vulnerability to predation
(Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 140-142) (Factor C). In
addition, habitat fragmentation, combined with continuing human
encroachment, increases the species' vulnerability to hunting (Factor
B). Habitat fragmentation may affect population densities by shifting
the availability of resources, such as food (Kattan et al. 2006, p.
305). Habitat fragmentation also compounds problems for species with
small population sizes, such as the Cauca guan, which has an estimated
population between 196 and 342 individuals (Kattan in litt., as cited
in Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006 p. 55) (Factor E).
Refugia
The Cauca guan has recently been confirmed in the following
locations: (1) Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary; (2)
Reserva La Sirena; (3) Reserva Forestal de Yotoco; (4) Chorro
[[Page 64714]]
de Plata; and (5) Munchique National Natural Park (Kattan et al. 2006,
pp. 299, 305; Delacour and Amadon 2004, p. 135; Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-
125). These locations are discussed below.
(1) Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (Department of
Risaralda), a 4.9-km\2\ (1.9-mi\2\) reserve in the Department of
Risaralda, contains a habitat mosaic of old-growth fragments and
regenerating secondary forests, including abandoned ash plantations
that cover 0.18 km\2\ (0.07 mi\2\) (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 303; CARDER
2000, p. 1; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997, p. 369). Most of the
forested habitat in the area was cleared in the 1960s for cattle
ranching, leaving the remaining natural forests only on the steepest
slopes (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 273). In population surveys
conducted by Kattan et al. (2006, p. 304) in 2000 and 2001, this
subpopulation was estimated to include between 144 and 264 individuals.
Kattan (2004, pp. 12-13) also advised that the Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya
Sanctuary was not large enough to provide the space and resources
needed to sustain a viable Cauca guan population.
This Sanctuary is adjacent to the Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park
(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 302), which covers an area of approximately 44
km\2\ (17 mi\2\), with elevations ranging from 1,700 to 2,600 m (5,577
to 8,530 ft) (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1999, p. 273; Kattan et al.
2006, pp. 301-302). Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park has been considered
the stronghold of the species since the late 1990s (BLI 2007h, p. 1)
(see Population Estimates, above). The largest number of Cauca guan
individuals observed at this site was 16 in 1990 (Wege and Long 1995,
p. 141), and a single individual was sighted in 2004 (Scanlon 2004, pp.
1-3); however, there have been no population surveys within the Park to
determine the current population size. Subsistence hunting was
reportedly prevalent within the Park in the late 1990s (Strahl et al.
1995, p. 81; del Hoyo 1994, p. 349; Collar et al. 1992, p. 60) (Factors
B and D).
(2) Reserva La Sirena (Valle de Cauca) is located above 2,000 m
(6,562 ft) and consists of fragmented riparian forest in various stages
of succession (Kattan et al. 2006, pp. 302-303). Reserva La Sirena has
an environmental education center, around which are located some
protected areas as well as continuous forest above 2,000 m (6,562 ft).
Visual confirmation of the Cauca guan was made in this locality in
surveys conducted in 2000 and 2001, but the extent and occurrence of
the population have yet to be determined (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 303).
(3) Reserva Forestal de Yotoco (Valle de Cauca) is an isolated 5.6-
km\2\ (2.16-mi\2\) reserve on the eastern slopes of the Western Andes,
ranging in altitude from 1,400 to 1,600 m (4,593 to 5,249 ft) (Kattan
et al. 2006, p. 302). In population surveys conducted by Kattan et al.
(2006, p. 304) in 2000 and 2001, this subpopulation was estimated to
include between 35 and 61 individuals. One of the last remaining humid
tropical forests in the Valle de Cauca, the forest is mostly well-
conserved, but human impacts are evidenced by an asphalt highway
running through the middle of the Reserve and numerous footpaths
crossing the Reserve to connect to coffee plantations, which, along
with pasturelands, surround the forest (BLI 2007h, p. 13).
(4) Chorro de Plata (Valle de Cauca) is a 2-km\2\ (0.77-mi\2\)
forest located at 1,200 m (3,937 ft) (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299;
Renjifo 2002, p. 302). Visual confirmation of the Cauca guan was made
in this locality in surveys conducted in 2000 and 2001, but the extent
and occurrence of the population have yet to be determined (Kattan et
al. 2006, p. 303).
(5) Munchique National Natural Park (Cauca) is considered an
important locality in the southern portion of the species' range,
because the species was historically seen there several times and
because suitable habitat still exists there (Kattan et al. 2006, pp.
305-306). However, the Cauca guan has not been confirmed there since
1987 (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 305; Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006, p. 54;
Salaman in litt. 1999, 2000, as cited in BLI 2007h, p. 2) (see
Population Estimates, above). Moreover, the location of this park
within the Pacific Region makes it particularly accessible and
vulnerable to exploitation because of the numerous rivers in this part
of the country, which facilitate movement of people and products
through the region (Ojeda et al. 2001, pp. 308-309). In the 1960s and
1970s, the harvest of native ``naranjilla'' or ``lulo'' fruits (Solanum
quitoense) became an important part of the local economy, which
deterred logging. However, logging resumed in the 1980s after a fungal
pathogen--anthracnose (Colletotrichum acutatum) (Caicedo and Higuera
2007, p. 41)--and invasion by a lepidopteran pest--tomato fruit borer
(Neoleucinodes elegantalis) (Eiras and Blackmer 2003, p. 1)--destroyed
the crops (BLI 2006, p. 2). Human pressures in the Pacific Region
include unsustainable logging, colonization, and cash crop cultivation
(Ojeda et al. 2001, pp. 308-309). Efforts are underway to replant lulo
fruit trees to encourage a sustainable local economy, enhance local
involvement in conservation, and provide technical skills for
integrated pest management. However, logging is ongoing within the
park, and human population pressures and associated deforestation, as
well as dam construction, are ongoing in the area (BLI 2007h, p. 2).
There are several areas of suitable habitat in which the Cauca guan
has not been observed, but that could serve as important potential
habitat for the species (see Factor E, Likelihood to Disperse),
including: (1) Bosques del Oriente del Risaralda, (2) Ca[ntilde]on del
Rio Barbas y Bremen, (3) Finca la Betulia Reserva la Patasola,and (4)
Reserva Natural Cajib[iacute]o. These areas are described below.
(1) Bosques del Oriente del Risaralda (Risaralda): This 23-km\2\
(8.9-mi\2\) forest is located on the western slopes of the Central
Andes, in eastern Risaralda. It ranges in altitude between 1,300 and
3,800 m (5,905 and 12,467 ft). This high-altitude forest is important
for the hydrology in lower-elevation areas, including the Ot[uacute]n-
Quimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (Department of Risaralda), where the
Cauca guan has been observed. The forest has been recovering from
deforestation for the past 30 years and includes a contiguous patch of
montane and premontane forest over 85 percent of the area. About 15
percent of the land is zoned for grazing and agriculture, leading to
ongoing degradation of these deforested areas, along with conversion
for human settlements within the forest (BLI 2007h, p. 6).
(2) Ca[ntilde]on del Rio Barbas y Bremen (Risaralda): This 51-km\2\
(20-mi\2\) forest is located on the western slopes of the Central
Andes. It ranges in altitude between 1,600 and 2,100 m (5,249 and 6,890
ft). This area includes most of the Reserva Forestal Bremen (BLI 2007h,
p. 9), where the Cauca guan was observed several times between 1995 and
1997 (Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125). The Bremen Forest Reserve was
established in the 1970s to protect important waterways and is
protected within the regional system of protected areas in the coffee-
growing region. Today, the Bremen forest comprises 3.4 km\2\ (1.31
mi\2\) of natural forest and 4.2 km\2\ (1.62 mi\2\) of exotic
plantation forests, which are now being allowed to regenerate to
natural forest. A sustainable forestry management plan was implemented
in 1996, and plans are underway to connect the isolated forest patches
within the Ca[ntilde]on. Currently, the forest patches within the
Ca[ntilde]on del Rio Barbas y Bremen are surrounded by cattle ranches
and tree plantations, primarily including eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.)
and Mexican weeping pine (Pinus patula). There is no further
information on the progress of this project.
[[Page 64715]]
Currently, the forests located within the Ca[ntilde]on are isolated
from each other, and urbanization, agricultural activities, and
deforestation are ongoing within the area. The forest is also in close
proximity to a main highway in the region--the highway between Armenia
and Pereira. A survey of the Ca[ntilde]on in 2003 did not reconfirm the
presence of the Cauca guan within this area (BLI 2007h, p. 9).
(3) Finca la Betulia Reserva la Patasola (Quind[iacute]o): This 17-
km\2\ (7-mi\2\) forest is located on the western slopes of the Central
Andes. It ranges in altitude between 2,050 and 2,600 m (6,726 and 8,530
ft). Most of this Reserve is covered by primary forest interspersed
with scrub forest and streams. As of 2003, the Cauca guan has been
reported but not confirmed within this Reserve. The western border of
this Reserve abuts the Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary
(BLI 2007h, p. 12), where the population is estimated to be between 144
and 264 individuals (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 304).
(4) Reserva Natural Cajib[iacute]o (Cauca): This 0.52-km\2\ (0.2-
mi\2\) reserve is located on the slopes of the West Andes. It ranges in
altitude between 1,100 and 1,250 m (3,609 and 4,101 ft). The habitat is
mainly secondary forest, interspersed with agricultural fields
(sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), coffee, bananas, and corn (Zea
mays)) and cattle ranching. This Reserve has been altered by human
encroachment and indiscriminate logging. The Cauca guan was not
confirmed in this location in a 2003 survey (BLI 2007h, p. 15).
These refugia are limited in size, isolated from each other, and
undergoing varying levels of human encroachment and deforestation
(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 301; Renjifo 2002, p. 128; Brooks and Strahl
2000, pp. 13-14; Collar et al. 1994, pp. 61-62; del Hoyo 1994, pp. 337,
349). In addition, regulatory mechanisms within these areas are
inadequate to protect the species from ongoing habitat destruction
(Factor D).
Summary of Factor A
The habitat preferred by the Cauca guan--humid forests or secondary
forests, forest edges, and plantations in proximity to humid forests--
has been largely destroyed by cultivation, grazing, human settlements,
road building, and other human activities. The species' range has been
reduced from 24,900 km\2\ (9,614 mi\2\) to approximately 560 km\2\ (216
mi\2\), much of this within the past 30 years. Habitat fragmentation
has isolated remaining populations, relegated the species to the edges
of its former range, and led to a shift in the species' altitudinal
range. Habitat destruction, alteration, conversion, and fragmentation
have been factors in the Cauca guan's historical decline (which
commenced in the second half of the 20th Century) and continue to be
factors in the species' decline, even in areas designated as protected
(see also Factor E). Therefore, we find that the present destruction,
modification, and curtailment of habitat are a threat to the Cauca guan
throughout all of its range.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Cracids are considered particularly vulnerable to hunting pressures
and are among those species most rapidly depleted by hunting (Redford
1992, p. 419). Several factors contribute to the sensitivity of Cauca
guans to hunting, including: their large size, ease of locating them
during their breeding season, their trusting nature, their low
productivity (1-2 eggs) relative to other Galliformes, their long
generation time, their dependence upon specific habitat, and their poor
dispersal qualities (Brooks 1999, p. 43; del Hoyo 1994, p. 336; Silva
and Strahl 1991, p. 38). This species, as with other guans, tends to
aggregate within its habitat, generally based on resource availability.
For instance, Cauca guans tend to congregate around fruit trees at
certain times of year (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 305). This aggregation of
individuals may facilitate hunters in catching larger numbers of the
species. Cracids are also slow to reproduce, with a replacement rate of
at least 6 years (Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 50).
Cauca guans, and other cracids (e.g., chachalacas (Ortalis sp.),
serve as major sources of protein for indigenous people (Brooks and
Strahl 2000, p. 8). The Cauca guan is hunted by local residents for
sustenance, although this activity is illegal (Mu[ntilde]oz et al.
2006, p. 50; Rios et al. 2006, pp. 22-23; Renjifo 2002, p. 128; del
Hoyo 1994, p. 337) (Factor D). The species is sought after by hunters
because it is the largest bird in its area of distribution (Renjifo
2002, p. 128). Rios et al. (2006, pp. 22-23) interviewed local settlers
near the Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (in Risaralda),
where the population is estimated to be between 144 and 264 individuals
(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 304), who admitted to hunting the Cauca guan
within the Sanctuary, claiming to take between 2 and 4 birds per month.
This equates to approximately 100 Cauca guans per year (Rios et al.
2006, p. 23).
Subsistence hunting may play a role in the decline or possible
local extirpation of the species from at least two locations. In the
late 1990s, subsistence hunting was widespread in the Ucumar[iacute]
Regional Park and Munchique National Natural Park (Strahl et al. 1995,
p. 81; del Hoyo 1994, p. 349; Collar et al. 1992, p. 60). The Cauca
guan may have been locally extirpated from the Munchique National
Natural Park (Cauca) (BLI 2007h, p. 2: Renjifo 2002, p. 124), where the
species was last observed in 1987 (Renjifo 2002, p. 124). Despite
subsequent searches of the area (Wege and Long 1995, p. 149), there
have been no recent confirmations at this locality (Kattan et al. 2006,
p. 305; Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006, p. 54; Salaman in litt. 1999, 2000,
as cited in BLI 2007h, p. 2). Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park is
considered the stronghold of the Cauca guan (BLI 2007h, p. 1). Although
Renjifo (2002, p. 128) notes that the species has recovered within this
Park, there have only been scant reports of Cauca guan sightings there
between 1994 and 2004 (Scanlon 2004, pp. 1-3; Renjifo 2002, p. 125;
Wege and Long 1995, p. 141), and no population surveys have been
undertaken there (see Population Estimates, above).
Habitat fragmentation and concomitant human encroachment (Factor A)
have made the species' habitat more accessible and the species more
vulnerable to hunting. A study conducted in French Guiana provided a
quantitative estimate of the effect of hunting on a related cracid
species, the black curassow (Crax alector) (del Hoyo 1994, p. 336). The
black curassow has similar habitat requirements (undisturbed primary
tropical to subtropical humid forest at 0-1,400 m (0-4,600 ft)
elevation) as the Cauca guan (BLI 2007e). The estimated population
density of black curassows in nonhunted areas was between 7 and 9 birds
per 1 km\2\ (0.4 mi\2\); in areas with intermittent hunting, the
numbers fell to between 0.5 and 2.25 birds; and in areas where hunting
was regular, numbers fell to between 0.5 and 0.73 birds (del Hoyo 1994,
p. 336). We believe that the effects of hunting on the Cauca guan would
result in similar population declines based on similarities of habitat
and species characteristics.
Summary of Factor B
Cracids serve as a major food source in Colombia, and the Cauca
guan, as the largest cracid living within its area of distribution, is
sought after by locals. Hunting results in the direct removal of eggs,
juveniles, and adults from the population. Cauca guans are slow to
reproduce, produce a low clutch size,
[[Page 64716]]
require a long fledging period, and exhibit a poor replacement rate
(see Habitat and Life History, above). Hunting can destroy pair bonds
and remove potentially reproductive adults from the breeding pool.
