FOR THE LEAR`S MACAW - Parrots International

Transcription

MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE LEAR’S MACAW
(Anodorhynchus leari)
Federative Republic of Brazil
President
LUÍS INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA
Vice-President
JOSÉ ALENCAR GOMES DA SILVA
Ministry of the Environment
Minister
MARINA SILVA
Brazilian Institute of Environment and Natural Renewable
Resources
President
MARCUS LUIZ BARROSO BARROS
Executive Secretary
CLÁUDIO ROBERTO BERTOLDO LANGONE
Secretary of Biodiversity and Forests
JOÃO PAULO RIBEIRO CAPOBIANCO
Biodiversity Conservation National Program Director
PAULO YOSHIO KAGEYAMA
Genetic Resources Manager
LÍDIO CORADIN
Fauna and Fisheries Director
RÔMULO JOSÉ FERNANDES BARRETO MELLO
Fauna General Coordinator
RICARDO JOSÉ SOAVINSKI
Fauna Species Protection Coordinator
ONILDO JOÃO MARINI-FILHO
Head of Cemave
JOÃO LUIZ XAVIER DO NASCIMENTO
Editing
BRAZILIAN INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RENEWABLE RESOURCES
National Center of Information, Environmental Technologies And Editing
Ibama Editions
SCEN, Trecho 2, Bloco B, subsolo, Edifício-sede do Ibama
CEP 70818-900 – Brasília-DF, Brazil
Phone:+ 55 (61) 3316-1065
[email protected]
Fauna and Fisheries Directorate
Fauna General Coordination
Fauna Species Protection Coordination
SCEN, Trecho 2, Bloco A, subsolo, Edifício-sede do Ibama
70.818-900 – Brasília, DF – Brazil
[email protected]
http://ibama.gov.br
Cemave / Ibama (National Research Center for the Conservation of the Wild Birds)
Floresta Nacional da Restinga de Cabedelo
BR 230, Km 10
Mata da Amem
58.310-000 - Cabedelo – Paraíba, Brazil
Phone: + 55 83 3245-5001
[email protected]
www.ibama.gov.br/cemave
IN COLLABORATION WITH
Proaves (Brazilian Association for the Conservation of Birds)
Main office
SCLN 315 Bl B Sl. 211
70774-520 - Brasília – DF, Brazil
Phone: + 55 61 3273.0959
São Paulo regional office
R. Lacedemônia, 349
04634-020 – São Paulo-SP, Brazil
Phone: + 55 11 5032.2383 / [email protected] / www.proaves.org.br
© The content of this publication cannot be reproduced, stored by the “retrival” system or transmitted in anyway using any mode, like
electronic, mechanic, photocopy, recording or others, without the previous written authorization, of the Fauna Species Protection
Co-ordination.
© The copyright of the photos in this document is property of their photographers.
MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE LEAR’S MACAW
(Anodorhynchus leari)
Threatened Species Series – nº 4
Yara de Melo Barros (Ibama)
Simone Fraga Tenório Pereira Linares (Proaves)
Antônio Emanuel Barreto Alves de Sousa (Cemave / Ibama)
Joaquim Rocha dos Santos Neto (Cemave / Ibama)
Pedro Scherer Neto (Museum of Natural History Capão da Imbuia)
Carlos Abs Bianchi (Ibama)
Onildo João Marini-Filho (Ibama)
João Luiz Xavier do Nascimento (Cemave / Ibama)
Collaboration
Andrei Langeloh Roos (Cemave / Ibama)
International Committee for the Conservation and Management of the Lear’s Macaw
Cristina Yumi Miyaki (USP – SP)
Don Brightsmith (Texas A&M University)
Gláucia Moreira (Biodiversitas Foundation)
Kilma Manso da Rocha (Federal Police)
Maria Flávia Conti Nunes (Cemave / Ibama)
Mieko Ferreira Kanegae (Cemave / Ibama)
Brasília, 2006
Coordination of Ibama Editions
Cleide Passos
Technical coordination of the Threatened Species Series
Onildo Marini Filho
Technical revision of the document
Comitê Internacional para Conservação e Manejo da Arara-Azul-de-Lear
Text revision and editing
Maria José Teixeira (Edições Ibama)
Translation
Yara de Melo Barros
English revision
David Waugh (Loro Parque Fundación)
Compilation, organization and final revision
Yara de Melo Barros
Bibliographic normalization
Helionidia C. Oliveira
Graphic project and diagramming
Paulo Luna
Cover
Marcos Antônio Santos-Silva, Dr. rer. nat.
[email protected]
Maps
Noêmia Regina Santos do Nascimento
Produced in the Remote Sensing Center Facilities -CSR/ Ibama
Requests for this document, queries and suggestions must be directed to:
Onildo João Marini-Filho ([email protected])
Citation
Brazilian Institute of Environment and Natural Renewable Resources
P699 Management plan for the Lear’s Macaw (Anodorhynchus leari) / Brazilian
Institute of Environment and Natural Renewable Resources, Fauna
Species Protection Coordination. – Brasília: Ibama, 2006.
80p. ; il. color. : 29 cm. (Endangered Species Series, 4)
Translation:
ISBN 85-7300-241-7
1. Plan (Planning). 2. Birds. 3. Ornithology. 4. Extinction. 5. Species. I.
Brazilian Institute of Environment and Natural Renewable Resources.
II. Fauna Species Protection Coordination - COFAU. XI. Title. XII. Series.
CDU (2.ed.)598.2
Management Plan for the Lear’s Macaw
Acknowledgements
We thank the members of the
International Committee for the Conservation
and Management of the Lear’s Macaw for the
review of this document, to the researcher
Nigel Collar (BirdLife International) for the
discussions and valuable comments on this
document and to David Waugh, of Loro
Parque Fundación for the revision of the
English version of the document.
The field staff of the Lear’s Macaw
Conservation Program (Cemave-Ibama/
Proaves) express their gratitude for the care
and support of the different sectors of society,
that directly or indirectly have been
collaborating in the efforts for this species’
survival: the Town Council of Jeremoabo,
Regional Office of IBAMA in Juazeiro and
Paulo Afonso, City Schools of Jeremoabo,
Canudos and Euclides da Cunha, Agricultural
and Technical State School of Jeremoabo,
Ecological Station of “Raso da Catarina”,
Brazilian Army, the bird food manufacturer
TRILL, Santana Farm, Serra Branca Farm,
Biodiversitas Foundation, Bio Brasil
Foundation, Garcia D’Ávila Foundation,
Executive Managers of IBAMA in Bahia,
Pernambuco and Sergipe, Joca Informatics,
City Hall of Jeremoabo, UNDP (United
Nations Development Program) , Vaza Barris
Radio Station, Zé de Raul Restaurant, Antônio
Lima Grocery Store, Parrots International,
Lymington Foundation, Pé de Serra Gas
Station, Paloma Gas Station , Program for the
Eradication of Child Labour – PETI/
Jeremoabo, University of the State of Bahia UNEB/Paulo Afonso and to all the people that
worked as volunteers and collaborators,
especially the people of the cities of
Jeremoabo and Canudos.
Our special acknowledgement to
João Cláudio Araújo, the first field biologist of
the Lear’s Macaw Project, who worked at the
very beginning of the project in very difficult
conditions, and obtained important data about
the species.
We are especially thankful to Mr.
Moacir de Jesus (in memorian) for the years
of work and dedication to the Lear’s Macaws
at Serra Branca Farm, in Jeremoabo.
We are grateful for the
cooperation and commitment of the Lear’s
Macaws’ holders that participate on the
Captive Program: São Paulo Zoo, Rio de
Janeiro Zoo, Lymington Foundation, Crax
Society for Research on Wildlife and Al Wabra
Wildlife Preservation.
We acknowledge the National
Fund for the Environment (FNMA) for the
financing granted to the Lear’s Macaws
Conservation Program and to Loro Parque
Fundación for financing several activities of
this Program in 2006.
Summary
List of acronyms and abbreviations ...............................................................................
List of figures .................................................................................................................
Members of the International Committee for the Conservation and Management of the
Lear’s Macaw Anodorhynchus leari ...............................................................................
Presentation ..................................................................................................................
9
11
PART 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION ..............................................................................
17
1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................
2. Information on the species ..........................................................................................
2.1. Morphology ............................................................................................................
2.2. Distribution and habitat ......................................................................................
2.2.1. Use and occupation of the land ..................................................................
2.2.2. Indigenous lands .......................................................................................
2.3. Feeding ..............................................................................................................
2.4. Movements and roosting sites ...............................................................................
2.5. Reproduction ......................................................................................................
3. Status ..........................................................................................................................
3.1. Wild .....................................................................................................................
3.2. Captive ...............................................................................................................
4. Threats and limiting factors ............................................................................................
4.1. Capture .................................................................................................................
4.2. Habitat loss ............................................................................................................
4.3. Hunting .................................................................................................................
5. Conservation ...............................................................................................................
5.1. Governmental involvement ....................................................................................
5.2. Protected areas ...................................................................................................
5.3. In situ conservation ................................................................................................
5.4. The Captive Program ...........................................................................................
19
19
19
20
27
28
28
32
33
35
35
38
38
38
39
42
43
43
44
46
57
PART 2 –CONSERVATION PLAN .....................................................................................
65
Objectives ....................................................................................................................
Specific objectives .........................................................................................................
1. Protection of the species and habitat ..........................................................................
2. Public policies, legislation and governmental involvement ..........................................
3. In situ research ..........................................................................................................
67
67
68
68
69
15
15
3.1. Reproduction, genetics and diseases ...................................................................
3.2. Status ...................................................................................................................
3.3. Feeding ....................................................................................................................
3.4. Movements ..........................................................................................................
