| Red List Category & Criteria: |
Least Concern
ver 3.1
|
| Year Published: |
2016 |
| Date Assessed: |
2016-10-01 |
| Assessor(s): |
BirdLife International |
| Reviewer(s): |
Butchart, S. & Symes, A. |
| Facilitator/Compiler(s): |
Ekstrom, J., Butchart, S., Harding, M. |
Justification:
This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is very large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern.
|
| Previously published Red List assessments: | - 2012 – Least Concern (LC)
- 2009 – Least Concern (LC)
- 2008 – Least Concern (LC)
- 2004 – Least Concern (LC)
- 2000 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
- 1994 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
- 1988 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
|
Decreasing
ISSN 2307-8235