Hunting is facilitated by habitat fragmentation (Factor A), which
increases access to the forest by hunters. The Cauca guan is hunted
throughout its current range, including within protected areas, and
hunting may be responsible for a decline or local extirpation of the
species from at least two of these protected areas (Ucumar[iacute]
Regional Park and Munchique National Natural Park). Therefore, we find
that subsistence hunting for domestic consumption is a threat to the
Cauca guan throughout its range.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
We are unaware of any information regarding disease or the
potential for significant disease outbreaks in the Cauca guan
populations. As a result, we do not consider disease to be a threat to
the species.
Predators of cracids include snakes, foxes, feral cats, feral dogs,
and raptors (Delacour and Amadon 1973). Cauca guans are also slow to
reproduce, with a long fledging period (up to 1 year) and a replacement
rate of at least 6 years (Rios et al. 2006, p. 17; Silva and Strahl
1991, p. 50). Cauca guans require large territories for foraging
(Kattan 2004, p. 11), but today are relegated mostly to small forest
fragments (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 301). As discussed in detail above
for the blue-billed curassow (Factor C), studies have shown that
habitat fragmentation increases the potential predation pressure within
habitat fragments by facilitating the predators' access throughout the
fragment and because smaller fragments support smaller predators, which
tend to depredate on the more vulnerable life-history stages of the
Cauca guan, eggs and juveniles (Keyser et al. 2002, p. 186; Renjifo
1999, p. 1,133; Keyser et al. 1998, p. 991; Arango-V[eacute]lez and
Kattan 1997, pp. 137-143; Hoover et al. 1995, p. 151; Gibbs 1991, p.
157; Wilcove 1985, p. 1,214).
Summary of Factor C
Snakes, foxes, feral cats, feral dogs, and raptors are all
predators of cracids. Predation results in the direct removal of eggs,
juveniles, and adults from the population. Cauca guans are slow to
reproduce, produce a low clutch size, require a long fledging period,
and exhibit a poor replacement rate (see Habitat and Life History,
above). Predation can destroy pair bonds and remove potentially
reproductive adults from the breeding pool. Cauca guan habitat is
fragmented and small (Factor A), and studies on similar species in
similar Andean habitats indicate that vulnerability to predation by
generalist predators increases with increased habitat fragmentation and
smaller patch sizes. Predation exacerbates the genetic complications
associated with the species' small population size (Factor E). Because
of the species' small population size and inability to recolonize
isolated habitat fragments (Factor E), predation renders the species
vulnerable to local extirpation. Therefore, we find that predation,
exacerbated by ongoing habitat destruction (Factor A) and hunting
(Factor B), is a threat to the Cauca guan.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms may provide species-specific or habitat-
specific protections. An evaluation of the adequacy of regulatory
mechanisms within Colombia to mitigate or remove the threats to the
Cauca guan is provided below, beginning with species-specific and
followed by habitat-specific protection mechanisms.
Colombia has enacted numerous laws to protect species and their
habitats (Matallana-T 2005, p. 121). The Cauca guan is listed as an
endangered species under Colombian Law 99 of 1993 (EcoLex 1993, p. 2)
and Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (EcoLex 2002, pp. 10, 12). A full
description of these laws and the categorization of threatened species
in Colombia were provided above, as part of the Factor D analysis for
the blue-billed curassow. This threat status confers protections upon
the species, including protection from commercial take under Resolution
No. 849 of 1973 and Resolution No. 787 of 1977 (EcoLex 1973, p. 1;
EcoLex 1977, p. 3). Neither Resolution prohibits subsistence hunting.
As discussed under Factor B, commercial and sport hunting are not
threats to this species, but subsistence hunting continues to threaten
the species throughout its range, including within protected areas.
Hunting may play a role in the decline or possible local
extirpation of the species from two protected areas, Munchique National
Natural Park and Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park, where subsistence
hunting was widespread in the 1990s (Strahl et al. 1995, p. 81; del
Hoyo 1994, p. 349; Collar et al. 1992, p. 60) (Factor B). Cauca guans
have not been observed in Munchique National Natural Park since 1987
(BLI 2007h, p. 2: Renjifo 2002, p. 124), despite subsequent searches of
the area (Wege and Long 1995, p. 149). Similarly, since 1994, there
have been only scant sightings of Cauca guans in the Ucumar[iacute]
Regional Park (Scanlon 2004, pp. 1-3; Renjifo 2002, p. 125; Wege and
Long 1995, p. 141) (see Population Estimates, above). Researchers have
indicated that local residents continue to hunt the Cauca guan despite
the illegality of this activity (Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006, p. 50; Rios
et al. 2006, pp. 22-23; Renjifo 2002, p. 128; del Hoyo 1994, p. 337),
even within areas designated as ``protected'' under Colombian law (see
also next paragraph). For instance, settlers in the Ot[uacute]n-
Quimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary admit to taking between 24 and 48
Cauca guans a year (Rios et al. 2006, pp. 22-23) (Factor B). Thus,
these Resolutions are ineffective at reducing the existing threat of
subsistence hunting to the Cauca guan.
Colombia has enacted numerous forestry laws and forestry management
practices (Law No. 2 (EcoLex 1959); Decree No. 2,811 (Faolex 1974);
Decree No. 1,791 (Faolex 1996); Law No. 1,021 (EcoLex 2006)).
Weaknesses in the implementation of these laws and the decentralized
nature of Colombian resource management are described in detail above
for the blue-billed curassow (Factor D) (ITTO 2006, pp. 218-219, 222;
Matallana-T 2005, pp. 121-122). Experts consider these decentralized
management mechanisms ineffective at protecting the Cauca guan from
habitat destruction (Factor A) or hunting (Factor B) (Mu[ntilde]oz et
al. 2006, p. 50). Habitat destruction and hunting are ongoing
throughout the species' range, indicating that forestry regulations are
ineffective at mitigating the threats to the Cauca guan from habitat
destruction (Factor A) or hunting (Factor B).
Colombia has several categories of national habitat protection
(Matallana-T 2005, pp. 121-122), which were described above, as part of
the Factor D analysis for the blue-billed curassow (Matallana-T 2005,
pp. 121-122). The Cauca guan occurs within national parks (including
the Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park, last confirmed Cauca guan sighting in
2004 (Scanlon 2004, pp. 1-3), and Munchique National Natural Park,
confirmed in 1987 (Salaman in litt. 1999, 2000, as cited in BLI 2007h,
p. 2; Kattan et al. 2006, p. 305; Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006, p. 54);
reserves (Reserva Forestal de Bremen, confirmed in 1997 (Renjifo 2002,
pp. 124-125), Reserva Forestal de Yotoco, confirmed in 2000-2001
(Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125), and Reserva La Sirena, confirmed in 2000-
2001 (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 302)); and sanctuaries (Ot[uacute]n-
Quimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, confirmed in 2000-2001 (Kattan et
al. 2006, p. 302)). Within the last 20 years, the Cauca guan
[[Page 64717]]
population may have declined or been extirpated from at least two
Parks, the Munchique National Natural Park and the Ucumar[iacute]
Regional Park, where the species has not been observed since 1987
(Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125) and 2004 (Scanlon 2004, pp. 1-3),
respectively. These Parks were subject to subsistence hunting in the
late 1990s (Strahl et al. 1995, p. 81; del Hoyo 1994, p. 349; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 60), and subsistence hunting of Cauca guan continues in
these and other protected areas, such as Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and
Fauna Sanctuary (Rios et al. 2006, pp. 22-23) (Factor B). In addition,
logging, population pressure, and agriculture are ongoing within these
Parks. Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park, considered the stronghold for the
species (BLI 2007h, p. 2), continues to be managed for multiple uses
(including pasture land and other commercial ventures) (Factor A). In
light of the multiple land uses allowed within the Park, and the
ongoing human-induced habitat destruction, the park provides little or
no protection to the species from the threat of habitat destruction
(Factor A).
The Cauca guan ranges in multiple Departments (currently known in
Cauca, Quind[iacute]o, Risaralda, Valle de Cauca), each of which
administers their own natural resources under different autonomous
corporations (ITTO 2006, p. 219; Law 99 of 1993). We are unaware of any
coordinated species management plan. Therefore, in view of the
decentralized resource management structure, the absence of a
conservation strategy for the species, the threats to the Cauca guan
from habitat destruction (Factor A) and hunting (Factor B) are not
mitigated.
Summary of Factor D
Colombia has numerous laws and regulatory mechanisms to administer
and manage wildlife and their habitats. The Cauca guan is listed as
endangered under Colombian law and occurs within several protected
areas. However, on-the-ground enforcement of existing wildlife
protection and forestry laws and oversight of the local jurisdictions
implementing and regulating activities are ineffective at mitigating
the primary threats to the Cauca guan. As discussed for Factor A,
habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation continue throughout
the existing range of the Cauca guan. As discussed for Factor B,
uncontrolled subsistence hunting of the Cauca guan is ongoing and
continues to negatively affect the continued existence of the species.
Moreover, the lack of a species conservation strategy and the
decentralized management of natural resources in Colombia provide no
overall coordination in the conservation of species such as Cauca
guans, which range in multiple jurisdictions. Therefore, we find that
the existing regulatory mechanisms currently in place are inadequate to
mitigate the primary threats to the Cauca guan.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Two additional factors affect the Cauca guan: Its minimal
likelihood for dispersal and the species' small population size.
Likelihood To Disperse
The Cauca guan exhibits characteristics indicative of an inability
to disperse into isolated habitat fragments and recolonize patches of
suitable habitat that have undergone a localized extirpation. The Cauca
guan prefers habitat of mature humid forests (Collar et al. 1994, p.
136), has generally been found only in secondary habitats that are
situated within 1 km (0.62 mi) of primary forest (Renjifo 2002, p.
127), and is reported as timid in the presence of humans (Rios et al.
2006, p. 21). The remaining suitable habitat available to the Cauca
guan is limited to a few disjunct and isolated forest fragments only a
few hundred hectares (100 hectares = 1 km\2\ = 0.39 mi\2\) in size
(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 301; Kattan 2004, p. 6; Renjifo 2002, p. 128).
Existing habitat for the Cauca guan is fragmented, with large
distances between the remaining primary forest fragments (Cuervo and
Salaman 1999, p. 7; Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46) and an ever-growing human
presence in and around the species' existing habitat (BLI 2004c, p. 2;
Cuervo 2002, p. 327; Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-128; Cuervo and Salaman
1999, p. 8; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 205). Without human
intervention, the Cauca guan is unlikely to repopulate an isolated
patch of suitable habitat following decline or local extirpation.
Evidence for the Cauca guan's inability to disperse across fragmented
habitat patches is provided by the fact that there are several areas of
suitable habitat, located near previously reported localities for the
species, in which the Cauca guan has not been observed (see Factor A,
Refugia).
Small Population Size
Habitat destruction (Factor A) and hunting (Factor B) have affected
the current population size and distributional range of the Cauca guan
(Collar et al. 1994, p. 60; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 126-127). By the
1980s, the species was believed extinct or on the verge of extinction
(Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 14; del Hoyo 1994, pp. 337, 349; Hilty and
Brown 1986, p. 125; Hilty 1985, p. 1,004). The Cauca guan is now
confirmed only in several isolated locations. Overall, the population
is considered to be in decline, with the current isolated populations
ranging from tens of individuals to a few hundred individuals at best
(BLI 2007h, p. 2; Kattan 2004, p. 6; Renjifo 2002, p. 129), but there
have been few population surveys of the Cauca guan. In 2006, Kattan (in
litt., as cited in Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006, p. 55) estimated the
global population to be between 196 and 342 individuals. Kattan et al.
(2006, p. 302) conducted the only two population surveys, in 2000 and
2001 (Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006, p. 55). They estimated population
densities at two locations, Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna
Sanctuary (Risaralda) and Reserva Forestal de Yotoco (Valle de Cauca),
to be between 144 and 264 individuals, and 35 to 61 individuals,
respectively (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 304).
Small population sizes render species vulnerable to genetic risks
that can have individual or population-level consequences on the
genetic level and can increase the species' susceptibility to
demographic problems, as explained in more detail above for the blue-
billed curassow (Factor E, Small Population Size) (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Once a population is
reduced below a certain number of individuals, it tends to rapidly
decline towards extinction (Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; Soul[eacute]
1987, p. 181; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 25; Franklin 1980, pp.
147-148).
In the absence of quantitative studies specific to this species, a
general approximation of minimum viable population size is the 50/500
rule, as described above as part of the Factor E analysis for the
brown-banded antpitta (Shaffer 1981, pp. 132-133; Soul[eacute] 1980,
pp. 160-162). The total population size of the Cauca guan is estimated
to be between 196 and 342 individuals. While 196 individuals is above
the minimum population size required to avoid short-term genetic
consequences, 342 falls below the threshold minimum number of 500
individuals required for long-term fitness of a population.
Moreover, because the Cauca guan exists in isolated forest
fragments and is unlikely or incapable of dispersing to disjunct
patches, each disjunct locality likely acts as a subpopulation.
Therefore, the resiliency of each of these subpopulations will be lower
than that of the global population. The largest reported subpopulation,
in Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary,
[[Page 64718]]
contains between 144 and 264 individuals (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 304).
The lower figure, 144 individuals, is above the minimum effective
population size required to avoid imminent risks from inbreeding
(Ne = 50). The upper limit of the subpopulation, 264 birds,
represents the maximum number of individuals in the subpopulation, but
does not take into account that not all members of the population will
be reproductive. This figure is well below the upper threshold
(Ne = 500 individuals) required for long-term fitness of a
population to ensure that the species will not lose its genetic
diversity over time and will maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt to
changing conditions. The only other subpopulation figures are for
Reserva Forestal de Yotoco, with an estimated 35 to 61 individuals
(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 304). Both of these figures are well below the
50/500 threshold. Therefore, we currently consider these subpopulations
(and the species as a whole) to be at risk from genetic complications
due to the lack of short- and long-term viability.
The Cauca guan's small population size, combined with its
restricted range and inability to repopulate suitable habitat following
local extirpations (Renjifo 2002, p. 138; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p.
7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361), makes the species particularly vulnerable to
the threat of adverse natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or
environmental) and manmade (e.g., hunting or deforestation) events that
destroy individuals and their habitat (BLI 2007, pp. 1-2; Renjifo 2002,
p. 140; Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; Young and Clarke 2000, pp. 361-366).
Summary of Factor E
The Cauca guan is now confirmed only in several isolated locations.
The Cauca guan is unlikely or incapable of dispersing into suitable
habitat that is isolated from extant populations, and the species'
overall small population size makes it vulnerable to genetic and
demographic risks that negatively impact the species' short- and long-
term viability. The Cauca guan's small population size, restricted
range, and inability to repopulate suitable habitat following local
extirpations expose the species to threats associated with adverse
natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or environmental) and manmade
(e.g., hunting or deforestation) events that destroy individuals and
their habitat. Therefore, we believe that, in combination with the
risks to the species from habitat destruction (Factor A), hunting
(Factor B), and predation (Factor C), the Cauca guan is vulnerable to
localized extirpation or extinction from which the species would be
unable to recover, due to its small population size and apparent
inability to repopulate fragmented, isolated habitats such as those
currently present within this species' range.
Cauca Guan Status Determination
The five primary factors that threaten the survival of the Cauca
guan are: (1) Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and degradation
(Factor A); (2) overexploitation due to hunting; (3) predation (Factor
C); (4) inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to reduce the threats to
the species (Factor D); and (5) small population size and isolation of
remaining populations (Factor E). The Cauca guan, a large, primarily
terrestrial bird, prefers humid forests or secondary forests, forest
edges, and plantations that are in close proximity (within 1 km (0.62
mi)) to humid forests.