3.5. Threats ....................................................................................................................
3.6. Reintroduction .......................................................................................................
4. Ex situ research .............................................................................................................
5. Public awareness ........................................................................................................
6. Collaboration and dissemination of information ..............................................................
7. References ....................................................................................................................
8
69
70
70
72
72
72
72
74
74
77
List of Acronyms and Abreviations
Arie
CBSG
CGFAU
CGFIS
CGUC
Cemave
Cites
Cofau
Dipro
Direc
Emater
EmbrapA
Esec
FNMA
Funai
Gerex
IUCN
Mapa
MMA
MRE
OSU
Proaves
RPPN
Snuc
UC
UFF
USP
Area of Relevant Ecological Interest (a Protected Area category)
Conservation Breeding Specialist Group / IUCN
Fauna General Coordination/Ibama
Law Enforcement Coordination/Ibama
Protected Areas Coordination/Ibama
National Research Center for the Wild Birds Conservation/Ibama
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora
Fauna Species Protection Coordination/Ibama
Directorate of Environmental Protection/Ibama
Directorate of Ecosystems/Ibama
Technical Assistance and Rural Extension Company of Bahia
Brazilian Company for Research in Agriculture and Cattle-Raising
Ecological Station (a Protected Area category)
National Fund for the Environment
National Foundation for Indian Affairs
Executive Managers of Ibama in each State
The World Conservation Union
Ministry of Agriculture, Cattle-Raising and Supplies
Ministry of the Environment
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Oregon State University
Brazilian Association for Conservation of Birds
Private Natural Heritage Reserve (a Protected Area category)
National System of Conservation Units
Conservation Unit (Protected Area)
Federal Fluminense University
University of São Paulo
List of figures
Figure 1
– Lear’s Macaw. Photo: Mark Stafford
(www.parrotsinternational.org). .....................................................
Figure 2a and b – Habitat of the Lear’s Macaw. Photos: Lear’s Macaw Conservation
Program. .......................................................................................
Figure 3a
– Map of the distribution of the Lear’s Macaw. .................................
Figure 3b
– Map of the distribution of the Lear’s Macaw. .................................
Figure 4
– Licuri Palm Syagrus coronata. Photo: Lear’s Macaw Conservation
Program. .........................................................................................
Figure 5
– Licuri fruits: a) fruits b) transversally cut fruits c) perforated fruits.
Photos a and c: Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program, Photo b:
Luciano Moreira Lima. ..................................................................
Figure 6
– Lear’s macaws feeding on licuri palms. Photo: Mark Stafford
(www.parrotsinternational.org). .......................................................
Figure 7
– Lear’s Macaw flying with licuri fruits in the beak. Photo: Mark
Stafford (www.parrotsinternational.org). ........................................
Figure 8
– Lear’s Macaws eating licuri fruits on the ground. Photo: Adriano
Paiva. .............................................................................................
Figure 9
– Toca Velha, city of Canudos. Photo: Yara Barros. ............................
Figure 10
– Serra Branca, city of Jeremoabo. Photo: Yara Barros. ....................
Figure 11
– Nests of Lear’s Macaws on cliffs. Photo: Pedro Lima. ......................
Figure 12
– Variation of the population size between 1979 and 2006. .............
Figure 13
– Corn plantation attacked by Lear’s Macaws. Photo: Monalyssa
Camandaroba. ...............................................................................
Figure 14
– Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program team carrying out an
evaluation of the losses on corn plantations. Photo: Joaquim Rocha
dos Santos Neto. .............................................................................
Figure 15
– Lear’s Macaw eating a corn cob on a tree close to the plantation.
Photo: Pedro Lima. .......................................................................
Figure 16 a and b – Refunding of producers that lost their crops due to attacks by
Lear’s Macaws. Photo: Monalyssa Camandaroba. ..........................
Figure 17a and b – Research station of Cemave in Jeremoabo, Bahia, b) field station at
Serra Branca Farm, in Jeremoabo. Photo: Joaquim Rocha dos Santos
Neto. .............................................................................................
Figure 18
– Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program team carrying out the
simultaneous census at the Lear’s Macaws roost sites. Photos:
Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program. ...........................................
20
23
24
25
28
29
30
31
31
32
33
33
37
40
41
41
42
47
47
Figure 19
– Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program team carrying out studies
on Lear’s Macaw breeding behavior. Photos: Lear’s Macaw
Conservation Program. .................................................................
Figure 20
– Licuri plantation experiment. Photo: Joaquim Rocha dos Santos
Neto. .............................................................................................
Figure 21
– Environmental education activities: a) lectures, b) course to local
teachers, c) “São João” fiesta in Jeremoabo, the theme of which
was the Lear’s Macaw, d) event with the Program for the
Eradication of the Child Labour” d) parade, e) presentation at the
semi-arid fair. Photos: Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program. ...........
Figure 22
– Birds being adapted for release. a) adaptation aviary, b) keeper
with a costume that obscures the human shape, c) birds feeding
on a licuri palm inside the aviary. Photo: Joaquim Rocha dos
Santos Neto. .................................................................................
Figure 23a and b
– Lear’s Macaws Breeding Center at the São Paulo Zoo. Photos:
Fernanda Junqueira Vaz. .............................................................
Figure 24a and b – Lear’s Macaws Breeding Center at the Rio Zoo. Photos: Denise
Monsores. .....................................................................................
Figure 25a and b
– Lear’s Macaws Breeding Center at the Lymington Foundation.
Photo: William Wittkof. ...............................................................
Figure 26a and b – Lear’s Macaws Breeding Center at the Crax Research Society.
Photo: Roberto Azeredo. .............................................................
Figure 27a , b and c – Lear’s Macaws Breeding Center at Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation.
Photo: Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation. .......................................
Figure 28a and b – Lear’s Macaws at Harewood Hall. Photos: Lorenzo Crosta. .......
Figure 29
– Lear’s Macaw nestling hatched at Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation
in 2006. Photo: Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation. .......................
Figure 30
– Lear’s Macaw rescued after being shot in the wing. Photo: Yara
Barros. .........................................................................................
Figure 31
– Quarantine Center at Praia do Forte, Bahia. Photo: Yara Barros. ...
Figure 32
– Endoscopy carried out on a Lear’s Macaw: detailed image
obtained through endoscopy of the testicle of an adult male.
Photo: Yara Barros; Detailed photo: André Vilella. ........................
12
47
48
49
50
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Members of the International Committee for the
Conservation and Management of the Lear’s Macaw
Anodorhynchus leari
MEMBERS
Name/Position
Institution
E
Electronic
address
Fauna General Coordinator CGFAU/Ibama
[email protected]
Protected Areas Coordinator CGUC/Ibama
[email protected]
Fauna Species Protection
Coordinator
COFAU/Ibama
[email protected]
Law Enforcement General
Coordinator
CGFIS/Ibama
[email protected]
Head of Cemave
Cemave/Ibama
[email protected]
Representative
Biodiversitas Foundation
[email protected]
Representative
São Paulo Zoo
[email protected]
Representative
Rio Zoo
[email protected]
Representative
Brazilian Society of Ornithology
[email protected]
Representative
Busch Gardens
[email protected]
Representative
Garcia D’Ávila Foundation
[email protected]
Representative
Crax Research Society on Wild
Fauna
[email protected]
Representative
Proaves
[email protected]
Representative
Fundación Loro Parque
[email protected]
Representative
Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation
[email protected]
Carlos Bianchi
Oregon State University
[email protected]
Pedro Scherer Neto
Museum of Natural History
Capão da Imbuia
[email protected]
Ricardo Bomfim Machado
Conservação Internacional
[email protected]
Rick Jordan
Hill Country Aviaries
[email protected]
Yara de Melo Barros
COFAU/Ibama
[email protected]
Otávio Manoel Nolasco de Serra Branca Farm
Farias
Neiva Guedes
Hyacinth Macaw Project
[email protected]
13
CONSULTANTS
14
Name/Position
Institution
Electronic address
Cristina Yumi Myiaki
USP
[email protected]
Wanderlei de Moraes
Itaipu Binacional
[email protected]
Lorenzo Crosta
Italy
[email protected]
Yves de Soye
Bird Life International
[email protected]
Presentation
Brazil is the country that has the
world’s greatest biodiversity. At the same time,
the increase of human activities, such as the
disorderly expansion of cities and the incursion
of agricultural borders into protected areas has
resulted in a great pressure on diverse
landscapes and biomes in Brazil. The main
consequences of these activities are the loss,
degradation and fragmentation of habitats,
resulting in an increase in the number of
species on the Official List of Threatened
Species instituted by the Normative
Instruction Nº 3 of the Ministry of the
Environment, of May 27, 2003.
Every Brazilian citizen is responsible
for watching over this national heritage, but
the initiatives and measures to be adopted in
order to reverse this scenario must be
undertaken in an organized and cooperative
way for a common objective. Therefore, the
gathering of the efforts of government, society
and research institutions, which aim to
conserve our biodiversity, represents an
important step in this endeavor.
In order to change this threatening
scenario, the Brazilian Institute of Environment
and Natural Renewable Resources and the
Ministry of Environment created the
Threatened Species Series, comprising Action
Plans, Management Plans and other relevant
contributions to the protection and
conservation of Brazilian threatened fauna.
The first three issues of this Series referred,
in order of publication, to the Red-billed
Curassow Crax blumenbachii, the albatrosses
and petrels (Order Procellariiformes) and the
Brazilian Merganser (Mergus octosetaceus).
The fourth number of this Series is
the Management Plan for the Lear’s Macaw
(Anodorhynchus leari), a Critically
Endangered species, endemic of the dry
scrubland “caatinga” in Bahia. The current
population estimate is of only approximately
600 birds in the wild and 40 known in
captivity. The main threats to this species are
habitat loss and trapping for illegal trade.
