Pale-billed Sicklebill (Drepanornis bruijnii)

Pale-billed Sicklebill Drepanornis bruijnii

Current view: Data table and detailed info

Taxonomy

Taxonomic note

Drepanornis bruijnii (del Hoyo and Collar 2016) was previously listed as Epimachus bruijnii.

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.

IUCN Red List criteria met and history

Red List criteria met

Critically Endangered	Endangered	Vulnerable
-	-	-

Red List history

Year	Category	Criteria
2022	Least Concern
2016	Near Threatened	C1
2012	Near Threatened	C1
2008	Near Threatened	C1
2004	Near Threatened
2000	Lower Risk/Near Threatened
1994	Lower Risk/Near Threatened
1988	Near Threatened

Species attributes

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

Range

	Estimate	Data quality
Extent of Occurrence (breeding/resident)	125,000 km²	medium
Severely fragmented?	no	-

Population

	Estimate	Data quality	Derivation	Year of estimate
Population size	25000-99999 mature individuals	poor	estimated	2021
Population trend	decreasing	poor	suspected	-
Generation length	5.06 years	-	-	-
Number of subpopulations	1-10	-	-	-

Population justification: The population size of this species has not previously been estimated. Although poorly known, at some sites it has proven to be relatively common, including in degraded habitats (Beehler and Pratt 2016, eBird 2022).
Within this species' mapped range there was c.25,000 km²of forest in 2021 (Global Forest Watch 2022, based on data from Hansen et al. [2013] and methods disclosed therein). In one study, a male ranged over approximately 15 ha over seven days of observation (Beehler and Beehler 1986); approximating this to a territory size and assuming only a small portion (10-30%) of forest in the mapped range is occupied, the population is likely to be fairly large, at 30,000-90,000, rounded here to 25,000-99,999 mature individuals.

Trend justification: The population is suspected to be slowly declining. Forest loss in this species' mapped range equated to 2-3% in the three generations (c.15 years; Bird et al. 2020) to 2021 (Global Forest Watch 2022, based on data from Hansen et al. [2013] and methods disclosed therein). Although tolerant of some selective logging (Beehler and Pratt 2016), such losses are suspected of causing a very slow decline in the number of mature individuals.

Country/territory distribution

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

Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBA)

Country/Territory	IBA Name

Habitats & altitude

Habitat (level 1)	Habitat (level 2)	Importance	Occurrence
Forest	Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland	major	resident
Altitude	0 - 180 m	Occasional altitudinal limits

Threats & impact

Threat (level 1)

Threat (level 2)

Impact and Stresses

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

Residential & commercial development

Housing & urban areas