Habitat destruction, alteration, conversion, and fragmentation were
factors in the Cauca guan's historical decline. The species has
experienced a 95 percent range reduction since the 1950s, such that the
estimated suitable habitat available to the species is approximately
560 km\2\ (216 mi\2\). Experts estimate that more than 30 percent of
this loss of habitat has occurred within the last three generations, or
30 years. Fifty years ago, the species' historic range was estimated to
have been an approximately 24,900-km\2\ (9,614-mi\2\) area,
encompassing humid forests on the eastern slopes of the West Andes and
the dry forests of the Cauca, Pat[iacute]a, and Dagua Valleys, in the
Departments of Cauca, Quind[iacute]o, Risaralda, and Valle de Cauca.
Today, the species has been locally extirpated from the Cauca and Dagua
Valleys. The Cauca guan inhabits the western slopes of the central and
western Andes in the few remaining upper-elevation forest remnants at
altitudes exceeding those reported in the first half of the 20th
Century. These shifts to the extremes of its range and shifts in
elevational distribution have resulted from extensive habitat
destruction throughout the species' range. The dry forests of the
Cauca, Dauga, and Pat[iacute]a Valleys and the humid forests on the
slopes of these valleys up to 2,000 m have been largely destroyed for
cultivation, grazing, human settlements, road building, and other
human-induced habitat alterations. Cultivation of illegal drug crops,
such as cocaine, has led to further deforestation and altered soil
compositions, hindering regeneration of abandoned fields. In addition,
drug eradication programs involving the aerial spraying of nonspecific
herbicides have led to further environmental degradation and habitat
destruction (Factor A).
Although the Cauca guan, which is listed in Colombia as endangered,
occurs on lands designated by the Colombian Government as ``protected
areas,'' and it is illegal to commercially hunt the species, the
existing laws and their enforcement are inadequate (Factor D) to
mitigate the effects of ongoing habitat destruction (Factor A) and
subsistence hunting (Factor B). Moreover, natural resource management
within Colombia is highly decentralized, each district managing their
resources autonomously. Thus, there is no overall coordination for the
conservation and recovery of the Cauca guan, which ranges in several
autonomous districts.
Widespread deforestation and conversion of primary forests has led
to the fragmentation of habitat throughout the Cauca guan's range. The
remaining suitable habitat is limited to a few disjunct and isolated
forest fragments, only a few hundred hectares (100 hectares = 1 km\2\ =
0.39 mi\2\) in size. Habitat fragmentation affects resource
availability for the Cauca guan, which requires large territories for
foraging on its preferred food source: Seasonally available fruits.
Experts believe that remaining refugia, such as the Ot[uacute]n-
Quimbaya Sanctuary, may not be large enough to support viable
populations, lacking sufficient space and resources needed for this
large, terrestrial bird.
Habitat fragmentation also increases the species' susceptibility to
hunting (Factor B). The Cauca guan is hunted throughout its current
range. As the largest cracid living within its area of distribution,
the Cauca guan is sought after by locals as a major food source.
Despite being illegal (Factor D), subsistence hunting of Cauca guans
continues throughout its range, including within protected areas.
Hunting may be responsible for the species' local extirpation from the
Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park, considered the stronghold for the species
in the 1990s, and the Munchique National Natural Park.
Habitat fragmentation exposes the species to greater risk of
extinction caused by adverse natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or
environmental) and manmade (e.g., hunting or deforestation) events
(Factor E). At the beginning of the 20th Century through the 1950s, the
species was considered common. Habitat fragmentation has led to the
isolation of remaining subpopulations, which are estimated to range
from tens of individuals or a few hundred individuals at most, thus
affecting the
[[Page 64719]]
species' resiliency. The total population estimate of 196-342
individuals falls below the threshold minimum number of 500 individuals
required for long-term fitness of a population. It is estimated that
the species has lost up to 9 percent of its population in the last 10
years. Given that the Cauca guan is likely to interact as
subpopulations and its inability to disperse between fragmented habitat
patches, the species' effective population size is actually much less
than the global population estimate would imply. The fitness of the
subpopulations is vital to understanding the viability of the species.
The largest subpopulation, estimated to contain between 144 and 264
individuals, falls below the threshold for long-term viability. The
other subpopulation for which there is an estimate contains between 35
and 61 individuals, which figures are below the thresholds for both
short-term and long-term viability.
Thus, the Cauca guan is at risk from both near-term genetic
complications (such as inbreeding and demographic shifts) and the lack
of long-term fitness (such as the ability to adapt to changing
conditions). Because the species exists in isolated subpopulations, the
risk from near-term genetic consequences, such as inbreeding and
demographic shifts, is further magnified. These potential genetic
problems are exacerbated by ongoing human-induced threats, such as
habitat destruction (Factor A) and hunting (Factor B), factors which
are not being mitigated by existing regulations (Factor D), and are
further magnified by the species' inability to repopulate isolated,
fragmented patches of suitable habitat, where Cauca guan populations
have undergone decline or local extirpation (Factor E).
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the Cauca guan. We consider the ongoing threats
to the Cauca guan, habitat destruction (Factor A), hunting (Factor B),
and predation (Factor C), exacerbated by the species' small population
size and limited dispersal ability (Factor E), and compounded by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms to mitigate these threats (Factor D),
to be equally present and of the same magnitude throughout the species'
entire current range. Based on this information, we find that the Cauca
guan is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Gorgeted Wood-Quail (Odontophorus strophium) Biology and Distribution
Species Description
The gorgeted wood-quail, endemic to Colombia and a member of the
New World Quail Family (Odontophoridae), is approximately 25 cm (10 in)
long (del Hoyo 1994, p. 431; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 141;
Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133). The species is locally known as ``perdiz
Santandereana'' or ``perdiz de monte'' (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002,
p. 158), and may be referred to by the more general term ``forest
partridge'' in English (BLI 2007g, p. 1). Mainly dark brown with black
spots on upper parts, the male has a speckled black and white face, and
a white collar on his throat surrounded on the upper and lower side by
a band of black. Underparts are rufous-chestnut colored with white
spotting. The female appears similar to the male; however, the female
has a black collar surrounded by white bands on her throat (BLI 2007g,
p. 1).
Taxonomy
The gorgeted wood-quail was first taxonomically described in 1844
by Gould, who placed the species in the Odontophoridae family, also
known as the New World Quails (BLI 2007g, p. 1). The type specimen (the
actual specimen that was first described by Gould) was obtained in the
Colombian Department of Cundinamarca (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133),
although details on the location were not provided with the description
(Warren 1966, p. 318). Therefore, we will refer to the Department of
Cundinamarca as the ``type locality.''
Habitat and Life History
The gorgeted wood-quail prefers montane temperate and humid
subtropical forests dominated by roble, Tabebuia rosea, and secondary-
growth forests in proximity to mature forests (Sarria and
[Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 159), especially those dominated by oak
(Quercus humboldtii). The species is most often found at elevations
between 1,750 and 2,050 m (5,741 and 6,726 ft) (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Turner
2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p.
27; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; Wege and Long 1995,
pp. 143-144). Fuller et al. (2000, pp. 27-28) suggested that the
species' range may be up to 2,500 m (8,202 ft) in elevation. However,
Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez (2002, p. 160) noted that, despite the
availability of suitable habitat adjacent to the species' current
locations, these areas are above the elevational range of the species
and are not used. Moreover, in the most recent population surveys in
the Yargu[iacute]es Mountains (Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es),
which range up to 3,200 m (10,498 ft), researchers heard the species
vocalizing primarily at elevations between 1,800 and 1,900 m (5,905 and
6,234 ft), and none were heard above 1,950-2,000 m (6,398-6,562 ft)
(Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 29; Donegan
et al. 2004, p. 19). There are no recorded observations of this species
at ranges above 2,050 m (6,726 ft) (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Turner 2006, p.
22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; Sarria
and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160; Wege and Long 1995, pp. 143-144).
Therefore, we conclude that the species' preferred range remains at
elevations between 1,750 and 2,050 m (5,741 and 6,726 ft).
The gorgeted wood-quail is primarily terrestrial (Fuller et al.
2000, p. 2), living on the forest floor and feeding on fruit, seeds,
and arthropods (Fuller et al. 2000, pp. 27-28; del Hoyo 1994, p. 431;
Collar et al. 1992, pp. 171-172). There appear to be two breeding
seasons per year, coinciding with the rainy seasons from March through
May and September through November (BLI 2007g, p. 3). Gorgeted wood-
quails are ground-nesting birds, laying their eggs in a small
depression lined with vegetation and almost always covered with brush
from the understory (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 159). Similar
to other wood-quails, gorgeted wood-quails associate in small groups
and call to other groups by chorusing--singing together (Donegan et al.
2003, p. 29). Researchers consider this species to be dependent on
primary forest for at least part of its life cycle (BLI 2007g, p. 3;
Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 159).
Historical Range and Distribution
The gorgeted wood-quail historically occurred on the western slope
of the East Andes, in the Departments of Santander and Cundinamarca in
Colombia (del Hoyo 1994, p. 431; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 141;
Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133). Since the 17th Century, extensive
logging and land conversion in Cundimarca to agricultural uses nearly
denuded all the forests of this area below 2,500 m (8,202 ft) (BLI
2007g, p. 3; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133). Habitat destruction is
considered the primary factor that led to the historical decline and
extirpation of this species from Cundinamarca (Fuller et al. 2000, pp.
4-5; Wege and Long 1995, p. 146).
For many years, the species was known only from two specimens
collected in 1915 from its type locality in Cundinamarca (Hilty and
Brown 1986, p. 133). Although the species was
[[Page 64720]]
reported at this site again in 1923 and 1954, it has not been seen
there since that time (Wege and Long 1995, p. 146). The species was
believed extinct until a record of a male bird and chicks was reported
in 1970 in Santander Department in the Cuchilla del Ramo forest (Collar
et al. 1992, p. 171; Fuller et al. 2000, p. 27).
Current Range and Distribution
The gorgeted wood-quail is endemic to the west slope of the East
Andes, in the Magdalena Valley (Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29), and
is known only in the central Colombian Department of Santander (del
Hoyo 1994, p. 431; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 141; Hilty and
Brown 1986, p. 133). The current range of this species is between 10
km\2\ (4 mi\2\) (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160) and 27 km\2\
(10.42 mi\2\) (BLI 2007g, pp. 2, 5).
Since 1970, the species has only been reported in the central
Colombian Department of Santander, with fewer than 10 sightings. Visual
observations of this species have been scant; most reports have been
inferred from auditory detections (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp.
158-159). In 1970, the species was observed in Cuchilla del Ramo forest
(Wege and Long 1995, p. 143), but has not been confirmed there since
that time (BLI 2007g, p. 2) (see also Factor A). The species has been
observed and most recently confirmed in three locations: (1)
Guanent[aacute]-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, (2)
Cachal[uacute] Biological Reserve, and (3) Serran[iacute]a de los
Yargu[iacute]es. These confirmed sightings are briefly described below.
(1) Guanent[aacute]-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary
(Santander Department): The gorgeted wood-quail was confirmed at this
location in 1979 (BLI 2007g, p. 2) and again in 1988 (Sarria and
[Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160; Wege and Long 1995, p. 144). In 2004, the
species was reported in the oak forests within the Province of
Guanent[aacute] (BLI 2007g, p. 2), but it is unclear whether these
observations occurred within the Sanctuary.
(2) Cachal[uacute] Biological Reserve (Santander Department): The
gorgeted wood-quail was confirmed in this Reserve in 1999, 2000, and
2001 (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159;
Fuller et al. 2000, p. 27).
(3) Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es (Santander Department):
The species has also been confirmed at this location in 2003 and 2004
(BLI 2007g, p. 2; Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29;
Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27). The Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es
locale reportedly harbors the largest known population and is the
stronghold for the species (Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas
2005, p. 29) (see Population Estimates, below).
Generally speaking, these localities are in two disjunct locations
within the Department of Santander. Serran[iacute]a de los
Yargu[iacute]es is in northern Santander and the other two localities
are adjacent to each other in southern Santander (Rainforest Alliance
2008, p. 2; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 30). These habitats are
described more fully under Factor A (Refugia).
Population Estimates
To the best of our knowledge, there have been no quantitative
studies to determine the species' population size. The population
estimates for the gorgeted wood-quail are based on qualitative surveys
and extrapolations using suitable habitat estimates (BLI 2007g, p. 2;
Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al.
2003, p. 27; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; Fuller et al.
2000, p. 27;). As noted above (see Current Range), a total of three
adults and two chicks were observed between 1923 and 1970 (Sarria and
[Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 158; Wege and Long 1995, p. 143). The largest
number of visual confirmations of individual birds has been reported in
the Reserva Biol[oacute]gico Cachal[uacute]. In 1999, two groups of
seven to nine individuals were observed. Between 2001 and 2002, six
groups of 5-11 individuals were observed (Sarria in litt., as cited in
Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 159). Based on these direct
observations, the population in the Reserva Biol[oacute]gico
Cachal[uacute] may consist of between 30 and 66 individuals.
All other population estimates have been inferred from auditory
calls or suitable habitat extrapolations. It is not unusual to infer
population estimates for elusive, ground-dwelling species, such as the
gorgeted wood-quail, for which direct observation is difficult.
However, extrapolating population estimates based on suitable habitat
can lead to overestimations of population sizes, especially for narrow-
ranging species, such as the gorgeted wood-quail. The potential for
overestimation was discussed above, in the analysis of the brown-banded
antpitta (Factor E, Small Population Size). For instance, researchers
recently estimated that the Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es
population may hold a significantly greater number of birds than ever
known. Given the inferred density of the species (based on auditory
observation) and the extent of forest cover in the Serran[iacute]a de
los Yargu[iacute]es, researchers predicted that an excess of 250
individuals was present at the site (Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 30;
Donegan et al. 2004, p. 19).
Turner (2006, p. 22) extrapolated the population size, based on
satellite images of the area, which indicated that 30,000 ha (74,131
ac) of forest at elevations between 1,500 and 2,200 m (4,921 and 7,218
ft) on the western slope and 2,700 and 2,900 m (8,858 and 9,514 ft) on
the eastern slope were available to the species. This yielded a
predicted population size of between 1,800 and 3,300 individuals.
However, we believe that this population estimate, based on the
availability of suitable habitat, may be an overestimate for this
species for two reasons: (1) The population may not be randomly
distributed throughout the suitable habitat, as assumed by these
researchers, and (2) the extrapolation does not take into account
human-induced threats, such as hunting (Sarria and [Aacute]lavarez
2002, pp. 160-161) (Factor B). Therefore, until Turner's (2006, p. 22)
predictions have been ground-truthed, we are unable to consider the
predicted population estimate of between 1,800 and 3,300 individuals to
be a reliable reflection of the current population size. Consequently,
we consider the population estimate of between 189 to 486 individuals
(BLI 2007g, p. 1) to be the best available estimate of the gorgeted
wood-quail.
Conservation Status
The gorgeted wood-quail is identified as a critically endangered
species under Colombian law (EcoLex 2002, p. 12). The species is
classified as `Critically Endangered' on the IUCN Red List, due to its
small and highly fragmented range, with recent population records from
only two areas (BLI 2004d; BLI 2007g, pp. 1, 5).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Gorgeted Wood-Quail
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Habitat or Range
In the early part of the 20th Century, the gorgeted wood-quail was
known only in the oak forests in the Department of Cundinamarca.