The Plan presents information on the
biology of the species, identifies the main
threat factors and propose measures that must
be implemented, identifying potential actors
and establishing time-scales and priorities for
long-term conservation of the species. The
Plan must be revised periodically, to monitor
and evaluate the success of the actions
undertaken, and to update the conservation
needs.
We thank all the people that worked
on the elaboration of this Plan in all the phases
of its preparation, showing commitment to the
conservation of Brazilian biodiversity, and we
also thank the National Fund for the
Environment for making possible the
publication of this document.
MARCUS LUIZ BARROSO BARROS
President
Brazilian Institute of Environment and
Natural Renewable Resources
Adriano Paiva
Part 1
GENERAL INFORMATION
Introduction
The Anodorhynchus genus is
composed of three species: the Glaucous
Macaw (A. glaucus), currently considered
extinct, that occurred originally in the south of
Brazil and surrounding countries; the Hyacinth
Macaw (A. hyacinthinus), that has disjunct
populations in Brazil and the Lear’s Macaw,
that occurs in the dry scrubland of Bahia.
The species focus in this
Management Plan is the Lear’s Macaw
Anodorhynchus leari (Bonaparte, 1856),
which was considered a poorly known species
and its home was unknown for over a century.
The species was described by Bonaparte in
1856, from a prepared specimen in the Paris
Museum, whose origin was known only as
Brazil, and another specimen from the Anvers
Zoo, Belgium, of unknown origin. For more
than a century all the birds that arrived in
American and European zoos and museums
were given an incorrect origin. Until 1978,
individuals in captivity were only known to
be of uncertain origin (Sick et al., 1979;
Yamashita 1987). The first information about
its area of occurrence was found in Juazeiro,
Bahia, where Olivério Pinto, in one of his
expeditions to northeast Brazil, found one
bird in captivity, which was supposedly
captured “south of São Francisco River, on
the right river bank” (Pinto, 1950).
Nevertheless, this information did not satisfy
the Brazilian scientific community, motivating
the undertaking of several expeditions to the
“sertão” from Bahia and Pernambuco (Collar
et. al., 1992).
In December 1978, the species was
finally found in the north east of Bahia, to the
south of Raso da Catarina (Sick et al., 1979;
Sick e Teixeira, 1980; Sick et al., 1987), in a
precarious situation for the population.
The initial range of the species was
delimited as a radius of 8.000 km2, the VazaBarris River being the main reference point.
The Lear’s Macaw is currently
Critically Endangered (IUCN, 2004) and is
included in Appendix I of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It is also listed
as Critically in Danger on the Brazilian Official
List of Threatened Species (MMA, 2003).
Currently there are two
conservation projects being carried out in
situ. One of them is the Lear’s Macaw
Conservation Program of Ibama, developed
in partnership with Cemave/Ibama (National
Research Center for the Wild Birds
Conservation) and with Proaves (Brazilian
Association for Conservation of Birds), in the
city of Jeremoabo. The other is a program
developed in the city of Canudos by the
Biodiversitas Foundation. Ibama coordinates
the Captive Program for the species.
2. Information on the
species
2.1. Morphology
The Lear’s Macaw (Figure 1) is
around 70 to 75 cm long and weighs around
900 grams, according to Sick (1997). Data
obtained from 40 birds in captivity showed
that the males weigh on average 882,24 grams
19
and tail are cobalt-blue. The periophthalmic ring
is light-yellow, the eyelid is light blue, white or
slightly bluish, and they present a naked yellow
area almost triangular, in the form of a light
sulphur-yellow patch, paler than the
periophthalmic ring, on each side of the base
of the mandible. (Sick, 1997; Collar et al., 1992).
Mark L. Stafford (www.parrotsinternational.org)
(n=17, s = 44,96), and the females weigh on
average 789,09 grams (n=23, = 68,33) (Y.
Barros, pers. comm., 2006).
The beak is black, very strong and
toothless and the tail is very long. The head
and neck are greenish-blue, the abdomen is dullblue, the back and the upper side of the wings
Figure 1 – Lear’s Macaw.
2.2. Distribution and habitat
20
The range of A. leari is in the
morphoclimatic domain of the “caatingas”
(Ab’Saber, 1977), in a plateau with altitudes
varying from 380 to 800 meters (Yamashita,
1987), where there are canyons and cliffs
formed by the intermittent watercourses of
the region (Sick et al., 1987). The macaws
use these sand cliffs as roosting and breeding
sites (Figure 2).
The species is endemic to the
northeast of Bahia, showing current and
historical occurrence in the cities of Canudos,
Uauá, Paulo Afonso, Euclides da Cunha,
Jeremoabo, Sento Sé and Campo Formoso
(Figure 3 A and B). The area of these cities is
34.272 Km 2, with 319.981 inhabitants,
representing an average population density
of 9,34 inhabitants/Km2 (Table 1). Currently,
most of the population lives in the cities of
Canudos and Jeremoabo.
Table 1: Human population and density in the range
of the Lear’s Macaw
City
Population
Área (km2)
Density (hab/km2)
Campo Formoso
61.942
6.806
9,10
Canudos
13.761
2.985
4,61
Euclides da Cunha
53.885
2.325
23,17
Jeremoabo
34.916
4.761
7,33
Paulo Afonso
96.499
1.574
61,31
Sento Sé
32.461
12.871
2,52
Uauá
26.517
2.950
8,99
TOTAL
319.981
34.272
9,34
Source: IBGE, Results of the Demographic Census of 2000.
During the search for remnant
populations of another macaw endemic to the
northeastern “sertão”, the Spix’s Macaw
(Cyanopsitta spixii), M. Da-Ré and P. Antas
obtained information, in 1992 and 1993
respectively, about the presence of remnant
Anodorhynchus leari in the region of Serra
da Borracha (City of Curaçá) and in Serra da
Cana Brava (City of Uauá), that probably
would have been birds from the population
of the regions of Canudos and Jeremoabo (P.
Antas, pers. comm., 2006).
In 1994, Pedro Lima (pers. comm.)
and collaborators reported locating a
population of 25 birds in Campo Formoso,
but there were no further records of this
supposed population. Munn (1995) reports the
cities of Sento Sé and Campo Formoso as areas
of occurrence of the species. In August and
September of 2005, Cemave/Ibama carried
out an expedition to search for new roosting
and/or breeding sites, in cliffs of the cities of
Uauá, Sento Sé and Campo Formoso. These
searches were based on interviews with local
people and persons that worked as guides in
former expeditions. Cliffs and areas with
concentrations of licuri palms and/or suitable
for roosting by the macaws were checked,
especially areas with historical records of their
occurrence. Satellite images of the region
were used to guide the coverage and the
surveys. During the expedition, materials for
awareness were distributed (T-shirts and caps).
In the region of the Serra da
Borracha and Serra do Jerônimo no evidence
of macaws roosting or feeding was found.
According to information from local people,
there have been no records of macaws in the
region for a long time. There is a great
concentration of licuri palms in the region,
especially at Serra da Borracha, but they are
within dense vegetation, and not available for
exploitation by the macaws. Besides, the
shape of the cliffs does not have the
characteristics of protection against wind and
sun (“sac” structure), as do the cliffs used by
macaws at the cities of Jeremoabo and
Canudos.
Sento Sé and Campo Formoso
present a lot of sandstone cliffs, some of them
protected from wind and sun and with
availability of licuris in open areas; these
characteristics of the habitat being suitable for
the Lear’s Macaws. Based on information from
local people, two macaws were located
feeding in this region. In spite of searching,
the roosting place of these birds was not found.
New expeditions must be organized to check
21
if these birds roost in the region, and in case
these birds represent an isolated population,
proper management and protection strategies
must be established (Programa de
Conservação da Arara-Azul-de-Lear, 2005).
Some of the cities where the species
occurs (Paulo Afonso, Jeremoabo, Canudos
and Uauá) compose the region known as
“Raso da Catarina”, situated in the driest
portion of Bahia, which was considered a low
occupation zone, presenting approximately
one inhabitant per square kilometer, and with
a predominance of medium-sized properties
(100 to 200 ha). The relief in this area is
essentially a flat plain, markedly cut by dry
valleys and ravines: this flat formation gave
the area the name of “Raso”. The deep
fissures in the flat formation are the canyons.
The region is in a transition zone between
the arid and semi-arid climates, characterized
by scarcity of rain, which has a torrential and
irregular pattern, with annual amplitudes of 400
to 600 mm, concentrated in the colder period
of the year, and presenting a constant water
deficit. (www.ibama.gov.br). The temperatures
vary from 15 to 45ºC (Yamashita, 1987).
The vegetation in the area is
“caatinga” over sand, with a predominance
of bushy dense vegetation mixed with
arboreal “caatinga” and rock outcrops,
presenting a high degree of endemism and a
richness of rare/threatened species (Giulieti,
2004). There are three well defined strata
(Eager, 1952; Rizzini, 1997; A. E. de Souza,
pers. comm., 2006):
Herbaceous stratum – up to 1,0
m height, composed mainly of the
Bromeliaceae “macambira” (Bromelia
laciniosa), “caroá” (Neoglaziovia variegata)
and “croata” (Bromelia karatas) and also the
Cactaceae “quipá” (Opuntia inamoena) and
“coroa-de-frade” (Melocactus bahiensis).
Bush stratum – the dominant
stratum in this physiognomy , with heights
22
varying from 2 to 4 m, with species like the
“pinhão” (Jatropha sp), the “juremas”
(Mimosa acustitipula, M. verrucosa and M.
cf. hostilis), “marmeleiro” (Croton sp),
“velame” (Croton campestris), “catingueira”
(Caesalpinia pyramidalis), “pereiro”
(Aspidosperma pirifolium) and the Cactaceae
“madacaru” (Cereus jamacaru), “xiquexique” (Cephalocereus gounellei) and
“facheiro” (Pilosocereus pachycladus).
