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

Taxonomic note
Psophia crepitans and P. ochroptera (del Hoyo and Collar 2014) were previously lumped as P. crepitans following Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993).

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.

Red List criteria met

Critically Endangered	Endangered	Vulnerable
-	-	-

Red List history

Year	Category	Criteria
2021	Least Concern
2016	Near Threatened	A4cd
2014	Near Threatened	A4cd
2012	Not Recognised
2008	Not Recognised
2004	Not Recognised
2000	Not Recognised
1994	Not Recognised
1988	Not Recognised

Migratory status	not a migrant	Forest dependency	high
Land-mass type		Average mass	1,026 g

	Estimate	Data quality
Extent of Occurrence (breeding/resident)	3,370,000 km2	medium
Severely fragmented?	no	-

	Estimate	Data quality	Derivation	Year of estimate
Population size	unknown	-	-	-
Population trend	decreasing	-	inferred	2020-2043
Rate of change over the past 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	3-8%	-	-	-
Rate of change over the future 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	3-14%	-	-	-
Rate of change over the past & future 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	3-14%	-	-	-
Generation length	7.68 years	-	-	-

Population justification: The global population size has not been quantified, but this species is described  as 'uncommon' (Stotz et al. 1996). It appears to be more common in undisturbed and unhunted areas (Thiollay 1989, 1992, 2005, G. Leite in litt. 2020, R. H. Cecile in litt. 2021). In Suriname, it is common in primary forest, probably much rarer or absent in logged forests, and rare elsewhere (O. Ottema in litt. 2020).

Estimated population densities include 14.2 and 15 individuals per km² in lowland rainforest in southern French Guiana (Thiollay 1986); 13.87 (+/- 5.28) individuals per km² at sites without hunting and 0.64 (+/- 0.60) individuals per km² at regularly hunted sites in primary forest in French Guiana (Thiollay 1989); 17.08 (90% C. I. 6.88–37.58) individuals per km² at undisturbed sites in French Guiana (Denis et al. 2018); c.2 individuals per km² at hunted sites in French Guiana (Vaessen et al. in prep. 2021); 15.3 (7.9–30.1) individuals per km² in unlogged forest and 24.4 (14.5–40.1) individuals per km² in forest subject to reduced-impact logging in central Guyana (Bicknell and Peres 2010); and 2.2 (0.6–8.1) individuals per km² in undisturbed primary forest, 1.8 (0.4–9.2) individuals per km² near an oil extraction road, and 5 (1.7–15.3) individuals per km² near an oil extraction road with controlled access in Ecuador (Suárez et al. 2013).
The subpopulation struture is not known. There are two subspecies, indicating at least two subpopulations.

Trend justification: Remote sensing data on tree cover loss within the species's range indicates that approximately 2.5% of tree cover with at least 50% canopy cover was lost over 2001-2020 (Global Forest Watch 2021). Extrapolating over the period 1997-2020, it is estimated that approximately 3% of tree cover was lost from the species's range over the past three generations. Extrapolating forwards, it is estimated that approximately 3-6% of tree cover may be lost from the species's range over the next three generations.

The species appears to prefer mature primary forest (Parry et al. 2007). Surveys in Guyana found higher densities in forest subject to reduced-impact logging than in unlogged forest (Bicknell and Peres 2010), whilst other survey have found that the species is sensitive to logging and associated forest degradation (Thiollay 1992, Laufer et al. 2015). The species may therefore experience faster population declines than may be suggested by the rate of tree cover loss.

The species is also known to be susceptible to hunting, and population densities have been found to be severely depleted in heavily hunted areas (Thiollay 1989, 1992, 2005, G. Leite in litt. 2020, R. H. Cecile in litt. 2021; Vaessen et al. in prep. 2021). Therefore, it is likely that hunting is causing population declines in at least some parts of its range. In French Guiana, surveys have recorded mean population densities of 3.87 (+/- 5.28) individuals per km² and 17.08 (90% C. I. 6.88–37.58) individuals per km² at sites without hunting (Thiollay 1989, Denis et al. 2018), and 0.64 (+/- 0.60) individuals per km² and c.2 individuals per km² at hunted sites (Thiollay 1989, Vaessen et al. in prep. 2021), representing >80% reductions in abundance in hunted sites.

Assuming that hunting may double the rate of decline, and that disturbance may contribute an additional decline at around half of the rate of deforestation (Barlow et al. 2016), the population size is suspected to have undergone a reduction of 3-8% over the past three generations, and to undergo a reduction of 3-14% over the next three generations.

Country/Territory	Presence	Origin	Resident	Breeding visitor	Non-breeding visitor	Passage migrant
Brazil	extant	native	yes
Colombia	extant	native	yes
Ecuador	extant	native	yes
French Guiana	extant	native	yes
Guyana	extant	native	yes
Peru	extant	native	yes
Suriname	extant	native	yes
Venezuela	extant	native	yes

Country/Territory	IBA Name

Habitat (level 1)	Habitat (level 2)	Importance	Occurrence
Forest	Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland	major	resident
Altitude	0 - 750 m	Occasional altitudinal limits

Threat (level 1)	Threat (level 2)	Impact and Stresses
Agriculture & aquaculture	Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Agro-industry farming	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Rapid Declines		Medium Impact: 6
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion
Agriculture & aquaculture	Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Small-holder farming	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Rapid Declines		Medium Impact: 6
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion
Agriculture & aquaculture	Livestock farming & ranching - Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Rapid 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		Majority (50-90%)		Rapid Declines		Medium Impact: 7
		Stresses Species mortality
Biological resource use	Logging & wood harvesting - Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Medium Impact: 6
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion
Energy production & mining	Mining & quarrying	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation
Natural system modifications	Fire & fire suppression - Increase in fire frequency/intensity	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Rapid Declines		Medium Impact: 6
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion

Purpose	Scale
Food - human	subsistence, national
Other (free text)	subsistence
Pets/display animals, horticulture	international

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: Grey-winged Trumpeter Psophia crepitans. Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/grey-winged-trumpeter-psophia-crepitans 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.