However, extensive deforestation and habitat conversion for
agricultural use nearly denuded all the oak forests in Cundinamarca
below 2,500 m (8,202 ft) (BLI 2007g, p. 3; Hilty and Brown 1986, p.
133). Deforestation left little remaining suitable habitat for the
gorgeted wood-quail, which prefers primary forests and tolerates
secondary-growth forests near primary forests (BLI 2007g, p. 3; Sarria
and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 159) at altitudes from 1,500 to 2,500 m
(4,921 to 8,202 ft) (Fuller et al. 2000, pp.
[[Page 64721]]
27-28; del Hoyo 1994, p. 431; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133). Subsequent
surveys have not located the species in the Department of Cundinamarca
since 1954 (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 158; Fuller et al. 2000,
p. 27; Collar et al. 1992, p. 171), and researchers consider the
gorgeted wood-quail to be locally extirpated from Cundinamarca (BLI
2007g, p. 3; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 160-161; Fuller et al.
2000, pp. 4-5; Wege and Long 1995, p. 146).
Deforestation, in combination with hunting (Factor B), may have led
to the local extirpation of the gorgeted wood-quail from another
location. After no confirmed reports of the species in nearly 20 years
(Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159), the species was
rediscovered in Cuchilla del Ramo forest (in the Department of
Santander) in 1970 (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; Wege
and Long 1995, p. 143) and last confirmed there in 1988 (Collar et al.
1992, p. 172). However the species has not been confirmed at that
location since that time (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez
2002, pp. 158-159). According to Wege and Long (1995, p. 143), Cuchilla
del Ramo, an unprotected area on the western slopes of the East Andes,
has been largely cleared of its forest such that only fragments remain.
Thus, it is possible that deforestation within the past 30 years has
led to the extirpation of the gorgeted wood-quail from this location.
Today, the gorgeted wood-quail is endemic to the western slopes of
the East Andes in the Department of Santander, Colombia (Collar et al.
1994, p. 70; del Hoyo 1994, p. 431; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p.
141; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133). The gorgeted wood-quail is
currently confirmed in three locations (see Refugia, below), and its
current range is between 10 km\2\ (4 mi\2\) (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez
2002, p. 160) and 27 km\2\ (10.42 mi\2\) (BLI 2007g, pp. 2, 5). The
species has lost 92 percent of its former habitat (Sarria and
[Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160), and habitat loss continues throughout its
range (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 26; Sarria and
[Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 159-160; Collar et al. 1994, p. 70; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 172; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133).
Deforestation
Colombian forests have undergone extensive alteration during the
20th Century to establish human settlements, build roads, extract
timber, and pursue agriculture. Between 1973 and 1996, these activities
reduced the amount of primary forest cover in Colombia by approximately
3,605 ha (8,908 ac) annually, representing a nearly one-third total
loss of primary forest habitat (Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004, pp. 123-124).
Habitat loss accelerated dramatically in the 1980s as an influx of
people settled in formerly pristine forests (Perz et al. 2005, pp. 26-
28; Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004, p. 124). Recent studies indicate that the
rate of habitat destruction is accelerating. Between the years 1990 and
2005, Colombia lost approximately 52,800 ha (130,471 ac) of primary
forest annually (Butler 2006a, pp. 1-3; FAO 2003a, p. 1). These studies
and activities were described in greater detail under Factor A for the
blue-billed curassow, above. Logging is especially common in the flat
lower-elevation areas and areas below 2,500 m (8,202 ft), where
deforestation is nearly complete. Logging continues in steeper-sloped
areas, where commercially valuable trees are still being extracted, and
forested areas are being cleared for agricultural purposes (Fuller et
al. 2000, p. 4; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 192).
Human-induced deforestation and environmental degradation have
caused the gorgeted wood-quail to shift its range from the Department
of Cundinamarca to the Department of Santander. The species was first
observed in Santander within Cuchilla del Ramo forest in 1970 (Wege and
Long 1995, p. 143), but has not been confirmed there since then (BLI
2007g, p. 2). The presence of the species has been documented only
about 10 times, and most of these are based on auditory detections. The
species has been most recently confirmed in the following three
locations: (1) Guanent[aacute]-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary
(BLI 2007g, p. 2; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160; Wege and Long
1995, p. 144), (2) Cachal[uacute] Biological Reserve (BLI 2007g, p. 2;
Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; Fuller et al. 2000, p.
27), and (3) the Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es (BLI 2007g, p.
2; Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al.
2003, p. 27).
Illegal Crops and Their Eradication
Cocaine and opium has been cultivated throughout the gorgeted wood-
quail's range. The cultivation of illegal crops (including coca and
opium) in Colombia destroys montane forests (Balslev 1993, p. 3). Coca
crops also destroy the soil quality by causing the soil to become more
acidic, which depletes the soil nutrients and ultimately impedes the
regrowth of secondary forests in abandoned fields (Van Schoik and
Schulberg 1993, p. 21). As of 2004, an estimated 80,000 ha (197,683 ac)
were under cocaine cultivation and 4,000 ha (9,884 ac) were under opium
cultivation (UNODC et al. 2007, pp. 7-8). These figures include habitat
within the gorgeted wood-quail's range. Between 2003 and 2004, cocaine
cultivation areas increased 25 percent in Cundinamarca, from 57 to 71
ha (140 to 175 ac), and by 78 percent in Santander, from 632 to 1,124
ha (1,562 to 2,777 ac) (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 15).
Colombia continues to be the leading coca bush producer (UNODC et
al. 2007, p. 7). However, since 2003, cocaine cultivation has remained
stable, with about 800 km\2\ (309 mi\2\) of land under cultivation
(UNODC et al. 2007, p. 8). This stabilization of production is, in
part, attributed to alternative development projects implemented
between 1999 and 2004, to encourage pursuits other than illegal crop
cultivation (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 77). This stabilization of
production area is also attributed to heightened eradication efforts.
Between 2002 and 2004, aerial spraying occurred over more than 1,300
km\2\ (502 mi\2\) of land annually, peaking in 2004, when 1,360 km\2\
(525 mi\2\) of illicit crops were sprayed (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 11).
In 2006, eradication efforts were undertaken on over 2,130 km\2\ (822
mi\2\) of land, consisting of 1,720 km\2\ (664 mi\2\) of land being
sprayed and manual eradication being used on the remaining land.
Eradication efforts undertaken in 2006 occurred over an area
representing 2.7 times more land than the net cultivation area (UNODC
et al. 2007, p. 8). In Santander alone, 1,855 ha (4,583 ac) of coca
fields were sprayed or manually eradicated in 2004 (UNODC 2005, p. 66).
Drug eradication efforts in Colombia have further degraded and
destroyed primary forest habitat by using nonspecific aerial herbicides
to destroy illegal crops (BLI 2007d, p. 3; [Aacute]lvarez 2005, p.
2042; C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham
and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Herbicide spraying has introduced harmful
chemicals into gorgeted wood-quail habitat and has led to further
destruction of the habitat by forcing illicit growers to move to new,
previously untouched forested areas ([Aacute]lvarez 2007, pp. 133-143;
BLI 2007d, p. 3; [Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2,042; C[aacute]rdenas and
Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12
[Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093). Between 1998 and 2002, cultivation
of illicit crops increased by 21 percent each year, with a concomitant
increase in deforestation of formerly pristine areas of approximately
60 percent ([Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 1,088-1,093).
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation
An analysis of the effects of habitat fragmentation on Andean birds
within western Colombia determined that 31
[[Page 64722]]
percent of the historical bird populations have become extinct, or were
locally extirpated by 1990, largely as a result of habitat
fragmentation from deforestation and human encroachment (Kattan and
[Aacute]lvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 5; Kattan et al. 1994, p. 141). The
gorgeted wood-quail, which depends on primary forest for at least part
of its life cycle (BLI 2007g, p. 3; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p.
159), has been extirpated from its type locality in Cundinaramaca
(Fuller et al. 2000, pp. 4-5; Wege and Long 1995, p. 146). The study
also noted that species at the upper or lower limit of their
altitudinal distribution are more susceptible to local extirpation and
extinction (Kattan and [Aacute]lvarez-Lopez 1996, pp. 5-6). This is the
case for the gorgeted wood-quail; the species prefers habitat at 1,750-
2,050 m (5,741-6,726 ft), most of which has been destroyed (BLI 2007g,
p. 2; Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et
al. 2003, p. 27; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; Wege and
Long 1995, pp. 143-144), and it has not been documented at higher
elevations, despite the availability of suitable habitat (BLI 2007g, p.
2; Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al.
2003, p. 27; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-160; Wege and Long
1995, pp. 143-144). Another study on the effects of habitat
fragmentation in Colombia found that habitat fragmentation facilitates
predation and hunting pressure (Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997,
pp. 140-142) (Factors B and C).
Refugia
The gorgeted wood-quail has been observed, and most recently
confirmed, in the following three locations: (1) Guanent[aacute]-Alto
Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, (2) Cachal[uacute] Biological
Reserve, and (3) the Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es.
(1) Guanent[aacute]-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary
(Santander Department): This 10,420-ha (25,748-ac) humid subtropical
and temperate oak forest on the western slope of the East Andes was
declared a protected natural area in 1993 (Rainforest Alliance, 2008 p.
2; The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2008, p. 1; Andrade and Repizzo 1994,
p. 43). This area has long been considered the largest remaining
sizeable oak forest tract remaining in the northern area of the East
Andes, even as recently as the year 2005 (Donegan and Huertas 2005, p.
11; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160; Stattersfield et al. 1998,
p. 193; Wege and Long 1995, p. 144). The gorgeted wood-quail was first
observed in the Sanctuary in 1979 (BLI 2007g, p. 2) and again 1988
(Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160; Wege and Long 1995, p. 144).
In 2004, the species was reported in the oak forests within the
Province of Guanent[aacute] (BLI 2007g, p. 2), but it is unclear
whether these observations occurred within the Sanctuary.
Beginning in the 1960s, habitat conversion accelerated in the East
Andes (Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 192). The forests of the Colombian
East Andes have been extensively degraded (Stattersfield et al. 1998,
p. 192; Collar et al., 1992, p. 172; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990;
Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133). The western slopes have been largely
converted to agricultural use and to pastureland for cattle
(Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 192), and deforestation continues on the
lower slopes of the East Andes (Wege and Long 1995, p. 143). Selective
logging affects birds in the lower part of the Guanenta Alto Rio Fonce
(Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160; Fuller et al. 2000, p. 28),
including the gorgeted wood-quail. Stattersfield et al. (1998, p. 192)
reported that forest loss below 2,500 m (8,202 ft) has been almost
complete, although Fuller et al. (2000, p. 28) noted that the forest
was ``largely intact'' above 1,950-2,200 m (6,398-7,218 ft). However,
elevations above this altitude would not serve the needs of the
gorgeted wood-quail, because this species is found most often at 1,750-
2,050 m (5,741-6,726 ft) in altitude (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Turner 2006, p.
22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; Sarria
and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; Wege and Long 1995, pp. 143-144)
(see discussion under Habitat and Life History for the gorgeted wood-
quail).
(2) Cachal[uacute] Biological Reserve: This 1,300-ha (3,212-ac)
Reserve (TNC 2008, p. 1) was established in 1997 adjacent to
Guanent[aacute] Alto Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (Rainforest
Alliance 2008, p. 2). It encompasses primarily mature oak forests and
secondary areas (regenerating pastureland) at altitudes between 1,850
and 2,750 m (6,070 and 9,022 ft). Most of the secondary areas within
the Reserve have been regenerating for 20 years. About 4 percent of
land formerly used for pastureland and slash-and-burn agriculture has
been left to regenerate within the last 8 years (BLI 2007g, p. 10). The
species was first observed at this location in 1999 and again in 2000
and 2001 (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159;
Fuller et al. 2000, p. 27).
While human population pressures in northern Santander have not
been as great as in other parts of the Andes, 70 percent of the
subsistence population living locally has had a major influence on the
upper montane forest system. Slash-and-burn agriculture (clearing small
plots of land for agriculture and settlement) and subsistence
extractive activities (such as harvesting wood, plant fibers, and
animals) have turned the upper montane forests into extraction forests
(Rainforest Alliance 2008, p. 2). Ongoing slashing and burning on the
outskirts of the Reserve could further degrade the integrity of the
habitat within the Reserve (BLI 2007g, p. 11).
(3) Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es (Yargu[iacute]es
Mountains): This 175,000-ha (432,425-ac) forest is located in southern
Santander and ranges in altitude between 200 and 3,200 m (656 and
10,499 ft) (BLI 2007g, p. 12; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 30). This
area was previously unsurveyed for birds, due to political instability
and occupation by revolutionary armed forces (Donegan and Huertas 2005,
pp. 11, 29-30; Donegan et al. 2004, p. 19; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez
2002, p. 160). The gorgeted wood-quail was first observed in
Yargu[iacute]es in 2003 and again in 2004 (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Turner
2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p.
27). This site is now considered to be the stronghold for the species
(Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al.
2004, p. 19) (see Population Estimates, above). This forest does not
have protected status (BLI 2007g, p. 13) and land clearing for slash-
and-burn agriculture continues to be a problem within the
Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es (BLI 2007g, p. 13; Turner 2006,
p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29).
Summary of Factor A
Habitat destruction, alteration, conversion, and fragmentation were
factors in the species' historical decline and continue to be factors
affecting the gorgeted wood-quail. The direct loss of habitat through
widespread deforestation and conversion of primary forests for
agricultural uses has led to a 95 percent range reduction for the
species, leading to extirpation of the species in its type locality (in
Cundinamarca) and an apparent shift in the species' range (to
Santander). The species is known only in three locations, where habitat
conversion and poaching of the gorgeted wood-quail are ongoing.
Deforestation, habitat conversion, and drug eradication efforts have
reduced the amount of suitable habitat at elevations preferred by the
species, such that its current range is between 10 and 27 km\2\ (4 and
10 mi\2\). The destruction and fragmentation of the remaining primary
forested habitat are ongoing throughout the species' range and are
expected to continue.
[[Page 64723]]
Therefore, we find that the present destruction, modification, and
curtailment of habitat are threats to the gorgeted wood-quail
throughout all of its range.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Galliformes such as the gorgeted wood-quail are chiefly terrestrial
birds that are easily hunted or trapped, and they have been closely
associated with humans throughout history as a source for food,
ornamental collection, commercial trade, and recreational hunting
(Fuller et al. 2000, p. 2). Hunting the gorgeted wood-quail is illegal
in Colombia (Factor D) and is considered poaching. Poaching for
subsistence use and for local food trade is ongoing throughout the
species' range (BLI 2007g, pp. 7, 11-13; Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan
and Huertas 2005, p. 29) (BLI 2007g, p. 7). Hunting affects birds in
the lower part of the Guanent[aacute]-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna
Sanctuary (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160; Fuller et al. 2000,
p. 28), including the gorgeted wood-quail. Illegal hunting is an
ongoing problem on the outskirts of the Cachal[uacute] Biological
Reserve, where the species has been observed within the past decade
(BLI 2007g, p. 10; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 158). Poaching of
the gorgeted wood-quail continues to be a problem within the
Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es, considered the stronghold for
the species (BLI 2007g, p. 13; Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas
2005, p. 29). The IUCN Partridge, Quail, and Francolin Specialist Group
(PQF Specialist Group) considers unregulated hunting to be a factor
affecting gorgeted wood-quail populations throughout the species' range
(Fuller et al. 2000, p. 28).