Arboreal stratum – found mainly
at the base of cliffs and the forest fringing the
Vaza Barris River (height between 6,0 and
15,0 m), with species like: “joazeiro”
(Zizyphus joazeiro), “umbuzeiro” (Spondias
tuberosa), “umburana-de-espinho” (Bursera
leptophloeos), “ baraúna” (Schinopsis
brasilienis), mulungu (Erythrina velutina),
aroeira (Astronium urundeuva), “angico”
(Anadenanthera macrocarpa), “caraibeira”
(Tabebuia caraiba), “licuri” (Syagrus coronata)
and “algaroba” (Prosopis juliflora – exotic
invasive).
The Ministry of the Environment
(MMA, 2000) identified priority areas for the
conservation, sustainable use and benefitsharing of Brazilian biodiversity, based on the
following criteria: biological diversity,
integrity of ecosystems and opportunities for
conservation actions and the evaluation of
options for sustainable use compatible with
the conservation of biological diversity.
According to these criteria, the region of the
“Raso da Catarina” was considered an area
of extreme importance for the conservation
of birds and of high importance for the
conservation of the “caatinga” flora, due to
the species’ richness, high number of
endemic, richness of rare/threatened
species, high intrinsic fragility of the system
and high degree of human-related pressure.
Its total protection is recommended (MMA,
2002; Sá, 2004; Giulietti, 2004; Pacheco,
2004).
Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program.
Figure 2a – Habitat of the Lear’s Macaw.
Figure 2 (B) – Habitat of the Lear’s Macaw.
23
Figure 3a – Map of the distribution of the Lear’s Macaw.
24
Figure 3 (A and B) – Map of the distribution of the Lear’s Macaw.
25
2.2.1. Use and occupation of the
land
Cattle-raising, usually practiced in an
extensive way, is an important economic
activity, especially with goats, sheep, cattle and
chickens. The greatest herds of goats and
sheep are in the city of Sento Sé and Canudos,
while Euclides da Cunha and Campo Formoso
stand out for the cattle-raising. In the latter
city, together with Paulo Afonso, the greatest
chicken production of the region is
concentrated (Table 2). Apiculture also stands
out, and the biggest honey production is in
the cities of Paulo Afonso and Jeremoabo.
(Table 2).
Although this region is starting to
practice irrigated fruit cultivation, using the
water potential of the São Franciso and Vaza
Barris Rivers, subsistence agriculture is still
predominant, with plantations of corn, beans
and manioc. Of the permanent cultivation,
there are bananas, coconuts and mangos
(Table 3). The region is starting to produce
an excellent quality grape, especially in
Sento Sé. Of temporary cultivation, besides
the subsistence cultures mentioned, there
are onions, tomatoes, watermelons and
melons (Table 4). There are also some
vegetable cultivation on the margin of the
Vaza Barris River. The use of pesticides is
intense, especially on the plantations of onions
and tomatoes, and this is a very worrying
situation due to the damage that they cause
to health and the environment.
In Jeremoabo an industry of fruit
juices was recently implemented, which must
increment the irrigated fruit production in the
region. Currently, the major part of the
production is sold to other areas, especially
to Sergipe State.
The agricultural activity is usually
preceded by deforestation, with selective
cutting to obtain firewood and wood. The
practice of burning, which is carried out
without control, is habitual in the region. The
farmers also collect the fruits of “umbu”
(Spondias tuberosa), that are commercialized
in natura; Sento Sé is the region’s major
producer of umbu.
Euclides da Cunha stands out for the
production of licuri fruits (Table 5), which are
usually commercialized in “cords”, that is, the
fruits are broken, the husk is removed and
the endosperm is perforated and inserted on
a cord.
Table 2: Stock-raising production of the cities in the range
of the Lear’s Macaw
City
Pigs*
Sheep*
Goats*
Hens*
Cocks,
Hens,
Chicks*
Dairy
Cattle*
Campo
Formoso
32.474
9.398
8.807
17.695
39.267
40.390
1.097
Canudos
19.400
1.910
32.400
49.300
14.700
23.200
10.830
11.730
4.610
Cow
Chicken
Honey
milk
eggs
(mil
(thousand (kg)
liters) dozens)
317
198
2.820
649
29
-
5.840
1.927
35
15.000
9.260
Euclides
da Cunha
47.160
1.447
22.500
Jeremoabo
27.926
2.648
25.905
29.158
15.100
16.043
7.803
2.472
55
26.313
Paulo
Afonso
13.776
1.403
13.152
12.583
28.098
42.148
4.133
1.860
169
50.000
Sento Sé
21.043
6.970
52.366
62.617
20.363
30.572
3.851
2.137
53
1.474
7.943
3.825
27.815
37.172
17.100
21.300
1.980
396
34
-
169.722
27.601
182.945
219.355
146.358
178.263
27.524
9.758
Uauá
Total
26
Cattle*
Source: IBGE, Municipal Cattle-Raising Production 2003.
* Animals
573 102.407
Table 3: Main permanent cultivations of the cities in the range of the Lear’s Macaw.
Cashew nuts
Banana
Coconuts
Grapes
Mangos
Oranges
Quanti- Picked
Picked
Picked
Picked
Quantity Picked Quantity Picked
ty
area Quantity area Quantity area Quantity area
area
area
(ton)
(ton)
(ton)
(thousand
(ton)
(ton)
(ha)
(ha)
(ha)
(ha)
(ha)
(ha)
fruits)
City
Campo
Formoso
24.840
1.380
Canudos
24.880
1.555
Euclides
da Cunha
100
10
Jeremoabo
1.650
110
Paulo
Afonso
1.600
Sento Sé
16
40
10
60
10
270
18
704
32
2
5
4.800
240
30
6
200
5
-
-
39
130
30
15
25
5
120
4
-
-
84
210
1.680
140
-
-
3.000
120
-
-
80
-
-
348
60
-
-
150
10
110
5
3.599
122
-
-
1.400
35
-
-
6.570
365
4.800
150
16
2
-
-
2
1
5
1
20
1
-
-
56.685
3.259
128
361
8.300
501
115
22
10.330
523
5.614
187
Uauá
Total
3
Source: IBGE, Municipal Agricultural Production 2003.
Table 4: Main temporary cultivations of the cities in the range
of the Lear’s Macaw.
Onions
Beans
City
Campo
Formoso
948
Canudos
-
-
Euclides
da Cunha
-
Jeremoabo
-
- 2.700 25000
82 1.770 3.448 27.000 2.250
-
-
162
12
300
-
-
-
-
- 18.932 22800 42.000 3.000
-
-
-
322
Tomatoes
650
5.400
650 1.215 1.900
95
600
300
15
- 21.854 22.300
-
-
920
46
280
10
258
110
210
14
2.250
90
1.500
200
-
-
-
-
-
186
200 12.000 1.000 9.000
450
2.500
100
120
100 5.500
100
174
550
-
-
-
-
117
450
-
-
37.154 2.090 24.084 52.648 89.550 6.860 9.210
464
4.912
202 25.159 36.665 8.900
266
170
10
-
36.000
2.00
0
-
Uauá
Total
Corn
1.650
Paulo
Afonso
Sento Sé
Watermelons
Melons
Manioc
Quant- Picked Quant- Picked Quant- Picked Quant- Picked Quant- Picked Quant- Picked Quant- Picked
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
(ton) (ha) (ton) (ha)
(ton) (ha) (ton) (ha)
(ton) (ha) (ton) (ha) (ton) (ha)
-
-
-
-
2.160 12.000
-
Source: IBGE, Municipal Agricultural Production 2003.
Table 5: Vegetal extraction and silviculture of the cities in the range
City
Campo Formoso
Canudos
Euclides da Cunha
Jeremoabo
Paulo Afonso
Sento Sé
Uauá
Total
Umbu
(ton)
Licuri
(ton)
12
28
20
45
70
40
215
32
250
2
35
319
Coal
(ton)
Firewood
(m 3 )
42
1
3
120
20
2
188
Source: IBGE, Production of Vegetal Extraction and Silviculture 2003.
12.870
7.000
71.000
10.000
2.700
2.676
5.800
112.046
Wood
(m3)
1.300
1.400
1.150
690
1.100
5.640
27
2.2.2. Indigenous lands
In the Lear’s Macaw range there are
two ethnic indigenous groups, the
“Pankararés” and the “Kaimbé”:
2.3. Feeding
The main food item of the Lear’s
Macaw is the fruit of the licuri palm, Syagrus
coronata (Figure 4). Licuri patches, distributed
in the cities of Euclides da Cunha, Jeremoabo,
Canudos, Sento Sé and Campo Formoso, are
used as feeding sites by the macaws (C.
Yamashita, pers. comm.).
The distribution area of the licuris
palms extends from the north of Minas Gerais
State, occupying all the eastern and central
part of Bahia State, to the south of the
Pernambuco State, including the states of
Sergipe and Alagoas (Noblick, 1986). Bondar
(1938) estimated that when he carried out
his study, there were 5 billion licuri palms in
Bahia, and it was possible to find up to 1,000
palms per hectare in some regions.
Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program
1. Pankararés: This ethnic group
has two reserves demarcated in the area:
! “Brejo do Burgo” – a reserve with
17.924 ha and 793 inhabitants (data from
1992). This land was demarcated and the
process was sent to the Ministry of the Justice
to verification. It occurs in the cities of Glória,
Paulo Afonso and Rodelas.
