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

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.
SACC. 2005 and updates. A classification of the bird species of South America. Available at: https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.htm.

Red List criteria met

Critically Endangered	Endangered	Vulnerable
-	A3cd+4cd	A2cd+3cd+4cd

Red List history

Year	Category	Criteria
2021	Vulnerable	A3cd+4cd
2016	Vulnerable	A3c
2013	Vulnerable	A3c
2012	Vulnerable	A3c
2008	Near Threatened	C2a(i)
2004	Near Threatened
2000	Lower Risk/Near Threatened
1994	Lower Risk/Near Threatened
1988	Near Threatened

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

	Estimate	Data quality
Extent of Occurrence (breeding/resident)	955,000 km2	medium
Severely fragmented?	no	-

	Estimate	Data quality	Derivation	Year of estimate
Population size	unknown	-	-	-
Population trend	decreasing	-	inferred	2016-2038
Rate of change over the past 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	21-38,21-29%	-	-	-
Rate of change over the future 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	40-65,40-49%	-	-	-
Rate of change over the past & future 10 years/3 generations (longer of the two periods)	37-61,37-49%	-	-	-
Generation length	7.19 years	-	-	-
Percentage of mature individuals in largest subpopulation	1-89%	-	-	-

Population justification: It is relatively common in Amazônia (Tapajós) National Park, but scarce around Santarém, Pará (Sick 1993, del Hoyo 1994, Strahl et al. 1994). The population size has not been estimated. Surveys in 2001 at an undisturbed forest site in the upper Maro river estimated the population density of Penelope spp. (including P. pileata and P. superciliaris) at 5.2 individuals/km² (Peres et al. 2003). Surveys in the A’Ukre indigenous forest reserve in southeast Amazonia produced a density estimate of 22.3 individuals/km² for Penelope spp. (P. pileata and P. superciliaris) in unhunted forest, and 14.2 individuals/km² in hunted forest (Peres and Nascimento 2006).

Trend justification: Remote-sensed data on forest loss indicates that from 2001-2019, approximately 19% of tree cover with at least 50% canopy cover was lost within the species's range (Global Forest Watch 2020). Extrapolated over three generation lengths (21.57 years), approximately 21% of tree cover is estimated to have been lost within the species's range over the past three generations. Assuming that population size is directly related to the area of tree cover, the population size may have undergone a reduction of 21% over the past three generations. An analysis of the impact of disturbance on forest species in Pará found that in private lands or sustainable-use reserves, the impact of disturbance on biodiversity was equivalent to that of an additional 51% loss of forest (Barlow et al. 2016), which suggests that a population reduction of up to 33% may have been caused by deforestation and disturbance over the past three generations, although the species is found in secondary forests (Oren 2006) and so it may have some tolerance of forest degradation. Furthermore, the species is also threatened by hunting, which may be assumed to have contributed to an additional 5% reduction over three generations. Therefore, a population reduction of 21-38% is suspected to have occurred over the past three generations. Given that the species is likely to show some tolerance of forest degradation, the best estimate of the reduction is likely to be towards the lower end of this range, here placed in the band 21-29%.

During 2016-2019, approximately 7% of tree cover with at least 50% canopy cover was lost within the species's range (Global Forest Watch 2020). Extrapolating this rate into the future, 37% of tree cover may be lost from the species's range over three generations (21.57 years) from 2016, and 40% over three generations from 2020. Adding an additional 51% to account for the potential effect of disturbance, plus the 5% reduction that may be caused by hunting, a reduction of up to 61% is suspected to occur over three generations from 2016, and 65% over three generations from 2020. Therefore, a population reduction of 37-61% is suspected to occur over the three generations from 2016, and a reduction of 40-65% is suspected to occur over three generations from 2020. Given that the species is likely to show some tolerance of forest degradation, the best estimates of the reduction are likely to be towards the lower end of these ranges, here placed in the band 37-49% and 40-49% respectively.

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

Country/Territory	IBA Name
Brazil	Baixo Rio Xingu
Brazil	Caxiuanã / Portel
Brazil	Cristalino / Serra do Cachimbo
Brazil	Parque Nacional da Amazônia
Brazil	Rio Capim
Brazil	Serra dos Carajás

Habitat (level 1)	Habitat (level 2)	Importance	Occurrence
Artificial/Terrestrial	Subtropical/Tropical Heavily Degraded Former Forest	suitable	resident
Forest	Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland	major	resident
Savanna	Moist	marginal	resident
Altitude	0 - 800 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		Majority (50-90%)		Rapid Declines		Medium Impact: 7
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion
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 Species disturbance, Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion, Species mortality
Agriculture & aquaculture	Livestock farming & ranching - Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Majority (50-90%)		Rapid Declines		Medium Impact: 7
		Stresses Species disturbance, Ecosystem degradation, Ecosystem conversion, Species mortality
Biological resource use	Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals - Intentional use (species is the target)	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Unknown		Unknown
		Stresses Species mortality
Biological resource use	Logging & wood harvesting - Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]	Timing		Scope		Severity		Impact
		Ongoing		Minority (<50%)		Slow, Significant Declines		Low Impact: 5
		Stresses Ecosystem degradation

Purpose	Scale
Food - human	subsistence, national
Pets/display animals, horticulture	international

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Species factsheet: White-crested Guan Penelope pileata. Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/white-crested-guan-penelope-pileata on 23/11/2024.
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 23/11/2024.