Hunting, in combination with deforestation, may have led to the
local extirpation of this species from Cuchilla del Ramo (Department of
Santander), where the species was first observed in 1970 (Sarria and
[Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; Wege and Long 1995, p. 143) and last
confirmed in 1988 (Collar et al. 1992, p. 172). The gorgeted wood-quail
has not been confirmed at this location again (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Sarria
and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159), which may be due to a
combination of habitat destruction and hunting pressures. This
unprotected area on the western slopes of the East Andes is severely
fragmented due to deforestation (Factor A). In addition, active hunting
was reported in this location in the late 1980s. Collar et al. (1992,
p. 172) interpreted this level of hunting to imply that the species was
capable of withstanding some hunting pressure. Andrade (in litt.,
Collar et al. 1992, p. 172) noted that this would be the case only
where the species is capable of retreating into suitable adjacent
habitat. However, little suitable habitat is located in this area.
Thus, hunting, in combination with deforestation, may have led to the
extirpation of the gorgeted wood-quail from Cuchilla del Ramo.
In addition, Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan (1997, pp. 140-142)
conducted a study on the effect of habitat fragmentation on birds in
Colombia and found that habitat fragmentation facilitates hunting
because smaller habitat patches allow hunters to more easily penetrate
the entire plot (Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 140-142).
Summary of Factor B
The gorgeted wood-quail is hunted (poached) throughout its current
range for local consumption or local food trade. Hunting results in the
direct removal of individuals from the population and can remove
potentially reproductive adults from the breeding pool. This primarily
terrestrial species is particularly vulnerable to hunting pressures due
to its small population size (Factor E) and fragmented distribution
(Factor A). Researchers believe that the gorgeted wood-quail is only
capable of escaping hunting pressures when adjacent suitable habitat
exists. There are continued reports of hunting pressures on the
species; these pressures have been and continue to be exacerbated by
ongoing human encroachment into previously undisturbed forests (Factor
A). Hunting, combined with habitat fragmentation (Factor A), increases
the possibility of local extirpation since the gorgeted wood-quail is
unlikely to reoccupy an area that has been depleted through hunting
(Factor E, Likelihood to Disperse). Hunting may have led to the local
extirpation of the species in a portion of its range. Hunting pressures
are ongoing and affect the entire population of gorgeted wood-quail.
Therefore, we find that hunting is a threat to the gorgeted wood-quail
throughout its range.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any information regarding disease or the
potential for significant disease outbreaks in gorgeted wood-quail
populations. As a result, we do not consider disease to be a threat to
the species.
Potential quail predators include feral dogs, tayras, dwarf
squirrels (Microsciurus sp.), tree squirrels (Sciurus granatensis),
common opossums (Didelphis marsupialis), kinkajous (Potos flavus),
Central American agoutis (Dasyprocta punctata), and South American
coatis (Nasua nasua) (Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, p. 141). A
predation study conducted in the Colombian Andes demonstrated that
habitat fragmentation increased predation pressure on the eggs of the
common quail (Coturnix coturnix) when situated within smaller, isolated
habitat fragments (Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 137-143).
Similar studies have found that nest predation is more prevalent in
smaller, isolated forest patches because the small size of the patch
facilitated predators' access to prey throughout the entire plot
(Keyser et al. 2002, p. 186; Renjifo 1999, p. 1,133; Keyser et al.
1998, p. 991; Hoover et al. 1995, p. 151; Gibbs 1991, p. 157; Wilcove
1985, p. 1,214). Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan (1997, pp. 140-142)
also found that smaller fragments support smaller predators, which tend
to depredate on eggs and juveniles, rendering understory nesting birds,
such as the gorgeted wood-quail, particularly vulnerable to predation
during these life-history stages (Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997,
pp. 140-142). These studies were described in more detail above, as
part of the Factor C analysis for the blue-billed curassow.
Summary of Factor C
Feral dogs, tayras, dwarf squirrels, tree squirrels, common
opossums, kinkajous, Central American agoutis, and South American
coatis are potential gorgeted wood-quail predators. Predation results
in the direct removal of individuals from the population and can remove
potentially reproductive adults from the breeding pool. This primarily
terrestrial species is particularly vulnerable to predation pressures
due to its small population size (Factor E) and fragmented distribution
(Factor A). Habitat fragmentation has occurred and is ongoing
throughout the species' range. Studies on similar species in similar
Andean habitats indicate that vulnerability to predation increases with
increased habitat fragmentation and smaller patch sizes. Predation
exacerbates the genetic complications associated with the species'
small population size (Factor E). Because of the species' small
population size and inability to recolonize isolated habitat fragments
(Factor E), predation renders the species vulnerable to local
extirpation. Therefore, we find that predation, exacerbated by ongoing
habitat destruction (Factor A) and hunting (Factor B), is a threat to
the gorgeted wood-quail.
[[Page 64724]]
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms may provide species-specific or habitat-
specific protections. An evaluation of the adequacy of regulatory
mechanisms within Colombia to mitigate or remove the threats to the
gorgeted wood-quail is provided below, beginning with species-specific
and followed by habitat-specific protection mechanisms.
Colombia has enacted numerous laws to protect species and their
habitats (Matallana-T 2005, p. 121). The gorgeted wood-quail is listed
as a critically endangered species under Colombian Law 99 of 1993
(EcoLex 1993, p. 2) and Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (EcoLex 2002, pp.
10, 12). A full description of these laws and the categorization of
threatened species in Colombia were provided above, as part of the
Factor D analysis for the blue-billed curassow. Under Resolution No.
849 of 1973 and Resolution No. 787 of 1977, the Ministry of the
Environment does not permit the gorgeted wood-quail to be hunted
commercially or for sport because of its status as a critically
endangered species (EcoLex 1973, p. 1; EcoLex 1977, p. 3). Neither
Resolution prohibits subsistence hunting, which is a threat to the
species throughout its range (Factor B). Gorgeted wood-quail is hunted
within the Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es, which has no
protected status (BLI 2007g, p. 13), despite being considered the
stronghold for the species (Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas
2005, p. 29). Thus, these Resolutions are ineffective at reducing the
existing threat of subsistence hunting to the gorgeted wood-quail
(Factor B).
Colombia has enacted numerous forestry laws and forestry management
practices (Law No. 2 (EcoLex 1959); Decree No. 2,811 (Faolex 1974);
Decree No. 1,791 (Faolex 1996); Law No. 1,021 (EcoLex 2006)).
Weaknesses in the implementation of these laws and the decentralized
nature of Colombian resource management are described in detail above
for the blue-billed curassow (Factor D) (ITTO 2006, pp. 218-219, 222;
Matallana-T 2005, pp. 121-122). These regulatory mechanisms are
ineffective at protecting the gorgeted wood-quail (BLI 2007g, p. 13;
ITTO 2006, p. 222). Habitat destruction continues to be a problem
within the unprotected forests of Serran[iacute]a de los
Yargu[iacute]es (BLI 2007g, p. 13), considered the stronghold of the
species (Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29), and on
the outskirts of the Reserva Biol[oacute]gica Cachal[uacute], where the
species has also been observed (BLI 2007g, p. 10). Therefore, we
determine that forestry regulations are not effective in mitigating the
threats to the gorgeted wood-quail from habitat destruction (Factor A).
Colombia has several categories of national habitat protection
(Matallana-T 2005, pp. 121-122), which were more fully described above,
as part of the Factor D analysis for the blue-billed curassow
(Matallana-T 2005, pp. 121-122). The gorgeted wood-quail occurs within
two protected areas: the Guanent[aacute]-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna
Sanctuary (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160; Fuller et al. 2000,
p. 28) and the Cachal[uacute] Biological Reserve (BLI 2007g, p. 10;
Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 158). Habitat destruction and
subsistence hunting (poaching) are ongoing within these protected
areas, despite being illegal (BLI 2007g, p. 10). Therefore, these
sanctuaries and reserves provide little or no protection to the species
from the threats of habitat destruction (Factor A) or poaching (Factor
B).
Summary of Factor D
Colombia has adopted numerous laws and regulatory mechanisms to
administer and manage wildlife and their habitats. The gorgeted wood-
quail is considered critically endangered under Colombian law and lives
within two protected areas. However, on-the-ground enforcement of
existing wildlife protection and forestry laws and oversight of the
local jurisdictions implementing and regulating activities are
ineffective at mitigating the primary threats to the gorgeted wood-
quail. As discussed for Factor A, habitat destruction, degradation, and
fragmentation continue throughout the existing range of the gorgeted
wood-quail. As discussed for Factor B, uncontrolled hunting of the
gorgeted wood-quail is ongoing and negatively affects the continued
existence of the species. Therefore, we find that the existing
regulatory mechanisms currently in place are inadequate to mitigate the
primary threats of habitat destruction (Factor A) and hunting (Factor
B) to the gorgeted wood-quail.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Two additional factors affect the gorgeted wood-quail: its minimal
likelihood for dispersal and the species' small population size.
Likelihood To Disperse
The gorgeted wood-quail is currently known in three localities in
two disjunct locations within the Department of Santander:
Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es, in northern Santander, and
Cachal[uacute] Biological Reserve and Guanent[aacute]-Alto Rio Fonce
Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, in southern Santander (Rainforest Alliance
2008, p. 2; TNC 2008, p. 1; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 30). Although
there is little information on the species' dispersal capabilities, the
isolated, fragmented nature of the remaining suitable habitat is
considered by researchers to be a hindrance to its ability to disperse
because: (1) The gorgeted wood-quail is primarily a terrestrial species
that is found at mid-to-upper-elevation forests (1,750-2,050 m (5,741-
6,726 ft)) on the western slopes of the East Andes (BLI 2007g, p. 2;
Sarria and Turner 2006, p. 22; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan
et al. 2003, [Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; Fuller et al. 2000, pp.
2, 27-28; del Hoyo 1994, p. 431; Wege and Long 1995, pp. 143-144;
Collar et al. 1992, pp. 171-172; Wege and Long 1995, pp. 143-144); (2)
the species is dependent on mature forest for at least part of its life
cycle and is not found in secondary habitats that are not adjacent to
primary forests (BLI 2007g, p. 3; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p.
159); (3) researchers believe that the species is capable of escaping
hunting pressures only when adjacent to suitable habitat (Andrade in
litt., as cited in Collar et al. 1992, p. 172); (4) the species is
currently located in two disjunct areas, one in northern Santander and
the other in southern Santander; and (5) most of the habitat below
1,950-2,500 m (6,398-8,202 ft) in the East Andes has been destroyed,
leaving only isolated, fragmented habitat patches (Fuller et al. 2000,
p. 28; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 192). Because the species has not
demonstrated an aptitude to disperse into secondary-growth areas that
are not adjacent to primary forest, and given the isolated, disjunct
nature of remaining forest fragments, the gorgeted wood-quail, as with
other narrow-ranging species found in fragmented habitat (Hanski 1998,
pp. 45-46), is unlikely or incapable of dispersing to suitable habitat
that is not adjacent to existing locales.
Small Population Size
Deforestation (Factor A) and overutilization (Factor B) have
greatly affected the current population size and distributional range
of the gorgeted wood-quail (Collar et al. 1994, p. 60; Collar et al.
1992, pp. 126-127). The species was thought to be extinct or on the
verge of extinction until its rediscovery in 1970 (Fuller et al. 2000,
pp. 4-5, 27; Wege and Long 1995, p. 146; Collar et al. 1992, p. 171).
The gorgeted wood-quail is now confirmed
[[Page 64725]]
in three isolated areas: the Sanctuary of Fauna and Flora
Guanent[aacute]-Alto R[iacute]o Fonce, the Natural Reserve
Cachal[uacute], and the Serran[iacute]a de los Yarigu[iacute]es
(Donegan and Huertas 2005, pp. 11, 29-30; Donegan et al. 2004, p. 19;
Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 160). The population of the gorgeted
wood-quail is currently estimated to include 189 to 486 individuals,
with a declining population trend (BLI 2007g, pp. 1, 5).
The gorgeted wood-quail's restricted range, combined with its small
population size (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002, p. 138; Cuervo and
Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361), makes the species
particularly vulnerable to the threat of adverse natural (e.g.,
genetic, demographic, or environmental) and manmade (e.g., hunting or
deforestation) events that destroy individuals and their habitat (Young
and Clarke 2000, pp. 361-366; Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; Primack 1998,
pp. 279-308). Small population sizes render species vulnerable to
genetic risks that can have individual or population-level consequences
on the genetic level and can increase the species' susceptibility to
demographic problems, as explained in more detail above for the blue-
billed curassow (Factor E, Small Population Size) (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Once a population is
reduced below a certain number of individuals, it tends to rapidly
decline towards extinction (Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; Soul[eacute]
1987, p. 181; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 25; Franklin 1980, pp.
147-148).
In the absence of quantitative studies specific to this species, a
general approximation of minimum viable population size is the 50/500
rule, as described above as part of the Factor E analysis for the
brown-banded antpitta (Shaffer 1981, pp. 132-133; Soul[eacute] 1980,
pp. 160-162). The total population size of the gorgeted wood-quail is
estimated to be between 186 and 486 individuals. While 186 individuals
is above the minimum population size required to avoid short-term
genetic consequences, 486 falls just below the threshold minimum number
of 500 individuals required for long-term fitness of a population and
does not take into account that not all members of the population will
be contributing to population growth at any one time.
Because the gorgeted wood-quail exists in two isolated, disjunct
habitat fragments, between which they are unlikely to disperse, an
examination of the fitness of each subpopulation is more appropriate.
For the purposes of this analysis, although we have reservations about
the precision of these estimates (see Population Estimates discussion
above), we will use the following two population estimates: 250
individuals in Northern Santander and 30-66 individuals in southern
Santander. Upon examination of these estimates, both populations are
clearly below the threshold required for long-term fitness in a
population. The lower limit of the population estimate for the southern
Santander population is below the threshold required to avoid short-
term risks such as inbreeding and demographic shifts, whereas the upper
limit is barely above the 50-individual threshold. Therefore, we
currently consider these subpopulations (and the species as a whole) to
be at risk due to the lack of short- and long-term viability.
Summary of Factor E
The gorgeted wood-quail is unlikely or incapable of dispersing into
suitable habitat that is isolated from extant populations, and the
species' overall small population size makes it vulnerable to genetic
and demographic risks that negatively impact the species' short- and
long-term viability. Habitat destruction through deforestation (Factor
A) and overutilization through hunting (Factor B) have greatly affected
the species' current population size. Believed to be extinct or on the
verge of extinction within the past 30 years, the species is now
confirmed in three areas of two disjunct locations. The gorgeted wood-
quail's small population size, combined with its restricted range and
inability to repopulate disjunct suitable habitat following local
extirpations, makes the species particularly vulnerable to the threat
of adverse natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or environmental) and
manmade (e.g., hunting or deforestation) events that destroy
individuals and their habitat.
Gorgeted Wood-Quail Status Determination
The five primary factors that threaten the survival of the gorgeted
wood-quail are: (1) Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and degradation
(Factor A); (2) overexploitation due to hunting (Factor B); (3)
predation (Factor C); (4) inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to reduce
the threats to the species (Factor D); and (5) small population size
and isolation of remaining populations (Factor E). The gorgeted wood-
quail, a small terrestrial bird, prefers primary montane forests or
adjacent secondary forests at altitudes between 1,750 and 2,050 m
(5,741 and 6,726 ft). The species' historic range has been reduced by
92 percent, extirpating the species from its type locality in the
Department of Cundinamarca and causing the species to shift to the
extremes of its range and elevational distribution (Factor A). The
estimated suitable habitat available to the species is approximately
10-27 km\2\ (4-10 mi\2\).
