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.
IUCN Red List criteria met and history
Red List criteria met
Red List history
| Migratory status |
altitudinal migrant |
Forest dependency |
high |
| Land-mass type |
continent
|
Average mass |
- |
Population justification:
Previous population estimates put this species at below 20,000 mature individuals however a more recent analysis puts the population size of this species substantially higher, possibly in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. It is generally common (if elusive) in suitable habitat across its large range. For example, at Singhalila National Park, India, Khaling et al. (1999) counted 28 groups of calling birds in 1995, 19 in 1996 and 24 in 1997 with mean density estimates (groups/km2) of 6.19/km2, 4.52/km2 and 5.46/km2 respectively. At Pipar-Santel (Nepal), similar densities were recorded of 17.0 calling birds/km2 at Pipar and 18.3 birds/km2 at Santel in 2005 (Poudyal et al. 2007).
The area of forest cover in its elevational range is c.34,000km2 (data from Jung et al. [2020], analysed using sRedList [2023]). An approximate calculation estimating population size from published densities suggests a maximum population of hundreds of thousands of birds. Due to a lack of census data from across the species' range, as well as incomplete knowledge on occupancy (e.g. an apparent avoidance of north-west slopes in parts of the range: Norbu et al. 2016), the population size is not estimated here, but is thought to probably number at least in the high tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, even if only a small part of the range is occupied.
Trend justification:
Poorly known owing to a lack of comprehensive monitoring across its range. Monitoring data are available only from Pipar-Santel, Nepal, but from here results are inconclusive. In a comparison of dawn call count between 1979 and 2014, recording rate dropped by 25% (Poudyal et al. 2016) but the sample size was small, and rate fluctuated between this time period. Another study by Poudyal et al. (2007), however, found a higher number of birds calling in 2005 than 2001. Additionally, Poudyal et al. (2011) found no evidence of a decline in the Pipar bowl from 2005 to 2011. The principal threats to this species across its range are habitat loss and degradation (particularly driven by buffalo and sheep grazing, collection of firewood and timber, and harvesting of medicinal plants and bamboo) and some local hunting and trapping. In the past three generations (18 years), forest cover loss in its range has been minimal (<1%, Global Forest Watch [2024] based on data from Hansen et al. [2013] and methods therein) and while degradation (e.g. understorey clearance and selective logging) may be having additive impacts not detectable by remote sensing, this is also likely to be minimal given this species' vast and mostly inaccessible range. Similarly, while there is no quantification of the threat of hunting, this too is likely to be driving only local population declines. Overall therefore, T. satyra is precautionarily suspected to be declining, but only at a slow rate equivalent to 1-9% over three generations.
Country/territory distribution
Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBA)
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: Satyr Tragopan Tragopan satyra. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/satyr-tragopan-tragopan-satyra on 22/12/2024.
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 22/12/2024.