! “Pankararé” – a reserve with
29.597 ha and around 1.400 inhabitants. This
land was demarcated in 1986 and registered
in 1996. It is located on the northern limit of
the “ESEC of Raso da Catarina” (Figure 3 A).
2. Kaimbé: This ethnic group lives
on land named “Massacará” (Figure 3 A), in
the city of Euclides da Cunha, with 8.020ha
and 1.200 inhabitants. This land was
demarcated in 1987 and registered in 1988.
Figure 4 – Licuri Palm Syagrus coronata.
28
The species produces fruits all year
long, March, June and July being the peak
months of fruiting (Bondar, 1938; Noblick,
1986). Sick et al.(1987), state that the peak of
licuri fruits in the range of the Lear’s Macaws
is between February and April; the field team
Figure 5a – Licuri fruits.
1987) (Figure 5b) and some are perforated
very immature (figure 5c), having only liquid
endosperm inside, which is used by the
macaws.
Luciano Moreira Lima
of the Lear’s Macaws Conservation Program
obtained the same data for the region of Serra
Branca, in Jeremoabo.
The licuri bunches have around
1,357 fruits, the average length and diameter
of the fruits being 2,0 and 1,4 cm respectively,
according to I. C. Crepaldi (unpublished data,
in Crepaldi et al., 2001). The licuri fruit (Figure
5a) weighs on average about 6,2 grams
(Brandt & Machado, 1990). The macaws
mainly use the fruits that still have a green
color, but are already filled with solid
endosperm. The coconuts are opened by
means of perfect transversal cuts (Yamashita,
Figure 5b – transversally cut fruits .
Figure 5c – perforated fruits.
29
Crepaldi et al. (2001) obtained the following nutritional composition of the licuri
(pulp and kernel):
Average and Standard deviation
Parameters analyzed
Pulp
Kernel
Precentage compositi
Humidity (%)
77,4 ± 0,16
28,6 ± 0,38
Ashes (%)
1,4 ± 0,06
1,2 ± 0,01
Lipids (%)
4,5 ± 0,3
49,2 ± 0,08
Nitrogen (%)
0,5
2,2 ± 0,01
Protein (%)
3,2
11,5 ± 0,03
13,2
9,7
Xanthophyll
traces
Non detected
á - carotene
traces
Non detected
26,1 ± 0,7
Non detected
Pro-vitamin A (ER)
4,4 ± 0,1
Non detected
á -tocoferol (ìg.g -1)
3,8 ± 0,4
Non detected
Ascorbic acid
traces
Non detected
Caloric value (Kcal.100g-1)
108,6
527,3
Total carbohydrate (%)
Vitamin Composition
Mark Stafford (www.parrotsinternational.org)
â - carotene (ìg.g -1)
Figure 6 - Lear’s macaws feeding on licuri palms.
30
The birds feed on the licuri fruits
while perched on the palm (Figure 6), cut part
of the bunches and fly carrying them on the
beak to other trees (Figure 7) or feed on the
ground (Figure 8).
Mark Stafford (pers. comm., 2006)
has filmed video of the Lear’s Macaws
feeding that shows the consistent use of tools
to open the licuri fruits. The macaws use small
pieces of wood and/or leaves of the palm or
Figure 7 - Lear’s Macaw flying with licuri fruits in the
beak.
Adriano Paiva
small pieces of branches, which are used as
wedges to facilitate in the opening of peeled
fruits and to reach the endosperm. The
macaws first score or partially penetrate the
hard nut with their mandible, push the
“wedge” into the scored portion, then cleave
the nut a second time to successfully open it.
Using the wedge tool in this manner, a Lear’s
Macaw is able to open a licuri nut and extract
the endosperm every 20 seconds.
According to Brandt & Machado
(1990), an adult macaw spends on average
25 seconds to open the fruit and remove the
endosperm. Nevertheless, this activity can be
interrupted for some seconds while the
individual observes the surroundings,
scratches, changes position or shows any other
behavior. Thus, a macaw consume on average
118 licuri fruits per foraging hour, which
represents around 350 licuri fruits per day.
During this activity, at least one macaw of the
group does not forage, probably working as a
“sentinel” (Yamashita, 1987), remaining
perched on higher branches of big trees,
taking turns with other macaws in this activity.
Nevertheless, information obtained from
recent observations (M. Stafford, pers. comm.,
2006), indicate that the birds can consume a
smaller amount of fruits, and that the females
that are feeding recently fledged chicks
consume at least two times the usual daily
amount of food. The divergence in these data
indicates the need for more research on the
estimate of daily consumption of licuri.
The foraging activity occurs mostly
between 6:00 and 9:00am and between 2:00
and 4:00pm (Brandt & Machado, 1990).
Brandt e Machado (1990) identified
eight feeding areas used by the species,
comprising an area of 140 km2. To date, around
forty feeding areas used by the Lear’s Macaws
were already identified. From the location
points of the feeding areas a minimum convex
polygon was constructed (White & Garrot,
1990), by connecting the outer points (Figure
3 A e B); this polygon has an area of
approximately 4,183 Km 2 (calculated
Mark Stafford (www.parrotsinternational.org).
Figure 8 - Lear’s Macaws eating licuri fruits on the
ground.
considering the Albert Projection for South
America) and encompasses all the feeding areas.
The minimum convex polygon is the most
common method of estimating home range
(Mohr, 1947 apud White & Garrot, 1990).
Occasional food sources of the Lear’s
Macaw are: the “pinhão” (Jatropha pohliana),
the “umbu” (S. tuberosa), the “mucunã”
(Dioclea sp.) and the “baraúna” (Schinopsis
brasiliensis) (Sick et al., 1987). Brandt &
Machado (1990) recorded the consumption
of immature corn (Zea mays); the field team
of the Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program
makes regular records of the use of corn by
the macaws.
31
2.4.Movements and roosting
sites
Yara Barros
There are two roosting areas known
for the Lear’s Macaw, and the possibility of
the existence of more areas cannot be
discarded. The roosting sites are natural
cavities in sandstone cliffs. The roosting sites
(which are also breeding sites) are: Toca Velha
(Biological Station of Canudos), a RPPN
(Private Reserve of Natural Heritage – a
category of Protected Area), located in the
city of Canudos (Figure 9), owned by
Biodiversitas Foundation and the Serra Branca
Farm, in the city of Jeremoabo (Figure 10),
owned by Mr. Otávio Nolasco, adjacent to
the Ecological Station of Raso da Catarina, a
Federal Conservation Unit. The localities of
the two areas can be observed on the Figure
3 A. Araújo (1996) also observed Lear’s
Macaws roosting on trees in the city of
Euclides da Cunha, fact already reported by
local people. Brandt and Machado (1990)
recorded that the roosting sites are between
12 and 32 Km from the feeding areas.
The daily movements are initiated
when the birds leave their roosting places at
the first daylight, flying in flocks to the feeding
32
Figure 9 – Toca Velha, city of Canudos.
area. At the end of the afternoon these flocks
return to the roosting sites, arriving just after
sunset (Sick et al., 1987). During the hottest
period of the day they usually stay perched
on tall and dry trees or in the shadow of licuri
palm leaves. In this period social interactions
can be observed (Brandt & Machado, 1990).
On nights of full moon, the macaws can return
to the roosting sites later; flocks have been
recorded arriving up to 7:00 pm. (Cemave,
unpubl. data).
The seasonal movements are poorly
known, but are probably related to food
availability and/or climatic factors. In 1993,
due to the intense drought, the flocks
increased their foraging area, getting close to
the City of Euclides da Cunha (Hart, pers.
comm.).
Araújo (1996) conducted studies on
the daily movement patterns of the species
and estimated some possible daily flight routes
(straight distance between two points), that
include the feeding and roosting areas. These
routes varied from 24,86 Km to 169,45 Km
per day. Rigueira and Sherer Neto (1997)
report that, at that time, the macaws flew
around 80 Km from their roosting places to
the feeding areas.
Figure 10 – Serra Branca, city of Jeremoabo.
establishment of the Lear’s Macaw
Conservation Program at Jeremoabo in 2001.
In general, the breeding period of
birds that occur in arid habitats seems to be
intimately related to the beginning of the rains
(Immelmann 1963; Keast & Marshall, 1954),
since many factors important for reproduction
are associated with rain, such as: changes in
the food supply, humidity and physiognomy
of the environment. Regarding the Lear’s
Macaw, its breeding period begins around
September/October, extending until April.
Brandt & Machado (1990) observed
copulations in November.
Pedro Lima
Simultaneous monthly censuses
carried out in 1998 indicated that at the
beginning of the dry season (August) the
number of macaws on the traditional roost
sites diminished, and in this period there
were more birds roosting at Toca Velha. A
higher number of macaws was also recorded
at Serra Branca during the breeding period
(September to April) (Relatório FNMA, 1999).
This pattern was also observed during the
censuses carried out in 2003 and 2004
(Menezes et al., in press; Santos Neto et al.,
2005), besides the reduction in the total
number of macaws observed in July and
August. These data suggest the possible use
of an unknown roosting site, however
expeditions carried out to find this supposed
new site were unsuccessful to date. (Menezes
et al., in press; Santos Neto et al., 2005).
Araújo (1996) suggests that the
variation observed in the utilization of the
roost sites can be due the use of trees for
roosting at certain periods of the year.
2.5. Reproduction
Information about the reproductive
biology of the Lear’s Macaw is relatively
scarce, but it became more detailed after the
Figure 11 – Nests of Lear’s Macaws in cliffs.
33
34
The Lear’s Macaws breed in cavities
in the sandstone cliffs (Figure 11). Multiple
pairs can breed on the same cliff that has
several cavities. Yamashita (1987) observed
one breeding pair on a cliff isolated from the
rest of the group, indicating a certain degree
of territorialism of the breeding area.
