| For information about BirdLife Species Champions and Species Guardians visit the BirdLife Preventing Extinctions Programme. |
| 2010 IUCN Red List Category (as evaluated by BirdLife International - the official Red List Authority for birds for IUCN): Critically Endangered Justification This species has has suffered a continuing decline in the one remaining subpopulation, which is thought to now number fewer than 25 pairs, and it is consequently classified as Critically Endangered. Two thirds of remaining individuals are male, and this ratio has worsened owing to unknown reasons, although introduced predators are implicated. Conservation work appears to have begun to address the gender imbalance but further intervention is required to combat current threats and reverse the continuing decline.
Family/Sub-family Campephagidae Species name author (Pollen, 1866) Taxonomic source(s) Dowsett and Forbes-Watson (1993), Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993) Identification 22 cm. Greyish arboreal bird. Male overall dark grey with paler underparts, especially on flanks and vent. Dark face imparts masked effect. Tail tipped white. Female dark brown above with very obvious, narrow white eyebrow-stripe and pale, finely barred underparts. Voice Shrill and clear whistled tui tui tui. Female gives harsh shrek alarm note. Hints Quiet, inconspicuous bird, particularly when feeding, occurring either singly or in pairs. |  |
Population estimate | Population trend | Range estimate (breeding/resident) | Country endemic? | 50 | decreasing | 29 km2 | Yes |
Range & population Coracina newtoni is endemic to Réunion (to France), and restricted to two very small areas in the north-west (Plaine d'Affouches and Plaine des Chicots)3,7. The population was estimated at 120 pairs after surveys in 1991, suggesting that numbers had been stable since 1974. However, the population was estimated at 100 singing males in the 2003-2004 breeding season, indicating that the species had declined8. In 2003-2004, surveys revealed a skewed sex ratio, with 27% of males unpaired, and poor reproductive success, with only a third of females producing young8. In 2004-2005, the proportion of surveyed males without mates had risen to 48%, with 30% of females producing young16, and there was evidence that the species had declined in the east of its range9, the proportion of surveyed males without mates increased further to 57% in 2005-200612, and 64% in 2006-200715. Males are thought to now outnumber females by two to one, and in 2007 there were thought to be as few as 25 breeding pairs, but there are early indications that predator control is proving successful, with an increase in female survival and improved breeding success15.
| Important Bird Areas Click here to view map showing IBAs where species is recorded and triggers any of the IBA criteria. | Ecology: It has been conjectured that it primarily occupied lowland forest in the past7. The species now occurs between 1,000 and 1,800 m11, and is strictly associated with closed-canopy natural forest, occurring in mixed evergreen subtropical forest that also often includes areas of heath Philippia montana and tamarin Acacia heterophylla5,6,7. Japanese red cedar Cryptomeria japonica plantations are only rarely visited and seasonal records in the heath forest are attributed to post-breeding dispersal. It is chiefly insectivorous but also eats the fruits of some native trees7. Breeding occurs between September and February, and it has an incubation period of 15-17 days and a fledging period of 20-23 days11.
| Threats Nest predation by black rats Rattus rattus, and to a lesser extent brown rats R. norvegicus and feral cats appears to be the primary reason for poor reproductive success; and it is possible that this explains the skewed sex ratio4,7,11,14. The dropping of litter in the Roche Ecrite Nature Reserve by visitors inadvertedly supports the proliferation of the rat population10,13. Other major threats include poaching for trade and for food4,7,8, and disease8. The species is also threatened by disturbance from recreational activities, fire, cyclones, invasive alien vegetation, potential competition with other bird species and habitat degradation caused by rusa deer Cervus timorensis rusa8,11. The population may be limited by habitat quality and food resources8. In addition, intrinsic factors such as limited dispersal and low genetic variability may affect the population8. Since the remaining population seems unable to colonise new areas, habitat changes, such as degradation by the invasion of exotic vegetation or forest fires, could be catastrophic6,7. Construction of roads and hotels for tourism were thought to be potential problems2 but there are currently no such projects within the breeding range of the species nor in its vicinity4. Nests are also vulnerable to adverse weather conditions1,7, and having a montane distribution that is close to the maximum altitude within its range, this species is potentially susceptible to climate change17.