Within the past decade, the gorgeted wood-quail has been confirmed
in only three locations: Serran[iacute]a de los Yargu[iacute]es, in
northern Santander, and adjacent localities in the Guanent[aacute]-Alto
Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary and Cachal[uacute] Biological
Reserve, in southern Santander. Much of the primary forest, mid-
elevation habitat preferred by the species has been destroyed by human
activities, such as slash-and-burn agriculture, grazing, and extractive
industries (Factor A). Illegal crop production, which continues
throughout the species' range, has altered soil compositions, hindering
regeneration of abandoned fields. In addition, drug eradication
programs involving the aerial spraying of nonspecific herbicides have
further degraded the environment and destroyed primary forest habitat.
In combination, these threats exacerbate the negative consequences
to the species. For example, habitat fragmentation (Factor A) increases
the species' vulnerability to hunting (Factor B). Poaching, in
combination with habitat destruction, may have led to the local
extirpation of the gorgeted wood-quail from Cuchilla del Ramo. This
population was only discovered in 1970 and, amidst ongoing habitat
destruction and hunting pressures, has not been observed there since
1988. Thus, deforestation and hunting within the past 30 years may have
led to the extirpation of the gorgeted wood-quail from this location.
Habitat fragmentation also exposes the species to greater risk of
extinction caused by adverse natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or
environmental) and manmade (e.g., hunting or deforestation) events
(Factor E). The species' population has decreased by up to 9 percent in
the past 10 years and has likely been extirpated from at least one
location (Cundinamarca) due to habitat loss and from another locality
(Cuchilla del Ramo) due to a combination of habitat loss and hunting.
The global population of the gorgeted wood-quail is estimated to be
between 187 and 486 individuals. Given that the gorgeted wood-quail is
likely to interact as subpopulations and is unlikely to disperse
between patches of fragmented habitat, the effective population size is
actually much smaller than its estimated global population would imply.
This small population size puts the gorgeted wood-quail at risk from
both near-term genetic complications (such as
[[Page 64726]]
inbreeding and demographic shifts) and lack of long-term fitness (such
as the ability to adapt to changing conditions). These potential
genetic problems are exacerbated by ongoing human-induced threats, such
as habitat destruction (Factor A) and hunting (Factor B), factors which
are not being mitigated by existing regulations (Factor D) and are
further magnified because the species is unlikely to repopulate
isolated patches of suitable habitat where the species has undergone
decline or local extirpation, increasing the likelihood of local
extirpations (Factor E).
The gorgeted wood-quail is listed as critically endangered, making
it illegal to hunt the species, and two of the three known localities
are within protected areas. However, habitat destruction and poaching
are ongoing throughout the species' range (Factor D). Thus, the
regulations in place are ineffective in protecting the gorgeted wood-
quail and its habitat.
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the gorgeted wood-quail. We consider the
ongoing threats to the gorgeted wood-quail, habitat destruction (Factor
A), hunting (Factor B), and predation (Factor C), exacerbated by the
species' small population size and limited dispersal ability (Factor
E), and compounded by inadequate regulatory mechanisms to mitigate
these threats (Factor D), to be equally present and of the same
magnitude throughout the species' entire current range. Based on this
information, we find that the gorgeted wood-quail is in danger of
extinction throughout its range.
Esmeraldas woodstar (Chaetocercus berlepschi) Biology and Distribution
Species Description
Esmeraldas woodstar, a member of the hummingbird family
(Trochilidae) and endemic to Ecuador, is approximately 6.5 cm (2.5 in.)
in length (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 678; Ridgely and Greenfield 2001b,
p. 295; Schuchmann 1999, p. 468; Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39). The
species is locally known as ``Colibr[iacute] de Esmeraldas'' or
``Estrellita esmeralde[ntilde]a'' (UNEP-WCMC 2008b). Both sexes have
striking violet, green, and white plumage. The male has a narrow band
across its breast, whereas the female has a full white underbody (BLI
2007c, p. 1; Ridgely and Greenfield 2001b, plate 42).
Taxonomy
Esmeraldas woodstar was first taxonomically described by Simon in
1889 (BLI 2007e, p. 1). The type specimen (the actual specimen that was
first described) of the Esmeraldas woodstar was obtained from the moist
forest habitat near Esmeraldas City, in the Department of Esmeraldas
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 533). Esmeraldas City is, therefore, referred
to as the ``type locality.''
Simon placed the species in the Trochilidae family, under the name
Chaetocercus berlepschi. The species is also known by the synonym
Acestrura berlepschi. Both CITES and BirdLife International recognize
the species as Chaetocercus berlepschi (UNEP-WCMC 2008b, p. 1; BLI
2007e, p. 1). Therefore, we accept the species as Chaetocercus
berlepschi, which follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System
(ITIS 2008).
Habitat and Life History
Esmeraldas woodstar is a range-restricted, forest-dwelling species
with highly localized populations (BLI 2007f, pp. 1-3; Schuchmann 1999,
p. 532; Collar et al. 1992, p. 533). Esmeraldas woodstar prefers
primary forest and is usually found in lowland semi-evergreen forests
(cloud or fog forests) and has occasionally been seen in secondary-
growth semihumid (moist) habitat during the breeding season (Best and
Kessler 1995, p. 141; BLI 2007c, p. 3; Hummingbird Monitoring Network
2006, p. 1; BLI 2004, p. 2; Ridgely and Greenfield 2001b, p. 295; del
Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 678; Schuchmann 1999, p. 468; Stattersfield et al.
1998, p. 211; Collar et al. 1992, p. 533; Williams and Tobias 1991, p.
39). Esmeraldas woodstar has not been seen in secondary-growth forests
at any other time of year, and researchers are not certain that the
species can survive in secondary forests year-round (BLI 2007c, p. 3).
The species has mostly been recorded at elevations between 50 and 150 m
(164 and 492 ft) (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001a, p. 390; Ridgely and
Greenfield 2001b, p. 295), but has occasionally been observed above 500
m (1,640 ft) (i.e., at Loma Alta; Factor A) (Ridgely and Greenfield
2001b, p. 295; Best and Kessler 1995, p. 141; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p.
678; Schuchmann 1999, p. 468; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 211;
Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39).
Esmeraldas woodstar has been seen most often along forest borders,
with females especially seen perching on dead twigs (Ridgely and
Greenfield 2001b, p. 295). The species forages mainly in the canopy and
has been recorded ``hawking'' insects from the air, as well as foraging
nectar from flowers of the strawberry tree (Muntingia calabura), river
koko (Inga vera), and mango tree (Mangifera spp.) (Ridgely and
Greenfield 2001b, p. 295; Becker et al. 2000, p. 55; del Hoyo et al.
1999, p. 678). As recently as 1999, there were no known breeding sites
for the Esmeraldas woodstar (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 678). Today, one
breeding site has been located in the cloud forests of the Colonche
Hills (Hummingbird Monitoring Network 2006, p. 1), in the Department of
Guayas (Best and Kessler 1995, p. 54). The breeding season is from
December to March (BLI 2007c, p. 3). Little else is known of the
Esmeraldas woodstar's breeding habits or other activities during most
of the year (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001a, pp. 389-390). The species
seems to ``disappear'' from known locations during nonbreeding months
(BLI 2007c, p. 2; Becker et al. 2000, p. 55). In general, male
hummingbirds breed with several females in one breeding season and the
females take responsibility for all remaining reproductive
responsibilities, including nest building, incubation, and rearing.
Hummingbirds typically produce two eggs per clutch (Schuchmann 1999,
pp. 506, 509).
Historical Range and Distribution
The type locality for the Esmeraldas woodstar (the location of its
first discovery) was in Esmeraldas, near Esmeraldas City, and the last
specimen was observed there and in the Department of Manabi in 1912
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 533). The species' historic range has been
reduced by 99 percent (Dodson and Gentry 1991, p. 293). The area around
its type locality (Esmeraldas City) has been replaced by pastureland
and is nearly devoid of all trees (Collar et al. 1992, p. 533). After
the species went unobserved following the 1912 sightings, it was
thought to be extinct, until it was rediscovered in 1990 (Ridgely and
Greenfield 2001a, pp. 389-390; Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39).
Current Range and Distribution
Today, Esmeraldas woodstar ranges in northwestern Ecuador, in the
Departments of Esmeraldas, Manabi, and Guayas, along the slopes of the
coastal cordillera up to 500 m (1,640 ft) (Ridgely and Greenfield
2001b, p. 295; Schuchmann 1999, p. 468; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 678;
Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39). The current extent of the species'
range is approximately 1,155 km\2\ (446 mi\2\), in three disjunct and
isolated areas (BLI 2004, p. 2; Dodson and Gentry 1991, p. 293).
The species was rediscovered on ridges above the lower R[iacute]o
Ayampe (in northwest Guayas/Manabi) in March 1990, near the Machalilla
National Park (BLI 2007c, p. 2; Becker et al. 2000, p.
[[Page 64727]]
55; Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39), and again in January 1991
(Ridgely and Greenfield 2001a, p. 389). Subsequent attempts to relocate
the species at R[iacute]o Ayampe (in August 1991 and July 1993) were
unsuccessful (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001a, p. 389; Collar et al. 1992,
p. 533). Researchers subsequently determined that the species occupies
this habitat only seasonally, frequenting the Park from December
through the spring (March), but is absent from this location during
nonbreeding months (BLI 2007c, p. 2; and Greenfield 2001a, p. 389;
Becker et al. 2000, p. 55) .
Since then, the species has been observed at the following
locations: Esmeraldas: Su[aacute], in January 1993, and Muisne, in 1994
(month unknown); Manabi: Isla de La Plata (part of the Machalilla
National Park), December-January 1998 (BLI 2007c, p. 2; Ridgely and
Greenfield 2001a, p. 389; Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39). The species
was not observed on Isla de La Plata during a bird survey conducted in
June 2000 (Cisneros-Heredia 2005, p. 24), reconfirming their absence
from this habitat during nonbreeding months.
Population Estimates
Esmeraldas woodstar is considered a rare, range-restricted species
with highly localized populations in three general areas (BLI 2007c,
pp. 1-3; Schuchmann 1999, p. 532). There have been no population
surveys of this species. BirdLife International estimated that the
population currently includes between 186 and 373 individuals, based on
estimates using similar species of hummingbirds (BLI 2007c, p. 6).
Conservation Status
The Esmeraldas woodstar is identified as an endangered species
under Ecuadorian law (EcoLex 2003b, p. 36). This species is classified
as `Endangered' on the IUCN Red List, due to severe fragmentation
within the woodstar's restricted range (IUCN 2006).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Esmeraldas Woodstar
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Habitat or Range
The Esmeraldas woodstar is restricted to the semihumid forests and
woodlands from sealevel to 500 m (1,600 ft) along the Coastal
Cordillera of western Ecuador (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001b, p. 295;
del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 678). The current extent of the species' range
is approximately 1,155 km\2\ (446 mi\2\), in three disjunct and
isolated areas (BLI 2004, p. 2).
Deforestation
The semihumid, semievergreen forest environment preferred by the
Esmeraldas woodstar is one of the most threatened forest habitats in
the Neotropics (Schuchmann 1999, p. 532; Collar et al. 1992, p. 533).
This region is also known as the Tumbesian region (which encompasses
the coast and foothills beginning in southwestern Ecuador and into the
midcoastal area of northwestern Peru) (World Land Trust U.S. 2008, p.
1). This habitat type has been reduced by over 99 percent (Dodson and
Gentry 1991, p. 293), making this region one of the most vulnerable
endemic bird areas in South America (Stattersfield et al. 1998, p.
214). Deforestation, understory degradation, and limited habitat size
are among the biggest impacts to resident birds in the Tumbesian region
(Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 214).
Forested habitat within western Ecuador, including that within the
Esmeraldas woodstar's range, has diminished rapidly due to logging,
clearing for agriculture, and road development (Dodson and Gentry 1991,
pp. 283-293). The primary moist forest habitat at the species' type
locality (Esmeraldas City) has been replaced with pastures and
scattered trees (Collar et al. 1992, p. 533). Dodson and Gentry (1991,
p. 293) indicated that rapid habitat loss is continuing and that extant
forests will be eliminated in the near future if deforestation
continues. Recent reports indicate that forest habitat loss continues
in Ecuador. Between the years 1990 and 2005, Ecuador lost a total of
2.96 million ha (7.31 million ac) of primary forest, which represents a
16.7 percent deforestation rate and a total loss of 21.5 percent of
forested habitat since 1990 (Butler 2006b, pp. 1-3; FAO 2003b, p. 1).
Very little suitable habitat remains for the species, and remaining
habitat is highly fragmented (BLI 2004a, p. 2).
Other Human Factors
Ongoing deforestation has transformed forested habitat within the
region to a patchwork of cropland, with fewer than 5 percent of the
forested areas remaining only on steep slopes that cannot be cultivated
(Best and Kessler 1995, p. 35; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 214).
Persistent grazing from goats and cattle has decimated the understory
vegetation and any secondary forest growth (BLI 2004a, p. 2).
Researchers have observed that road building and other infrastructure
improvements in previously remote forested areas have increased
accessibility and further facilitated habitat destruction,
exploitation, and human settlement (Etter et al. 2006, p. 1;
[Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2,042; C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez
Becerra 2004, pp. 125-130; Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004, pp. 118-119; Hunter
1996, pp. 158-159). Fragmented habitat also increases predator access
to the forest, exposing the species to increased risk of predation
(Factor C).
Refugia
The species is currently known in three localities: (1) Isla de la
Plata, (2) Machalilla National Park, and (3) Loma Alta Communal
Ecological Reserve.
(1) Isla de la Plata: This 1,420-ha (3,508-ac) island is
approximately 27 km (17 mi) from the coast of the Department of
Manab[iacute] and is actually part of the Machalilla National Park (see
below). The species was last observed on the island in 1998 (BLI 2007c,
p. 2; Becker et al. 2000, p. 55). The island is mostly uninhabited, but
tourism for bird-watching occurs there year-round (BLI 2007c, p. 9),
which occasionally disturbs the native birds. Nonnative domestic
animals, including goats (Capra hircus), were introduced to the island
many years ago (Curry 1993, p. 24). Nonnative predators, which have
also been introduced to the island, are discussed below under Factor C.
The grazing activity of the goats has destroyed understory habitat on
the island. As of 2007, BirdLife International reports that an
eradication program is underway to remove these feral animals from the
island (BLI 2007c, p. 10). Despite a report, in 1991, that the goat
population on the island had reportedly been reduced from an estimated
300 to 30 animals (Curry 1993, p. 24), the colony of goats apparently
remains extant to this day (BLI 2007c, p. 10).
(2) Machalilla National Park: This 34,393-ha (84,985-ac) Park was
established in 1979 (BLI 2007c, pp. 11, 13) and is designated as a
Ramsar Wetland of International Importance (BLI 2007c, p. 13) (see
Factor D). In addition to the male sighting on Isla de La Plata, a
female was also observed within the Park in 1998 (Becker et al. 2000,
p. 55). The Park encompasses a variety of habitats, including high-
elevation humid and cloud forests and lower-elevation slopes covered
with semideciduous and deciduous forests (BLI 2007c, pp. 11).
