Current view: Data table and detailed info
Taxonomic source(s)
del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A. and Fishpool, L.D.C. 2014. HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Volume 1: Non-passerines. Lynx Edicions BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.
SACC. 2005 and updates. A classification of the bird species of South America. Available at: https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.htm.
IUCN Red List criteria met and history
Red List criteria met
Red List history
| Migratory status |
not a migrant |
Forest dependency |
high |
| Land-mass type |
continent
|
Average mass |
- |
Population justification: Based on reported population sizes for Ecuador and Colombia, the global population size is estimated to be between 2,500-12,000 mature individuals. The species occurs at low densities and is dependent on undisturbed forest (BirdLife International 2000, Karubian and Carrasco 2008, Erritzøe et al. 2012): it is naturally rare and very challenging to detect (Hughes 2020, E. Montenegro in litt. 2023). A study carried out in 2018-2019 in Esmeraldas (Ecuador), involving 120 days of monitoring along transects using playback and visual surveys, only recorded three individuals, with a further three individuals photographed in camera traps outside of the transects (Montenegro 2020, E. Montenegro in litt. 2023). Studies at Bilsa Biological Station, within the Mache-Chindul Ecological Reserve in Ecuador, derived an estimate of 40 pairs based on the home range size from a single tracked individual of 50 ha extrapolated across approximately 2,000 hectares of suitable habitat within the 3,500 ha reserve, or a density of 4 mature individuals per square kilometre (Karubian and Carrasco 2008). But this approach, scaling up from one observed home range is considered likely to overestimate density. An extensive investigation of the bird community in Esmeraldas province between 1997 and 2006 recorded very few records and did not report a density (Jahn 2011), however an extremely low value of 0.125-0.25 individuals/km2 was given subsequently (O. Jahn in litt. 2008): although the data used for this value is unclear (cf. Jahn 2011) and given the extremely low detectability may be expected to underestimate true occurrence. Densities of the closely related N. geoffroyi have been estimated at 2 mature individuals/km2 in Panama (Robinson et al. 2000) and 0.5 mature individuals/km2 in Peru (Terborgh et al. 1990).
The national population in Ecuador has been placed in the band 250-2,499 mature individuals, with no subpopulation deemed larger than 250 mature individuals (Freile et al. 2019). The Colombian population was estimated at 2,372 mature individuals using 0.5 mature individuals/km2, extrapolated across an estimated suitable and likely occupied habitat area of 4,745 km2 (Renjifo et al. 2014). This habitat value is already restricted from the estimated area of remaining habitat given as 7,427 km2 (Renjifo et al. 2014). Despite the suggestion that this may very well be an overestimate (Renjifo et al. 2014) it uses the lowest density for the genus applied to a restricted potential area of habitat and hence seems a reasonable approximation for the population size in the country. Using the density based on the home range of this species gives an estimate of 18,980 mature individuals, obviously using 2 individuals/km2 (per N. geoffroyi in Panama) halves this to 9,490 mature individuals. With concerns over the home range size overestimating density for this very rarely detected species, a reasonable but moderately precautionary range for the population size in Colombia is 2,350-9,490 mature individuals. An important observation is that recent records have continued to extend the distribution beyond that recognised in Renjifo et al. (2014) as far as Antioquia (Munera 2014, eBird 2024), suggesting that the area of suitable forest habitat is an underestimate.
Trend justification: The population trend has not been quantified directly. However, the species is feared to be in declines due to its strict dependence on the interior large and undisturbed primary forests and ongoing logging and forest degradation within the range (Renjifo et al. 2014, Hughes 2020, Global Forest Watch 2023). Secondary forests comprise only 25% of the individuals' home ranges (Hughes 2020); therefore the species will be disproportionally affected by the loss of primary forests as it restricts the number of territories and consequently of mature individuals that can be sustained.
Very rapid habitat loss took place within the southern portion of the range of the species in the second half of the 20th century (Dodson and Gentry 1991). Tree cover within the range is lost at a rate of 3% over three generations (19.9 years; Global Forest Watch 2023, using Hansen et al. [2013] data and methods disclosed therein). This value however does not account for disturbance and conversion of primary forests into secondary, degraded forests, nor for the impacts of forest fragmentation and increasing distance between subpopulations. Consequently, the total rate of habitat loss may be substantially higher than 3% over three generations. It is here tentatively placed in the band 10-19% over three generations, and population declines are assumed to be roughly equivalent (see also Freile et al. 2019).
Country/territory distribution
Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBA)
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: Banded Ground-cuckoo Neomorphus radiolosus. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/banded-ground-cuckoo-neomorphus-radiolosus on 23/11/2024.
Recommended citation for factsheets for more than one species: BirdLife International (2024) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/search on 23/11/2024.