| | Conservation measures underway In 1999, the 38 km2 reserve of Roche Ecrite was established, incorporating 95% of the current range of C. newtoni11. Habitat management involves a logging ban, control of exotic plants, fire breaks, better control of hunting, curbing of tourism7, and action to reduce deer numbers3. Maturing plantations of Cryptomeria are being progressively replaced with native Acacia7. In 2006, an awareness campaign to reduce littering and promote recycling had been planned12. In 2004, a species action plan was published with the aim of reversing the trend towards extinction by increasing the numbers of females in the population, eventually doubling the number of females over the course of 10 years and achieving a viable population of 125 pairs11. Experimental rat and cat control was initiated in the Roche Ecrite reserve prior to the 2005-2006 breeding season10, through the setting of poisoned baits, accompanied by the trapping of rats and cats to monitor their populations12. In the 2005-2006 breeding season, four out of five pairs in sites with predator control raised young, compared with two out of six pairs in uncontrolled sites12. The control programme was carried out at 11 nest sites during the 2006-2007 breeding season; however three females disappeared, and six out of the eight remaining pairs produced young15. In 2007 the total of young fledged increased to 22, with a breeding success of 91% at sites with predator control (compared to around 30% at those without)15.
| | Conservation measures proposed Thoroughly research the ecology of this species. Continue habitat management. Continue and expand predator control by protecting nests from rats using poisoned baits and metallic bands around tree trunks. Control rats, cats and deer11. Assess the conditions needed for successful establishment of a new population. Consider experimental translocation to a suitable lowland site such as Marelongue Nature Reserve7, as well as other areas suspected to have been formerly occupied by the species11. Ensure that the action plans for the nature reserve and conservation of the species are consistent and compatible11. Study the species's genetics and demography8,11. Combat poaching, in part through education campaigns11. Prevent actions by people that exacerbate the predator problem, including the dropping of litter, through awareness campaigns11. Protect additional habitat both presently and potentially occupied by the species11. Carry out research into the threat of disease11. Consider supplementary feeding trials11. Control invasive plants11. Restore burnt areas11. Take measures to reduce disturbance11.
| References 1. Barré et al. (1996). 2. V. Bretagnolle and C. Attié in litt. (1993). 3. Le Corre and Safford (2001). 4. M. Le Corre in litt. (2000). 5. Morgan and Kershaw (1990). 6. Probst (1996). 7. Thiollay and Probst (1999). 8. Ghestemme and Salamolard (2007). 9. Ghestemme (2005a). 10. Ghestemme (2005b). 11. Salamolard and Ghestemme (2004). 12. T. Ghestemme in litt. (2006). 13. Poudroux (undated). 14. B. Devuax per Poudroux (undated). 15. T. Ghestemme in litt. (2007, 2008). 16. Ghestemme and Salamolard (2007). 17. BirdLife International (unpublished data).
| Text account compilers Jonathan Ekstrom (BirdLife International), John Pilgrim (BirdLife International), Sue Shutes (BirdLife International), Alison Stattersfield (BirdLife International), Andy Symes (BirdLife International), Joe Taylor (BirdLife International), Ben Warren (BirdLife International) | Contributors Carole Attié (Ligue Pour La Protection des Oiseaux), Vincent Bretagnolle (Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé), Thomas Ghestemme (Société d'Estudes Ornithologiques de La Réunion), Matthieu Le Corre (Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé) | IUCN Red List evaluators Jeremy Bird (BirdLife International), Stuart Butchart (BirdLife International), Andy Symes (BirdLife International) |
| Recommended citation BirdLife International (2010) Species factsheet: Coracina newtoni. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 3/9/2010 | This information is based upon, and updates, the information published in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004 CD-ROM and BirdLife International (2008) Threatened birds of the world 2008 CD-ROM. These sources provide the information for species accounts for the birds on the IUCN Red List. To provide new information to update this factsheet or to correct any errors, please email BirdLife To contribute to discussions on the evaluation of the IUCN Red List status of Globally Threatened Birds, please visit BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums |
|