This park is populated, and residents subsist on farming and
cattle-raising (BLI 2007c, pp. 11, 13; Lasso 1997, p. 3). Portions of
land within the Park have been converted to pastures or cropland (Lasso
1997, p. 3). Some previously deforested areas have been left to
regenerate (BLI 2007c, p. 13). However,
[[Page 64728]]
ongoing grazing is hindering understory development in forest areas
left to regenerate (BLI 2007c, pp. 10, 13, 17). Residents continue to
selectively harvest trees and nontimber products; this activity is not
monitored and the extent of the impact is unknown (BLI 2007c, p. 13).
The Park is surrounded by a matrix of altered habitat, dominated by
agricultural crops such as bananas, corn, sugarcane, tomatoes
(Lycopersicon esculentum), yucca (Yucca spp.), and pasturelands (BLI
2007c, p. 11; Lasso 1997, p. 3). A highway built around the outskirts
of the park provides greater access to more areas within the Park (BLI
2007c, p. 13). Other activities in the area, including a fish meal
processing plant, petroleum waste discharges into the sea, and
accumulation of solid waste, are potential sources of pollution within
the Park (Lasso 1997, p. 3).
(3) Loma Alta Communal Ecological Reserve: This 6,000-ha (14,826-
ac) area was declared a Reserve in 1996 (BLI 2007c, p. 17). The Reserve
was created to protect the watershed and to help preserve the land of
four groups of indigenous inhabitants. The Reserve encompasses a
variety of habitats from dry to cloud forests (BLI 2007c, p. 15). About
500 ha (1,235 ac) of the Reserve is dedicated to cultivation of the
Panama hat plant (Carludovica palmata, locally known as ``Paja
Toquilla''), which is processed and sold by the community. Cattle-
raising has increased in recent years and the regenerating forests have
again been decimated by overgrazing. Logging, agriculture, and slash-
and-burn farming continue to impact this Reserve (BLI 2007c, p. 17).
Summary of Factor A
Esmeraldas woodstars are rare, range-restricted species with highly
localized populations in three disjunct locations within an area of
approximately 1,155 km\2\ (446 mi \2\) (BLI 2004, p. 2; Dodson and
Gentry 1991, p. 293). The evergreen forests preferred by this species
have undergone extensive deforestation, and remaining habitat is highly
fragmented. Habitat alteration and human activities, such as slash-and-
burn agriculture and cattle and goat grazing, are occurring throughout
the species' range, including the protected areas in which the species
occurs (Machalilla National Park, including Isla de la Plata, and Loma
Alta Communal Ecological Reserve). Infrastructure development and
economic activities (such as fish meal processing and nontimber forest
product extraction) occur throughout the species' known breeding range.
Logging, road development, and pollution from industrial activities
occur within or near protected areas. Habitat destruction, alteration,
and conversion have reduced the available habitat for this species by
99 percent. These activities are ongoing throughout the species' range,
including within protected areas (Factor D), and are expected to
continue.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Stattersfield et al. (1998, p. 214) reported that birds in the
Tumbesian region are, in part, impacted by hunting and trade
(Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 214). However, we have no current
information to suggest that hunting for domestic or international
consumption or trade is impacting the Esmeraldas woodstar including BLI
(2007c, p. 3, and Best and Kessler 1995? pp. 124, 141)). Locally, the
communities in Loma Alta, where this species occurs, are involved in
conservation activities, including protecting native species in Loma
Alta Communal Ecological Reserve against hunting, timber harvest and
agricultural expansion.
In 1987, the Esmeraldas woodstar was listed in CITES Appendix II
(UNEP-WCMC 2008b, p. 1), which includes species that are not
necessarily threatened with extinction, but which require regulation of
international trade to ensure that trade of the species is compatible
with the species' survival. International trade in specimens of
Appendix-II species is authorized through permits or certificates under
certain circumstances, including verification that trade will not be
detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild and that the
specimens were legally acquired (UNEP-WCMC 2008a, p. 1). According to
the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), there has been one
international transaction permitted by CITES since listing. In 1993,
100 ``bodies'' were imported to Mexico through the United States.
According to the trade data, the specimens were being traded for
commercial purposes and were seized by inspectors (UNEP-WCMC 2008d, p.
1). No further CITES-recorded trade in this species has occurred since
that time. Although we are no longer able to determine the exact
details surrounding this seizure, we consider the seizure and lack of
ensuing trade to be supportive that CITES has been effective in
controlling commercial trade in this species. Therefore, we do not
consider international trade for commercial purposes to be a threat to
the species.
Tourism occurs year-round at Isla de la Plata and has been known to
occasionally disturb the native birds (BLI 2007c, pp. 2, 9-10). There
is no information regarding whether Esmeraldas woodstar is among the
native species that is adversely affected by ecotourism or other human
disturbance.
We are unaware of any other information currently available that
addresses the occurrence of overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes that may be affecting
the Esmeraldas woodstar population. Consequently, we do not consider
this factor to be a threat to the species.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
We are unaware of information regarding disease or the potential
for significant disease outbreaks in the Esmeraldas woodstar. As a
result, we do not consider disease to be a threat to the species.
Hummingbird eggs and chicks are most vulnerable to predation. Known
hummingbird predators that are found in cloud forest habitat in Ecuador
include domestic cats (Felis catus), feral cats, hawks (family
Accipitridae), owls (order Strigiformes), and snakes (suborder
Serpentes) (Rosso 2006, p. 35; Borchardt 2004, p. 5; The Hummingbird
Society, no date (n.d.), p. 1). Many insect-eating predators have been
known to prey on hummingbirds because of their small size, including
praying mantis (family Mantidae), spiders (class Arachnida), bees and
wasps (order Hymenoptera), frogs (order Anura), and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) (Rosso 2006, p. 35, Borchardt 2004, p. 5; The
Hummingbird Society n.d., p. 1). According to the FAO-Fisheries and
Aquaculture Department (2000, p. 1), largemouth bass is a nonnative
invasive species that was introduced to Ecuador sometime prior to 1988.
Many of these potential Esmeraldas woodstar predators are found within
the Machalilla National Park (Emmons and Albuja 1992, pp. 120-121),
both on the mainland and on Isla de La Plata (see Factor A).
On Isla de La Plata, nonnative predators, including cats and spiny
rats (Proechimys decumanus), were introduced to the island many years
ago (BLI 2007c, p. 10; Curry 1993, p. 24). Cats are opportunistic
predators and their diet comprises a variety of animals, including
birds (Rosero 2006, p. 5). It was conjectured that the wild cats on
Isla de La Plata would keep the rat population in check. However, Curry
(1993, p. 24) examined the stomach contents of several cats on the
Island and found that they contained egg shell fragments, not mammal
hair, indicating that the cats were preying upon bird
[[Page 64729]]
nests. Esmeraldas woodstar is observed on Isla de La Plata only during
breeding season (BLI 2007c, p. 2; Cisneros-Heredia 2005, p. 24; Becker
et al. 2000, p. 55), which renders the woodstar especially vulnerable
to egg predation by cats. Cats are also considered among the most
common predators of nonnesting hummingbirds, especially during torpor,
a resting state induced in hummingbirds when energy levels are low (BLI
2008b, p. 1; The Hummingbird Society n.d., p. 1; Schuchmann 1999, p.
485). During torpor, hummingbirds are slow to react to external stimuli
(Schuchmann 1999, p. 485). Cats are responsible for endangering other
island-dwelling hummingbirds, including the critically endangered
Fern[aacute]ndez firecrown (Sephanoides fernandensis) (native to the
Juan Fern[aacute]ndez Islands, Chile) (BLI 2008b, p. 1; The Hummingbird
Society n.d., p. 1).
According to BirdLife International, an eradication program is
underway to remove feral animals from the island (BLI 2007c, p. 10).
One project to control the introduced cat population on Isla De La
Plata, being supported by the World Conservation Foundation, would trap
the feral cats, neuter them, and return them to the wild, with the
eventual goal of preventing further reproduction of the feral
population. This project will also help to better quantify the extent
of the invasion on the island (Rosero 2006, p. 5). However, predation
on the island continues to be a threat to native bird species,
including the Esmeraladas woodstar, both on the Island and in
Machalilla National Park (BLI 2007c, p. 10; Rosero 2006, p. 5; Emmons
and Albuja 1992, pp. 120-121).
The Esmeraldas woodstar's historic range has been reduced by 99
percent (Dodson and Gentry 1991, p. 293), and remaining suitable
habitat is highly fragmented (BLI 2004a, p. 2; Stattersfield et al.
1998, p. 214; Best and Kessler 1995, p. 35). Studies have shown that
habitat fragmentation increases the potential predation pressure within
habitat fragments by facilitating the predators' access throughout the
fragment and because smaller fragments support smaller predators, which
tend to prey upon the more vulnerable life-history stages of the
Esmeraldas woodstar, eggs and juveniles (Keyser et al. 2002, p. 186;
Renjifo 1999, p. 1,133; Keyser et al. 1998, p. 991; Arango-V[eacute]lez
and Kattan 1997, pp. 137-143; Hoover et al. 1995, p. 151; Gibbs 1991,
p. 157; Wilcove 1985, p. 1,214). These studies were described in more
detail above, as part of the Factor C analysis for the blue-billed
curassow.
Summary of Factor C
Domestic and feral cats, rats, hawks, owls, snakes, praying mantis,
spiders, bees, wasps, frogs, and largemouth bass are all predators of
hummingbirds that are found in Esmeraldas woodstar habitat. Predation
results in the direct removal of eggs, juveniles, and adults from the
population. Esmeraldas woodstars produce a low clutch size and are
particularly vulnerable to egg predation by cats on Isla de la Plata
(see Habitat and Life History). Esmeraldas woodstar habitat is much
reduced and highly fragmented (Factor A), and studies on similar
species in similar Andean habitats indicate that vulnerability to
predation by generalist predators increases with increased habitat
fragmentation and smaller patch sizes. Predation can remove potentially
reproductive adults from the breeding pool and exacerbates the genetic
complications associated with the species' small population size
(Factor E), increasing the species' vulnerability to local extirpation.
Therefore, we find that predation, exacerbated by ongoing habitat
destruction (Factor A), is a threat to the Esmeraldas woodstar.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms may provide species-specific or habitat-
specific protections. An evaluation of the adequacy of regulatory
mechanisms within Ecuador to mitigate or remove the threats to the
Esmeraldas woodstar is provided below, beginning with species-specific
and followed by habitat-specific protection mechanisms.
The Esmeraldas woodstar is protected under Ecuadorian law by Decree
No. 3,516 of 2003 (Unified Text of the Secondary Legislation of the
Ministry of Environment (EcoLex 2003b, pp. 1-2 and 36). Decree No.
3,516 summarizes the laws governing environmental policy in Ecuador and
provides that the country's biodiversity be protected and used
primarily in a sustainable manner. Appendix 1 of Decree No. 3,516 lists
the Ecuadorian fauna and flora that are categorized as critically
endangered (En peligro critico), endangered (En peligro), or vulnerable
(Vulnerable) (EcoLex 2003b, p.17). Under this law, Esmeraldas woodstar
is categorized as endangered, under the synonym Acestrura berlepschi
(EcoLex 2003b, p. 36). This threat status confers protections upon the
species, including protection from hunting or commercial take, under
Resolution No. 105 of 2000 (Regulatory control of hunting seasons and
wildlife species in the country) and Agreement No. 143 of 2003
(Standards for the control of hunting seasons and licenses for hunting
of wildlife). Resolution No. 105 and Agreement No. 143 regulate and
prohibit commercial and sport hunting of all wild bird species, except
those specifically identified by the Ministry of the Environment or
otherwise permitted (EcoLex 2000, p.1; EcoLex 2003a, p. 1). Under this
law, the Ministry of the Environment does not permit commercial or
sport hunting of the Esmeraldas woodstar because of its status as a
critically endangered species (EcoLex 2002b, p. 17). However, we do not
consider hunting (Factor B) to be a current threat to the Esmeraldas
woodstar and these laws do not mitigate threats to the species from
habitat destruction (Factor A), predation (Factor C), or its small
population size (Factor E). Therefore, protection under these laws does
not reduce any existing threats to the species.
Esmeraldas woodstar is listed in Appendix II of CITES, to which
Ecuador became a Party in 1975 (UNEP-WCMC 2008a, p. 1; USFWS 2008, p.
1). CITES was described in more detail above, as part of the Factor E
analysis for the blue-billed curassow. As discussed under Factor B for
the Esmeraldas woodstar, we consider that this international treaty has
minimized the potential threat to the species from international trade
and do not consider international trade to be a threat impacting the
Esmeraldas woodstar. However, this treaty does not mitigate threats to
the species from habitat destruction (Factor A), predation (Factor C),
or its small population size (Factor E). Therefore, protection under
this Treaty does not reduce any existing threats to the species.
Ecuador has numerous laws and regulations pertaining to forests and
forestry management, including: the Forestry Act (comprising Law No. 74
of 1981--Forest Act and conservation of natural areas and wildlife
(Faolex 1981, pp. 1-54) and Law No. 17 of 2004--Consolidation of the
Forest Act and conservation of natural areas and wildlife (Faolex 2004,
pp. 1-29)); a Forestry Action Plan (1991-1995); the Ecuadorian Strategy
for Forest Sustainable Development of 2000 (Estrategia para el
Desarrollo Forestal Sostenible); and Decree 346, which recognizes that
natural forests are highly vulnerable (ITTO 2006, p. 225). However, the
International Tropical Timber Organization considers ecosystem
management and conservation in Ecuador, including effective
implementation of mechanisms that would protect the Esmeraldas woodstar
and its habitat, to be lacking
[[Page 64730]]
(ITTO 2006, p. 229). Habitat destruction is ongoing (Butler 2006b, pp.
1-3; FAO 2003b, p. 1) and extensive (BLI 2004a, p. 2; Stattersfield et
al. 1998, p. 214; Best and Kessler 1995, p. 35) throughout the species'
range (Factor A). Thus, these laws are ineffective at protecting
Esmeraldas woodstar habitat.
Extractive harvest practices may pose a threat to the Esmeraldas
woodstar (BLI 2007c, p. 13) (Factor A). In 2004, Law No. 17 (Faolex
2004, pp. 1-29) amended the Forest Act of 1981 (Law No. 74) (Faolex
1981, pp. 1-54) to include five criteria for sustainable forest
management: (i) Sustainable timber production; (ii) the maintenance of
forest cover; (iii) the conservation of biodiversity; (iv)
coresponsibility in management; and (v) the reduction of negative
social and environmental impacts (ITTO 2006, p. 225; Aguilar and Vlosky
2005, pp. 9-10). In 2001, the Ecuadorian Government worked with the
private sector to develop a system of monitoring and control of forest
harvest practices. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court of Ecuador
declared that the control system was unconstitutional, and new control
systems are now being developed (ITTO 2006, p. 225). Approximately 70
percent of the forest products harvested are harvested illegally, are
used as fuel wood, or are discarded as waste (ITTO 2006, p. 226;
Aguilar and Vlosky 2005, p. 4). Because the extractive harvesting
industry is not monitored, the extent of the impact is unknown (BLI
2007c, p. 13). However, we find this law is currently inadequate in
monitoring the impacts of extractive harvesting on the Esmeraldas
woodstar or to protect the species from potential impacts of extractive
harvesting (Factor A).
