• Summary
• Text account
• Data table and detailed info
• Distribution map
• Reference and further resources

Taxonomic note

Paradisornis rudolphi (del Hoyo and Collar 2016) was previously listed as Paradisaea rudolphi.

Taxonomic source(s)
del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A., Fishpool, L.D.C., Boesman, P. and Kirwan, G.M. 2016. HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Volume 2: Passerines. Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.

Red List criteria met

Critically Endangered	Endangered	Vulnerable
-	-	-

Red List history

Year	Category	Criteria
2021	Near Threatened	C2a(i)
2016	Vulnerable	C2a(i)
2014	Vulnerable	C2a(i)
2013	Vulnerable	C2a(i)
2012	Vulnerable	C2a(i)
2008	Vulnerable	C2a(i)
2004	Vulnerable
2000	Vulnerable
1996	Vulnerable
1994	Vulnerable
1988	Near Threatened

Migratory status	not a migrant	Forest dependency	medium
Land-mass type	shelf island	Average mass	-

	Estimate	Data quality
Extent of Occurrence (breeding/resident)	121,000 km2	medium
Severely fragmented?	no	-

	Estimate	Data quality	Derivation	Year of estimate
Population size	3800-20000 mature individuals	medium	estimated	2021
Population trend	decreasing	poor	suspected	2020-2036
Rate of change over the past 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	1-19%	-	-	-
Rate of change over the future 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	1-19%	-	-	-
Rate of change over the past & future 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	1-19%	-	-	-
Generation length	5.4 years	-	-	-
Number of subpopulations	2-100	-	-	-
Percentage of mature individuals in largest subpopulation	1-89%	-	-	-

Population justification: It is uncommon to rather rare (Gregory 2020). It is patchily distributed and absent in many areas, including in seemingly suitable habitat in eastern Papua New Guinea (Frith and Beehler 1998, K. D. Bishop in litt. 2000, B. Beehler in litt. 2012, Beehler and Pratt 2016), but may be more common in the western part of its range (B. Beehler in litt. 2012, A. Mack in litt. 2012).

Advertising males were spaced at about every 200 m along one suitable forest ridge, and 400 m along another, and three radio-tagged birds had home ranges of 5, 17 and 33 ha over c.50 days (Pruett-Jones and Pruett-Jones 1988). At another study site, males were less dense, occupying up to 100 ha, perhaps owing to the more patchy forest or the higher hunting pressure at this site (Whiteside 1998). In Karimui, Chimbu Province, this species appears to be rare. Surveys in the 1960s recorded the species (Diamond, 1972), but surveys in 2012 (Freeman and Class Freeman 2014) did not, and in 2015 one individual was recorded during point counts, leading to a density estimate of one lek per 5 km² (Supuma 2018). Point count surveys in Hogave (Lufa District) in 2015 recorded two display leks within a 4 km² area, at a density of two per ten hectares (Supuma 2018).

The species's mapped range contains approximately 44,300 km² of tree cover with at least 50% canopy cover (Global Forest Watch 2021), but this species is notably patchy. If it inhabits 5% of its mapped range, then based on an estimated male home range of  0.2 - 5 km², the population would be in the order of 1,900-9,900 males (or 3,800-20,000 mature individuals).

The species has two subspecies (Frith et al. 2020), hence it has at least two subpopulations, and due to its patchy distribution throughout its range, it may well have more than two. It is therefore plausible that no subpopulation is >1,000 mature individuals.

Trend justification: The species has been rare for over a century (Horsbrugh 1909). In the Tari valley of Hela Province, the species was more easily encountered in 2012 than 20 years previously, probably due to the cessation of shotgun hunting (B. Beehler in litt. 2012). In 2008, interviews with local people in the Tari area suggested that the species's population was declining, whilst interviews with local people in the Enga area suggested that the species's population was stable or increasing (van den Bergh et al. 2013).

Overall, the species is suspected to be declining slowly, owing to pressure from forest clearance, and possibly also due to hunting for its plumes. According to Global Forest Watch (2021), approximately 3% of tree cover with at least 50% canopy cover was lost from the species's range over the last three generations. However, this species is able to tolerate degraded habitat and has been observed inhabiting garden edges (M. Supuma pers. com. 2020). While this species is hunted for its plumes, it is not worn or sold as frequently as other species, and hunting is likely to be concentrated in certain areas (B. Beehler in litt. 2012, M. Supuma in litt. 2012). Significant areas of its range are still inaccessible and largely uninhabited (B. Beehler in litt. 2012).  Therefore, while the rate of decline is uncertain, it is not currently thought to exceed 20% over three generations. Based on current threats, any declines are likely to continue into the future.

Country/Territory	Presence	Origin	Resident	Breeding visitor	Non-breeding visitor	Passage migrant
Papua New Guinea	extant	native	yes

Country/Territory	IBA Name

Habitat (level 1)	Habitat (level 2)	Importance	Occurrence
Artificial/Terrestrial	Plantations	possible	resident
Artificial/Terrestrial	Rural Gardens	marginal	resident
Artificial/Terrestrial	Subtropical/Tropical Heavily Degraded Former Forest	marginal	resident
Forest	Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane	major	resident
Altitude	1400 - 1800 m	Occasional altitudinal limits	1100 - 2000 m

Threat (level 1)	Threat (level 2)	Impact and Stresses
Agriculture & aquaculture	Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Small-holder farming	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Medium Impact: 6
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion
Biological resource use	Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals - Intentional use (species is the target)	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Low Impact: 5
		Stresses Species mortality
Biological resource use	Logging & wood harvesting - Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Medium Impact: 6
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation
Climate change & severe weather	Habitat shifting & alteration	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion
Energy production & mining	Mining & quarrying	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Medium Impact: 6
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion

Purpose	Scale
Food - human	subsistence, national
Handicrafts, jewellery, etc.	subsistence, national, international
Pets/display animals, horticulture	international

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: Blue Bird-of-paradise Paradisornis rudolphi. Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/blue-bird-of-paradise-paradisornis-rudolphi on 22/11/2024.
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 22/11/2024.