According to observations done by Hart
(1992), two or three breeding pairs were
found on the same area, but the pairs in each
nest did not see each other; the author
recorded a big behavioral change on the flock
during the breeding season; pairs barely
tolerated each other and started to occupy a
wider roosting area.
As mentioned in the previous
section, the two known breeding sites are the
Toca Velha and the Serra Branca Farm.
Hart (1992) reports that the period
between hatching and fledging was 87 days,
a shorter period than that observed for
Hyacinth Macaws, but there is no description
of the methodology used to obtain these data,
nor the sample number of nests/chicks.
According to Brant & Machado (1990), two
young birds were observed in the period from
July to October of 1988 and in May of 1989.
Three different pairs produced five young;
one pair produced one chick and two pairs
produced two. Hart (pers. comm.) observed
10 new young birds in the population of Raso
da Catarina in July of 1994.
To date, the monitoring of Lear’s
Macaw nests has been done only by means
of external observations of the nests, recording
the behavior of the pairs and the number of
young that leave each nest. Internal checking
of the nest-cavities has not yet been carried
out, this being to record the internal shape of
the nest-cavities, clutch sizes and biometry
of the nestlings. These studies are foreseen
for the breeding season of 2006/2007.
On the breeding season of 1995/
1996, six nests were found at Toca Velha and
two at Serra Branca and in the breeding
season of 1996/1997 two pairs were observed
at Toca Velha and eight at Serra Branca
(Araújo, 1996), but the nests were not
monitored. At that time, this number
represented 20% of the total population, but
it is not possible to confirm if all the active
nests were located, and the real number of
nests was probably higher.
Preliminary studies on reproductive
behavior were carried out by a team under
the Committee’s coordination in the breeding
season of 1997/98. The data from this study
are presented below and can be found in
Relatório FNMA (1999).
Four nests were monitored, totaling
approximately 1,500 hours of observation,
during four months. One of the nests was
abandoned and breeding success was
recorded in two of them: one produced two
and the other three young. In this period, the
time that at least one member of the pair
stayed inside or in the area of the nest was
recorded, as well as the date when the
nestlings started to come to the nest entrance
and the date and number of birds that fledged.
The breeding period was divided
into three distinct phases:
PHASE 1 – From the beginning of
nesting activity until the first
vocalization of the nestlings;
PHASE 2 – From the first vocalization
of the nestlings until their
appearance in the nest opening;
PHASE 3 – From the appearance of
the nestlings in the nest entrance
until they fledged.
The table below shows the average
proportion of time that at least one of the
parents remained inside the nest in relation
to the total observation period, for the three
phases of the breeding period:
NEST
Proportion of time that at least
one of the parents remained
inside the nest
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Nest 1
34,72%
43,90%
43,79%
Nest 2
29,15%
25,79%
28,92%
During the breeding season of 2001/
2002, Sam Williams (pers. comm., 2006)
observed twenty three nests occupied, and
at least six nests produced two young each.
He recorded a total of twenty nine nestlings
in the nest entrances in this season.
In the breeding season of 2003/
2004 two nests were monitored in detail: the
vigilance behavior was intense during the
breeding period, and at least one individual
remained as a sentinel at the nest entrance
(Amaral et al., 2005).
On the breeding season of 20042005, a more complete search for nests was
carried out and fifty six cavities were found
occupied at Serra Branca and 11 at Toca Velha.
Nine nests were monitored during the whole
breeding season, and the breeding success
registered was 1.22 young/monitored nest,
and the estimate of population increase was
of around 80 individuals (Santos Neto et al.,
2005).
3. Status.
3.1. Wild
One of the main unknowns related
to this species is its population size in the past.
Hart (1992) states that around a century ago
the Lear’s Macaw was common in Bahia,
based on information of ancient inhabitants
of the region about numerous flocks in flight.
Nevertheless, considering that the parameters
used to judge these groups as numerous are
unknown, it is difficult to establish
comparisons or even evaluate tendencies
from this statement.
Many censuses have been
conducted since the 1970’s to estimate the
population size of the Lear’s Macaw. In these
censuses, many methodologies have been
used, and they are not always comparable
and/or described, but the data presented
suggest a rapid and constant population
increase, besides an improvement in the
knowledge of the roosting sites and above all,
an improvement in the census methodology.
In 1979, Sick et al. estimated that
the Lear’s Macaw population in the Raso da
Catarina consisted of 60 birds. Yamashita
(1987) verified, through censuses, that the total
population had a minimum absolute number
of 60 birds, and a maximum estimated
number of 200. Through several censuses
carried out on the roost sites of A. leari, Brandt
& Machado (1990) estimated that the
population was not more than 60 individuals.
D. S. Gardner (1990, pers. comm.) reported
a population of 66 birds, while B. M. Whitney
(1991, pers. comm.), based on information
of local people, estimated that the population
of the species varied from 50 and 100 birds.
There is no description of the census
methodology used to obtain these numbers.
Araújo & Scherer Neto (1997), carrying out
simultaneous censuses on the two known
roosting places (Toca Velha and Serra Branca),
counted 95 birds. In the same year, during an
expedition to the region, J. Hart (pers. comm.)
observed at least 117 individuals. Araújo
(1996) pointed out that, at that time, the
numbers obtained in the censuses could not
be precise due to the reduced team and to
the lack of detailed knowledge about the roost
sites. There is no record of the methodology
used in these censuses either.
In 1998, a field team under the
guidance of the Committee for the
Conservation of the Lear’s Macaw carried out
twelve simultaneous monthly censuses, and
the highest number of individual birds
observed was 181. To conduct the censuses,
there was one observer at Toca Velha and
three at Serra Branca, positioned in strategic
places. Each census involved from two to
three days of counting, with two daily counts,
one when the macaws left the roost sites
(around 5:30 am) and the other one when
they returned (around 5:00 pm). At the end
of each census, the data were compared and
accounted to reach an minimum absolute
number of birds. In two months (January and
July), the simultaneous censuses also included
the city of Sento Sé, but Lear’s Macaws were
not observed at this place (Relatório FFNMA,
1999).
35
In 2001, a three-day census (also
with two counts per day) carried out by eleven
researchers at Serra Branca (three counting
points) and Toca Velha (two counting points),
coordinated by Cemave/Ibama, increased the
number of known birds in the wild from 170
to 246 macaws (Nascimento et al., 2001). After
the implementation, in the same year, of the
Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program, two
more censuses were carried out (September
and December) (Relatório Projeto Arara-Azulde-Lear, 2003). The methodology used was
the same described in the 1998 censuses.
In 2002, again using the same
methodology, the Lear’s Macaw Conservation
Project carried out four censuses (March, July,
September and December), and the
maximum number of birds observed was 431
(in July). In the census of July, as well as the
counts at the two traditional roosting places,
searches for new roost sites were made. Three
teams visited the species’ historical
occurrence areas in the cities of Sento Sé,
Campo Formoso and also in the Ecological
Station of Raso da Catarina and in the
Indigenous land of the Pankararés (at the
northern limit of the Ecological Station), with
the following results:
Campo Formoso – Only reports of
macaws in the past.
Sento Sé – Two macaws were
observed in Sento Sé, in Barbudo farm, flying
high, to the west of a cliff on the farm and
going in direction of the Sao Francisco River;
vocalizations were also recorded at the “Serra
da Faveleira”.
ESEC of Raso da Catarina –
Remains of Lear’s Macaw feeding were found
in this area (see item 5.2.1.), but macaws
were not observed.
Indigenous
land
of
the
Pankararés – The team who visited the area
noted that there were many licuri palms, and
found remains of feeding by macaws in some
36
areas, but in this visit macaws were not
observed.
In the September’ census there was
a survey for new areas of occurrence of the
species in the cities of Curaçá (BA), in the
Serra da Borracha and Serra do Juá, and
“Gruta de Patamuté” but, although the region
presents an abundance of licuri palms, no signs
of macaws were found. According to
information from local people, Lear’s Macaws
were observed on this area around four or
five years ago, feeding on “mandacaru” (C,
jamacaru) fruits (Relatório Projeto Arara-Azulde-Lear, 2003). M. da Ré (pers. comm., 1996),
states that Serra da Borracaha would be the
limit of the historical distributions of the Spix’s
Macaw (C. spixii) and Lear’s Macaw.
In 2003 and 2004, simultaneous
censuses of the species were carried out on a
monthly basis (Figure 12), from March
onwards, and the methodology was revised.
This started to use at least four observers at
Toca Velha (three counting points) and nine
at Serra Branca, with new counting points that
provide a wider field of vision (seven counting
points). Each census involved two counting
days, with two counts per day. In 2003, the
number of birds registered in the wild was
approximately 435 (Menezes et al.,in press).
From 2004 on, the field teams that participate
in the censuses have used communication
radios at the points where there is the
possibility that the same macaws could be
seen by more than one team, thus aiming to
avoid duplication of counts.
In 2005 two censuses were carried
out, 570 being the maximum number of birds
observed (Cemave, unpubl. data). Each
census involved four counts, two at dusk and
two at dawn, with seven counting points at
Serra Branca and four at Toca Velha.
In 2006, until June five censuses had
been carried out (excluding May), and the
maximum number of individual birds
recorded was 652.
Figure 12 – Variation of the population size between 1979 and 2006.
700
Numero máximo de aves observadas
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1979
1987
1990
1997
1998
2001
2003
2004
2005
2006
Anos
Figura 12 – Flutuação do tamanho populacional registrado entre 1979 e 2006.
Table 6 – Information about the censuses carried out between 1998 and 2006.