The governmental institutions responsible for natural resource
oversight in Ecuador appear to be under-resourced, and there is a lack
of law enforcement on the ground. Despite the creation of a national
forest plan, there appears to be a lack of capacity to implement this
plan due to insufficient political support, unclear or unrealistic
forestry standards, inconsistencies in application of regulations,
discrepancies between actual harvesting practices and forestry
regulations, the lack of management plans for protected areas, and high
bureaucratic costs. These inadequacies have facilitated logging (Dodson
and Gentry 1991, pp. 283-293); cattle-raising and persistent grazing
from goats and cattle (BLI 2007c, pp. 11, 13, 17; BLI 2004a, p. 2;
Lasso 1997, p. 3; Curry 1993, p. 24); clearing for agriculture,
subsistence farming, and small local industries (BLI 2007c, pp. 11, 13,
17; Lasso 1997, p. 3; Dodson and Gentry 1991, pp. 283-293); selective
harvest of trees for fuelwood and nontimber products (BLI 2007c, p. 13;
Aguilar and Vlosky 2005); road development (BLI 2007c, p. 13; Dodson
and Gentry 1991, pp. 283-293); and pollution from industrial activities
occur within or near protected areas (Lasso 1997, p. 3). In addition,
most of Ecuador's forests are privately owned or owned by communities
(ITTO 2006, p. 224; Lasso 1997, pp. 2-3), and the management and
administration of Ecuador's forest resources and forest harvest
practices is insufficient and unable to protect against unauthorized
forest harvesting, degradation, and conversion (ITTO 2006, p. 229).
Habitat conversion and alteration are ongoing throughout the range of
the Esmeraldas woodstar, including within protected areas (BLI 2007c,
pp. 10, 13, 17; Butler 2006b, pp. 1-3; FAO 2003b, p. 1). Thus,
Ecuadorian forestry regulations have not mitigated the threat of
habitat destruction (Factor A).
The Ecuadorian Government recognizes 31 different legal categories
of protected lands (e.g., national parks, biological reserves, geo-
botanical reserves, bird reserves, wildlife reserves, etc.). Currently,
the amount of protected land (both forested and nonforested) in Ecuador
totals approximately 4.67 million ha (11.5 million ac) (ITTO 2006, p.
228). However, only 38 percent of these lands have appropriate
conservation measures in place to be considered protected areas
according to international standards (i.e., areas that are managed for
scientific study or wilderness protection, for ecosystem protection and
recreation, for conservation of specific natural features, or for
conservation through management intervention) (IUCN 1994, pp. 17-20).
Moreover, only 11 percent have management plans, and fewer than 1
percent (13,000 ha (32,125 ac)) have implemented those management plans
(ITTO 2006, p. 228).
The Esmeraldas woodstar has been recorded in or near two protected
areas: (1) Machalilla National Park (Collar et al. 1992, p. 533) and
(2) Loma Alta Communal Ecological Reserve. As described under Factor A,
both of these protected areas are inhabited and, among other
activities, deforestation, livestock grazing, and slash-and-burn
agriculture are ongoing within these areas (BLI 2004, p. 2; Wege and
Long 1995, p. 174). Thus, this protected area status does not mitigate
the threats from habitat destruction (Factor A).
Esmeraldas woodstar occurs within the Machalilla National Park,
which was included in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International
Importance in 1990 (BLI 2007c, p. 13). The Ramsar Convention, signed in
Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the
framework for national action and international cooperation for the
conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. There are
presently 158 Contracting Parties to the Convention (including Ecuador,
where the Esmeraldas woodstar occurs), with 1,828 wetland sites,
totaling 169 million ha (418 million ac), designated for inclusion in
the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar
Convention Secretariat 2008, p. 1). Experts consider Ramsar to provide
only nominal protection of wetlands, noting that such a designation may
increase international awareness of the site's ecological value
(Jellison et al. 2004, p. 19). However, habitat alteration (Factor A)
(BLI 2007c, pp. 10-11, 13; Lasso 1997, p. 3) and predation by feral
animals (Factor C) (BLI 2007c, p. 10; Rosero 2006, p. 5; Curry 1993, p.
24), key threats to the Esmeraldas woodstar, are ongoing within the
Park, and predation has not been considered as part of the most recent
Ramsar site review (Lasso 1997, pp. 1-4). Therefore, this designation
as a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance does not mitigate the
threats from habitat destruction (Factor A).
Summary of Factor D
Ecuador has adopted numerous laws and regulatory mechanisms to
administer and manage wildlife and their habitats. The Esmeraldas
woodstar is protected under CITES, which we consider has been effective
in mitigating the potential threat to this species from commercial
trade (Factor B). Esmeraldas woodstar is listed as endangered and
ranges within at least two protected areas (Machalilla National Park
and Loma Alta Communal Ecological Reserve). However, on-the-ground
enforcement of these laws and oversight of the local jurisdictions
implementing and regulating activities is insufficient for these
measures to be effective in conserving the Esmeraldas woodstar or its
habitat. As discussed for Factor A, habitat destruction, degradation,
and fragmentation continue throughout the species' range, including
lands within protected areas. Therefore, we find that the existing
regulatory mechanisms, as implemented, are inadequate to mitigate the
primary threats to the Esmeraldas woodstar from habitat destruction
(Factor A), predation (Factor C), or its small population size (Factor
E).
[[Page 64731]]
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Two additional factors affect the Esmeraldas woodstar: Its minimal
likelihood for dispersal and the species' small population size.
Likelihood To Disperse
The Esmeraldas woodstar is confined to locations within the
Departments of Esmeraldas, Manabi, and Guayas, in lowland moist forest
patches that are disjunct and fragmented (BLI 2007f, pp. 1-3; del Hoyo
et al. 1999, p. 678; Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39). The distance
between known occupied areas is between 125 and 200 km (78 and 124 mi),
with minimal habitat between occupied sights (Best and Kessler 1995, p.
141). In light of the species' small overall population size and the
distance between the remaining fragmented primary forested habitats, it
is unlikely that the Esmeraldas woodstar would repopulate an isolated
patch of suitable habitat following decline or extirpation of that
patch (Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46).
Small Population Size
The Esmeraldas woodstar inhabits a very small and severely
fragmented range, which is decreasing rapidly in size due to habitat
destruction and various other human factors (Ridgely and Greenfield
2001a, pp. 389-390; Collar et al. 1992, p. 533). Ongoing declines in
the bird's population are linked to persistent habitat destruction (BLI
2007c, p. 2). Before the species was rediscovered in 1991, it was
thought to be extinct after not being seen since 1912 (Ridgely and
Greenfield 2001a, pp. 389-390). Subsequent surveys of previously known
occupied areas have not been successful in locating the species on a
consistent basis, and little is known of breeding habits or other
activities during most of the year (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001a, pp.
389-390). Experts estimate that the species has undergone a 50-79
percent reduction in population size within the past 10 years and
predict that this trend will continue (BLI 2007c, p. 5). The current
population estimate for this species is between 186 to 373 birds, with
a decreasing population trend (BLI 2007, pp. 2, 6).
Small population sizes render species vulnerable to genetic risks
that can have individual or population-level consequences on the
genetic level and can increase the species' susceptibility to
demographic problems, as explained in more detail above for the blue-
billed curassow (Factor E, Small Population Size) (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Once a population is
reduced below a certain number of individuals, it tends to rapidly
decline towards extinction (Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; Soul[eacute]
1987, p. 181; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 25; Franklin 1980, pp.
147-148).
In the absence of quantitative studies specific to this species, a
general approximation of minimum viable population size is the 50/500
rule, as described above, as part of the Factor E analysis for the
brown-banded antpitta (Shaffer 1981, pp. 132-133; Soul[eacute] 1980,
pp. 160-162). The total population size of the Esmeraldas woodstar is
estimated to be between 186 and 373 individuals. The lower estimate of
186 individuals meets the theoretical threshold for the minimum
effective population size required to avoid risks from inbreeding
(Ne = 50 individuals). However, the upper limit of the
population, 373 individuals, is below the minimum threshold
(Ne = 500 individuals) required for long-term fitness of a
population that will not lose its genetic diversity over time and will
maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt to changing conditions.
The Esmeraldas woodstar's restricted range combined with its small
population size (Cuervo 2002, p. 138; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7;
del Hoyo 1994, p. 361) makes the species particularly vulnerable to the
threat of adverse natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or
environmental) and manmade (e.g., deforestation, habitat alteration,
wildfire) events that destroy individuals and their habitat (Young and
Clarke 2000, pp. 361-366; Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; Primack 1998, pp.
279-308). Therefore, we currently consider the single Esmeraldas
woodstar population to be at risk due to the lack of long-term
viability.
Summary of Factor E
The Esmeraldas woodstar is currently limited to a few small
populations within a limited habitat range, with a small estimated
population size that leaves the species vulnerable to genetic and
demographic risks that negatively impact its long-term viability. The
species' population size is estimated to have declined considerably
within the past 10 years (50-79 percent), and this rate of decline is
expected to continue. Based on this information, we have determined
that the species is particularly vulnerable to the threat of adverse
natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or predation) and manmade (e.g.,
slash-and-burn agriculture or infrastructural development) events that
destroy individuals and their habitat, and that these genetic and
demographic risks are exacerbated by ongoing habitat destruction
(Factor A) and predation (Factor C).
Esmeraldas Woodstar Status Determination
The four primary factors that threaten the survival of the
Esmeraldas woodstar are: (1) Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and
degradation (Factor A); (2) predation (Factor C); (3) inadequate
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and (4) limited size and isolation of
remaining populations (Factor E). The Esmeraldas woodstar is a tiny
hummingbird endemic to Ecuador. Esmeraldas woodstars are a rare, range-
restricted species with highly localized populations in three disjunct
locations--in the Ecuadorean Departments of Esmeraldas, Guayas, and
Manab[iacute]. The species occurs in lowland semi-humid or
semievergreen forests and woodlands, from sealevel to 500 m (1,600 ft)
along the Coastal Cordillera of western Ecuador. Preferring primary
evergreen forests, the species is also known to occupy low-altitude
secondary-growth areas during the breeding season (December-March). The
current extent of the species' range is approximately 1,155 km\2\ (446
mi \2\).
The primary threat to this species is habitat loss (Factor A),
caused by widespread deforestation and conversion of primary forests
for numerous human activities. The species' range has been reduced by
99 percent. The semihumid and semievergreen forests preferred by this
species have undergone extensive deforestation. Habitat-altering
activities that have occurred include: logging; cattle-raising and
persistent grazing from goats and cattle; forest clearing for
agriculture, subsistence farming, and small local industries; selective
harvest of trees for fuelwood and nontimber products; road development;
and pollution from industrial activities (Factors A). These activities
are ongoing and occurring throughout the species' range--including
within protected areas where the species occurs (Machalilla National
Park, Isla de La Plata, and Loma Alta Communal Ecological Reserve).
Because regulatory mechanisms are ineffective at reducing these
activities (Factor D), habitat destruction and alteration are expected
to continue.
The species' population is estimated to have declined 50 to 79
percent within the last 10 years, a decline which is attributed to
habitat loss. The Esmeraldas woodstar has a small estimated population
size (between 186 and 373 individuals), which renders the
[[Page 64732]]
species vulnerable to the threat of adverse natural (e.g., genetic,
demographic, or predation) and manmade (e.g., slash-and-burn
agriculture or infrastructural development) events that destroy
individuals and their habitat (Factor E). In addition, the direct loss
of habitat through widespread deforestation and conversion for human
activities has led to habitat fragmentation and isolation of the
remaining populations of the Esmeraldas woodstar. The Esmeraldas
woodstar currently occupies three disjunct, isolated patches that are
separated by large distances (between 125 and 200 km (78 and 124 mi)),
with minimal suitable habitat between occupied sites. Given the
species' small population size and the distance between the remaining
fragmented primary forested habitats, the species is unlikely to
repopulate an isolated patch of suitable habitat following decline or
extirpation of the species within that patch (Factor E). This renders
the species particularly vulnerable to local extirpation from ongoing
habitat destruction (Factor A) and predation (Factor C).
Esmeraldas woodstars are vulnerable to predation by a variety of
predators, including domestic and feral cats, rats, hawks, owls,
snakes, praying mantis, spiders, bees, wasps, frogs, and largemouth
bass (Factor C). Habitat fragmentation (Factor A) contributes to this
vulnerability, because research indicates that predation increases with
increased habitat fragmentation and smaller patch sizes. Predation
leads to the direct removal of eggs, juveniles, and adults from the
population, exacerbating risks associated with the species' small
population size. Esmeraldas woodstars are particularly vulnerable to
predation by wild cats during the breeding season on Isla de La Plata,
where cats have been known to prey particularly upon bird eggs.
Esmeraldas woodstars produce a low clutch size (see Habitat and Life
History), and predation can remove potentially reproductive adults from
the breeding pool.
The Esmeraldas woodstar is classified as an endangered species
under Ecuadorian law, and part of the species' range is included within
two protected areas. Despite numerous laws and regulatory mechanisms to
administer and manage wildlife and their habitats, existing laws are
inadequate (Factor D) to protect the species and its habitat from
ongoing habitat loss (Factor A) and predation by nonnative animals
(Factor C), even within the protected areas.
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the Esmeraldas woodstar. We consider the
ongoing threats to the Esmeraldas woodstar, habitat loss (Factor A) and
predation (Factor C), exacerbated by the species' small population size
and limited dispersal ability (Factor E), and compounded by inadequate
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), to be equally present and of the same
magnitude throughout the species' entire current range. Based on this
information, we find that the Esmeraldas woodstar is endangered
throughout its range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results
in conservation actions by national governments, private agencies and
groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened,
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated.
However, given that the blue-billed curassow, the brown-banded
antpitta, the Cauca guan, the gorgeted wood-quail, and the Esmeraldas
woodstar are not native to the United States, no critical habitat is
being proposed for designation with this rule.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes limited financial assistance for
the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the
Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b)
and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation
programs for foreign endangered species and to provide assistance for
such programs in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. Consequently, these prohibitions would be
applicable to the blue-billed curassow, the brown-banded antpitta, the
Cauca guan, the gorgeted wood-quail, and the Esmeraldas woodstar. These
prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' (take
includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
collect, or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon
the high seas, import or export, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or
ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial
activity or to sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce, any endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply
to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following
purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species; and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of
the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this final rule is available at
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2009-12 or upon
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this proposed rule are Arnold Roessler of
the Endangered Species Program (Sacramento, California) and Dr.
Patricia De Angelis of the Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
[[Page 64733]]
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), by adding new entries for ``Antpitta, brown-
banded'', ``Curassow, blue-billed'', ``Guan, Cauca'', ``Wood-quail,
gorgeted'', and ``Woodstar, Esmeraldas'' in alphabetical order under
``Birds'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------- population where Critical
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds..........................
* * * * * * *
Antpitta, brown-banded......... Grallaria milleri Colombia, South Entire........... E 813 NA NA
America.
* * * * * * *
Curassow, blue-billed.......... Crax alberti..... Colombia, South Entire........... E 813 NA NA
America.
* * * * * * *
Guan, cauca.................... Penelope Colombia, South Entire........... E 813 NA NA
perspicax. America.
* * * * * * *
Wood-quail, gorgeted........... Odontophorus Colombia, South Entire........... E 813 NA NA
strophium. America.
* * * * * * *
Woodstar, Esmeraldas........... Chaetocercus Ecuador, South Entire........... E 813 NA NA
berlepschi. America.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: September 20, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-25070 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P