Current view: Data table and detailed info
Taxonomic note
Previously placed in Arborophila but moved to Tropicoperdix following Chen et al. (2015, 2018). Other taxonomic sources have considered it conspecific with T. chloropus, but differs in absence of buffy-tan band around lower throat/upper breast (3); presence of bold black necklace from lower throat to neck-sides (3); upper breast and sides of neck chestnut vs dingy grey-brown (3); lower breast more boldly barred (ns2); and remaining underparts a shade darker (ns1). Arborophila charltonii, A. tonkinensis, and A. graydoni (del Hoyo and Collar 2014: see related notes) were previously lumped as A. charltonii following Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993). Validity of subspecies atjenensis has been questioned (Wells 1999). Two subspecies currently recognized.
Taxonomic source(s)
Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International. 2021. Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International digital checklist of the birds of the world. Version 6. Available at: https://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/Taxonomy/HBW-BirdLife_Checklist_v6_Dec21.zip.
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 |
|
Average mass |
- |
Population justification: The global population has previously been judged to number fewer than 10,000 mature individuals (BirdLife International 2001, Madge and McGowan 2002), based on expert opinion of the plausible numbers in each section of the range. This figure may be too low, given the extent of protected forests within Malaysia where there are expected to be secure populations. However there is evidence of a large population reduction, inferred from the lack of recent records from historically occupied sites, and a corresponding large reduction in the extent of occurrence.
The population on Sumatra (subspecies T. c. atjenensis) is considered likely to be very small indeed if it persists at all. Boakes et al. (2018) found only two published records, the most recent in 1939, and considered that it was probably extinct. Recent records mentioned by Eaton et al. (2016) are unconfirmed (J. A. Eaton in litt. 2021) and may be erroneous.
In Thailand, there are similarly few recent records and the species appears to now be restricted to the far south: there do not appear to be any records from Krabi Province since those of Robson (1990a,b) or any further north (GBIF.org 2021). There is assumed to be a population in Hala-Bala Wildlife Sanctuary (D. L. Yong in litt. 2013, J. A. Eaton in litt. 2013), but there are no records. This area is contiguous with the Ulu Muda and Pedu Forest Reserves in Malaysia, where the species is regularly recorded despite some hunting pressure: suggesting that as with other members of the genus the species has some resilience to hunting (J. A. Eaton in litt. 2013). The species is also recorded, though infrequently, from several other protected forests (including Taman Negara National Park [GBIF.org 2021] but most of the habitat is unsuitable for the species) and recreational forests, though the species does not appear to be recorded in plantations.
Generally the species appears to be infrequently recorded, suggesting that its density is lower than that of congeners. Over the range, forest cover loss has been rapid over the past three generations. Total tree cover loss within the elevation range of the species is estimated at c. 32% forest cover loss over the three generation period 2006-2020 (Global Forest Watch 2021). The species is also suspected to be impacted by hunting in parts of the range, although this may have only minor population impacts (J. A. Eaton in litt. 2013).
Trend justification: There are no direct data on population trends in the species. However, within the suitable elevation range of the species between 2001 and 2020 there has been a loss of 36% of the estimated extent of forest cover present in 2000 (Global Forest Watch 2021). This rate of loss has been increasing over this period, with the largest annual losses (exceeding 200,000 km2) occurring in 2014, 2016 and 2017. For the most recent three-generation period for which forest loss data is available, 31.5% of the adjusted total extent of forest in 2006 had been lost by 2020 (Global Forest Watch 2021). The species is highly forest dependent. While it has been reported from degraded forest in parts of the range (Madge & McGowan 2002), almost all records are from relatively large contiguous forest areas, and it is likely that it occurs at much higher densities in undisturbed forest than in logged forest. Equally, although there are records of the species persisting in areas with known hunting pressure, hunting is believed to suppress densities and the fragmentation of the habitat within the range is likely to have exposed a greater proportion of the population to trapping. Given the apparent rapid range retraction from central southern Thailand to the border with Myanmar, and the apparent extinction from Sumatra (Boakes et al. 2018) coupled with the rapid loss of forest cover within the range, a continuing decline in range and number of mature individuals is inferred. The rate of population reduction may exceed that indicated by the tree cover loss alone over the past three decades, and is placed in the band of 30-49% reduction over the past three generations (14 years).
Country/territory distribution
Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBA)
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: Chestnut-necklaced Partridge Tropicoperdix charltonii. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/chestnut-necklaced-partridge-tropicoperdix-charltonii on 20/12/2024.
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 20/12/2024.