YEAR
Maximum
number of
macaws
observed
Nº. of
censuses
carried out
Number of
counting points
Minimum number of
observers used
TV*
TV*
SB**
SB**
1998
12
181
1
3
1
3
2001
3
280
5
6
2
4
2002
4
431
4
8
3
6
2003
10
435
4
8
3
6
2004
8
498
4
10
3
7
2005
2
570
4
10
3
7
2006
5
652
4
10
3
7
*TV – Toca Velha
**SB – Serra Branca
37
3.2. Captive
Currently there are 40 individuals
included in the Captive Program coordinated
by Ibama, distributed in five Breeding Centers
inside and outside of Brazil.
The Brazilian breeder “Ernani’s
Jungle”, in Rio de Janeiro, has two Lear’s
Macaws that are not integrated into the
Program, and Ibama is working to bring about
their incorporation. There are two females
at Busch Gardens (Florida, USA); this
institution is a member of the International
Committee for the Conservation and
Management of the Lear’s Macaws and has
been invited by Ibama to integrate them into
the Captive Program and clarification is
pending . This institution had breeding
success with the species in 1982; both birds
kept currently at Busch Gardens are
descendants of birds that left Brazil “preconvention”, that is, before Brazil ratified
CITES, and therefore their status in the
United States is legal. There are rumors about
the existence of hidden birds in Mexico,
Switzerland and other countries of Europe,
and Ibama is investigating this information.
There are also two young individuals at Serra
Branca Farm, in the city of Jeremoabo, being
prepared for a monitored release
experiment, conducted by the Lear’s Macaw
Conservation Program.
4. Threats and limiting
factors
The most important short-term
threats to the conservation of the Lear’s
Macaw are the trapping for illegal trade and
the fact that they are shot by farmers. In the
long term, the greatest threat to the species is
habitat degradation, which results in a
diminishment of its primary food source, the
licuri palm.
Each threat factor is assigned an
importance rating according to a five points
scale, according to Heredia et. al (1996):
38
! Critical – a factor that could lead
to the extinction of the species
in 20 years or less;
! High – a factor that could lead to
a decline of >20% of the
population in 20 years or less;
! Medium – a factor that could lead
to a decline of <20% of the
population in 20 years or less;
! Low – a factor that only affects
the species at a local level;
! Unknown – a factor that is likely
to affect the species but it is not
known to what extent.
4.1. Capture
Importance: Critical
One of the main threats to the
species’ conservation is capture for illegal
trade, inside and outside the country. Due to
its rarity, the Lear’s Macaw is one of the most
coveted bird species.
In the region of the Indigenous Land
of the Pankararés (to the north of the
Ecological Station of Raso da Catarina) there
are reports of reproduction of the species
from around twenty years ago, when the last
macaws that bred on the cliffs were captured
to be sold in Salvador (J.L.X. Nascimento and
P.C. Lima, pers. comm.).
There are records of apprehensions
in 1998 (8 birds), 1999 (7birds), 2000 (3 birds),
2004 (6 birds) and 2005 (2 birds). However,
the birds apprehended represent probably
only a small portion of the total number of
birds trapped.
Using ropes, the trappers descend
the cliffs where there are nests and collect
the nestlings. Some nests present an entrance
big enough to fit a person. Adult birds can be
trapped in the nests and roost sites through
the use of nets that are hoisted during the
night, closing the nest/roost exit. The birds are
caught in the nets when they leave the cavities
in the morning.
Another way of capturing adults is
in the feeding areas. The trappers use corn to
attract the macaws, which are then captured
with nets. There is also the possibility that birds
are captured by being shot in the wings.
The irregularity of law
enforcement in the areas of occurrence of
the species compromises its protection.
Currently, Ibama carries out sporadic law
enforcement operations, but it is necessary
that they become routine and become
integrated with the activities of the Ecological
Station of Raso da Catarina.
Unfortunately, when trappers are
arrested with Lear’s Macaws, the infringer stay
less than 24 hours in jail, being released
thereafter. This situation makes it difficult to
protect the birds. Currently, when someone
is caught with animals of Brazilian wild fauna,
breaking law Nº 9.605, of February 12, 1998
(Law of Environmental Crimes), this person is
taken to a police station. At the moment a
Comprehensive Term of Occurrence – TCO
(“Termo Circunstanciado de Ocorrência –
TCO”) is drown up. In the TCO the evidence
is presented (wild animals, cages, trapping/
hunting gear, etc…). The persons involved
with the crime are interrogated by the chief
of police and released in the end of the
interrogation. The infringers are only obliged
to sign a Commitment Term (“Termo de
Compromisso”) that foresees their presence
at the offices of the Federal or State Justice
when requested. On this occasion, the
possibility of “alternative sentencing” are
offered to the infringer, to avoid that they
remain in detention if proven guilty. The usual
alternatives are to give food supplies for a
certain period to philanthropic institutions
(refuges, public kindergartens, etc…) and/or
providing services to the community (carrying
out works in public institutions). This legal
artifice is known as “penal transaction”
(“transação penal”) (K. Manso, pers. comm.,
2006). The lack of any relation between the
decided penalty and the crime committed
stimulated an initiative of Ibama, in
cooperation with the Brazilian Fund for
Biodiversity (FUNBIO), that culminated in the
creation of a pool of projects to be financed
through the process of alternative sentencing,
in such a way that they directly result in action
to the conservation of the species. This
initiative must soon be formalized (O. J.
Marini-Filho, pers. comm., 2006).
Animal trafficking is considered a
“crime of minor offensive potential”, with
sentences less than 1 or 2 years. The Law Nº
9.605/98 foresees penalties from 6 months to
1 year for this kind of crime, and the police
chief cannot keep the infringer in jail after
interrogation, or even charge him bail.
Regarding the administrative aspect, an
Infraction Brief (“Auto de Infração”) is drawn
up, and the fine varies from R$500.00 to
R$5,000.00 (around US$250.00 to
US$2,500.00) for each apprehended
specimen. However, these fines are rarely
paid, because lack of payment results only in
the disadvantage of inclusion of the infringer’s
name in the Active Debt of the Nation
(“Dívida Ativa da União”), which merely
impedes him to be hired by public institutions
and by the federal government, and to obtain
loans from federal banks. Furthermore, after
five years the unpaid debts are canceled. The
infringer can also appeal against the fines and
negotiate their value. Usually the infringers
obtain a “poverty certificate”, which is
frequently accepted by the judicial authority
and the fine is canceled (K. Manso, pers.
comm., 2006).
According to the presented facts, for
the conservation of wild fauna in Brazil,
modification of the Law of Environmental
Crimes will be fundamental, such that the
hunting, trapping and illegal commercialization
(trafficking) of threatened species are
considered as severe infractions, subjected
to arrest without bail. Also very important will
be campaigns of awareness and clarification
to give incentive for collaboration with the
conservation programs.
4.2. Habitat loss
Importance: Critical
The “caatinga” biome has a very
ancient human occupation. It is also the least
39
Monalyssa Camandaroba
representation of protected areas. There is
little knowledge available about the
percentage of the original vegetation loss and,
consequently, the remnant area of original
vegetation it is not known, nor the current
conservation status of this ecosystem.
The main activities that threaten the
natural environment are the removal of the
native vegetation due to agricultural practices
and extensive cattle and goat raising, as well
as the cutting of trees for firewood to supply
ceramic factories, potteries and bakeries.
The range of the Lear’s Macaw is
found between important cities of the region,
with substantial human populations: Euclides
da Cunha, Jeremoabo, Canudos, Uauá, Paulo
Afonso and Sento Sé.
There is no licuri regeneration in
areas where there is cattle, due to over-
grazing, and to the fact that the cattle feed on
the licuri fruits that fall to the ground and also
on the seedlings. The lack of natural
regeneration could compromise the food
supply of the species, given that many of the
adult palms in the feeding areas present signs
of senescence (Yamashita, in Collar et al.,
1992).
The reduction in the amount of licuri
available has as a consequence the utilization
of corn as food source by the macaws (Figure
13). Attacks on corn plantations was identified
as a problem by Brandt & Machado (1990),
as a result of the negative image that producers
have of the macaws. On the same study, they
made an attempt to quantify the losses caused
by the macaws’ attacks on corn plantations,
and verified that the losses were higher than
40% of cobs on each affected plantation.
The field team of the Lear’s Macaw
Figure 13 – Corn plantation attacked by Lear’s Macaws.
40
plantation, use of scaring methods, and
presence of licuri palms in the plantations and
in the surroundings (Figure 14). The results
indicated that the attacks were concentrated
on the Cities of Canudos (Rasinho Village) and
Jeremoabo (Água Branca Village). The losses
registered were from 30 to 73% per
plantation. In 2004, at Duninha Village
(Jeremoabo) there were losses of 87,15% of
the production due to attacks by macaws. The
highest intensity of attacks occurs from June
to August, when there is a decrease in the
availability of licuris, and also in areas close to
licuri palms or tall trees, where the “sentinels”
can perch. The macaws take the corn cobs to
these trees after collecting them (Figure 15),
but macaws feeding on the ground were also
observed, always with the presence of
“sentinels” perched on tall trees.
Figure 14 – Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program
team carrying out an evaluation of the losses on
corn plantations.
Figure 15 – Lear’s Macaw eating a corn cob on a
tree close to the plantation.
All the properties where losses were
registered practice “family agriculture”,
exclusively for subsistence. As they do not have
any kind of irrigation system, they can plant
only during the rainy season.
The scaring methods used are a little
effective at the beginning, but the macaws
soon get used to them and are no longer
scared away. Therefore, the most efficient
method is the presence of people running
around the plantation and scaring the macaws
away. In order to protect their plantations, the
producers eventually shoot the birds, causing
severe lesions and even deaths.
The Lear’s Macaw Conservation
Program and the International Committee for
the Conservation and Management of the
Lear’s Macaws carried out in 2006, on an
experimental basis, the refunding of the
producers that had verified losses due to
attacks by macaws. The refunding was done
with sacks of corn (Figure 16 A and B). Eighteen
producers were refunded with around ten tons
of corn. Parrots International and Lymington
Foundation sponsored this experiment. This
is an emergency measure, as the
implementation of strategies to increase the
medium and long term availability of licuris
Joaquim Rocha dos Santos Neto
Pedro Lima
Conservation Program, visiting the Indigenous
Land of the Pankararés in 2002, obtained
information from the Indians that in the
localities known as Baixa Fechada and Baixa
do Chico, around 30 or 40 years ago, there
were corn plantations used by many macaws.
If this information is correct, it suggests that
the utilization of corn (and possibly also he
licuri scarcity) goes back many years.
In 2005, the Lear’s Macaw
Conservation Program carried out a study on
the attacks of Lear’s Macaws on corn
plantations in the cities of Jeremoabo,
Canudos, Euclides da Cunha, Uauá, Sento Sé
and Campo Formoso (Santos Neto, 2005). In
this study they recorded the intensity of the
attacks, quantification of losses, presence of
tall trees used by the “sentinels” and by the
macaws as perches to forage, density of the
41
(Yamashita in Collar, 1992), and can limit the
food supply for the macaws.
The municipal law nº 302 from 29/
05/2002 protects the licuri palm from burning
and cutting, and this palm is the flagship tree
for the preservation of the Lear’s Macaw. At
the moment, Ibama has under analysis an
edict to widen the prohibition on cutting,
foreseeing only its sustainable use.
In this way, studies of food
availability and programs to encourage
landowners to reduce palm cutting and
promote licuri regeneration are vital for the
long-term conservation of the Lear’s
Macaw.
to the macaws are necessary; Loro Parque
Fundación is sponsoring the implementation
of such strategies.
Fires to prepare pastures and the cut
of trees to produce firewood and wood for
other purposes constitute a big threat to this
environment. The licuris are usually located
in open areas, very dry and with constant
winds, which are traditionally burned. A
bigger burning can decimate the licuri
population of a determined area in a few days
(Whitney in Collar et al., 1992). Another threat
is the exploitation of leaves and immature
fruits of licuri, which are used by local farmers
in the winter as a food supply for cattle
Figure 16 (A and B) – Refunding of producers that lost their crop due to attacks by Lear’s Macaws.
4.3. Hunting
Importance: Low
42
The hunting of wild animals is a
traditional practice in the range of the Lear’s
Macaw, and it is very difficult to avoid,
because it is a very poor region where
subsistence hunting represents an alternative
source of protein. Hunting for trade also
occurs.
There are some records of the
hunting of macaws in the region of the Raso
da Catarina, by the Pankararés Indians, but
these are sporadic cases with scant evidence.
One of the Indians reported that the macaws
that used to go to their corn plantation 30 or
40 years ago would have abandoned the
region due to the hunting pressure. Reports
from local people indicate that eight years ago
one macaw was hunted and its feathers used
in an indigenous costume (J. L. X. Nascimento
and P. C. Lima, pers. com.). In this case, an
additional problem is that the activities
practiced by the indians are not regulated by
the ordinary legislation, because the Federal
Constitution and the Law Nº 6.001 (from 19
of December,1973) “guarantee to the Indians
and indigenous communities the permanent
ownership of the lands that they inhabit,
recognizing their right to exclusively use the
natural richness and all the utilities existent
on those lands”. Thus, awareness activities
for the indigenous communities in the range
of the Lear’s Macaws are necessary.
In 1988, a local inhabitant shot a
flock of macaws in flight, just for practice. One
bird died and is deposited in the National
Museum, in Rio de Janeiro.
The impact caused by hunting can
only be minimized through environmental
education programs, generation of alternative
sources of income and systematic law
enforcement.
5. Conservation
5.1. Governmental Involvement
Ibama has been developing
activities towards the recovery of the Lear’s
Macaws since 1993, with the creation of a
Working Group, and subsequently of a
Committee, whose composition and structure
have been periodically revised. Both in situ
and ex situ activities are conducted.
Aiming to establish strategies for the
conservation of this macaw, in 1993 Ibama
created a Special Working Group to prepare,
discuss and implement actions for the
conservation of the species and its habitat. In
1999 the Committee to the Recovery and
Management of Anodorhynchus leari, the
Lear’s Macaw and Anodorhynchus
hyacinthinus, the Hyacinth Macaw was
instituted (Ibama Edict No 59, of 15 July, 1999),
which, in 2001 had its composition changed
by Ibama Edict Nº 727 (of 8 May, 2001); this
Committee had the following attributes: 1)
establish strategies for the conservation of both
species and their habitats, aiming to establish
sustainable populations (2) define management
strategies for the captive populations, aiming
to contribute to the conservation of the species
in the wild (3) analyze and evaluate projects
related to both species.
In 2003 the Committees were
separated and one was created specifically for
the Lear’s Macaws (Committee for the
Conservation and Management of the Lear’s
Macaw Anodorhynchus leari – Ibama Edict nº
435, of 27 May, 2003); the composition of this
Committee was revised in the same year (Ibama
Edict nº1.203/03-n of 16 October, 2003).
In 2005 a new edict was published,
with a revision of the members, and with the
inclusion of new holders and partners,
thereby instituting the International
Management of the Lear’s Macaw
Anodorhynchus leari (Ibama Edict nº 12, of
18 March, 2005).
Sônia Rigueira and Pedro Scherer
Neto produced the first proposal of an Action
Plan for the conservation of the Lear’s Macaw
in 1995, with the cooperation of other
members of the Special Working Group for
Anodorhynchus leari.
In 1997 an action plan was
prepared with the main emergency actions
for the species’ conservation, such as:
monitoring of the wild populations, study of
the breeding behavior, recovery and
management of licuri palms and food
supplementation for the macaws,
intensification of the law enforcement,
continuity of awareness activities of and
involvement of local communities with the
Lear’s Macaw conservation process.
In 2000, the document “Proposals
for the Future Development of the Lear’s
Macaw Anodorhynchus leari Conservation
Project” was produced, with suggested
actions for field and captivity.
In 2001 Ibama established by the
Lear’s Macaw Conservation Project, in the
city of Jeremoabo, Bahia, executed in
partnership with Cemave/Ibama and Proaves.
Currently the Program is financed by Ibama,
National Fund for the Environment, Proaves
and Loro Parque Fundación. Cemave is
responsible for the coordination of the field
activities. The CGFAU/Ibama coordinates the
Captive Program for the species.
In 2003 the “1st Meeting for the
Establishment of Protection Strategies for the
Lear’s Macaws Anodorhynchus leari” was
held, being a meeting between
representatives of Ibama headquarters (Fauna,
Law Enforcement and Conservation Units/
Protected Areas) and of the Executive
Management of Bahia, to define an internal
integrated work-plan to protect the species.
43
As a result of this meeting, priority actions for
the conservation of the species were
identified, such as: effective implementation
of the Ecological Station of Raso da Catarina
and its enlargement, intensive law
enforcement activities, especially in periods
when the birds are more vulnerable,
monitoring of the activities of known trappers
and implementation of sustainable
development actions in the region. These
actions have not yet been carried out.
5.2. Protected areas
The National System of Conservation
Units (Snuc), establishes criteria and rules for
the creation, implementation and management
of the conservation units in Brazil. The units
of the Snuc are divided into two groups with
specific characteristics:
I – Integral Protection Units, the
objective of which is to preserve nature, only
the indirect use of its natural resources being
allowed, with few exceptions. This category
includes: Ecological Stations, Biological
Reserves, National, State and Municipal Parks,
Natural Monuments and Wildlife Refuges.
II – Sustainable Use Units, the
objective of which is to unite the nature
conservation and sustainable use aspects of
the natural resources. This category includes:
Areas of Environmental Protection, Areas of
Relevant Ecological Interest, national Forests,
Extractive Reserves, Fauna Reserves, Reserves
of Sustainable Development and Private
Reserves of Natural Heritage (SNUC, Ibama).
There are five Conservation Units
within the range of the Lear’s Macaw, although
only four are effectively implemented:
1. Ecological Station of Raso da
Catarina
2. Biological Station of Canudos
3. Area of Relevant Ecological
Interest Cocorobó
4. Area of Environmental Protection
Serra Branca
5. State Park of Canudos
44
5.2.1. Ecological Station of
Raso da Catarina
This Unit is included in the category
“Ecological Station – Esec” (Integral
Protection), whose basic objective is to
preserve nature and for the undertaking of
scientific research, only the indirect use of its
natural resources being allowed, and it is not
open to the public.
This is a Federal UC, created by
Decree Nº 89.268 of 03 January, 1984, with
an area of 99,772 ha and being the second
biggest conservation unit of Bahia.
The relief is flat, markedly cut by dry
valleys and ravines, being the flat plain formation
that gave the region the name of “Raso”. The
deep fissures are the canyons. The borders of
the plateau, mainly in the southern and western
parts, have suffered strong erosion, facilitated
by the essentially sandy nature of the sediments
(http://www.ibama.gov.br/siucweb).
One of the main breeding sites of
the species, the Serra Branca, is at the
southwest limit of the Station.
The Raso da Catarina was
considered a zone with low occupation,
approximately one person per square
kilometer, and a predominance of mediumsized properties (100 to 200 hectares). There
is also a predominance of extensive cattle and
goat raising, in a subsistence system, and the
integral protection of the area is
recommended (Sá 2004). Regarding the
vegetation, the Serras of Sento Sé and the
Raso da Catarina have been classified
respectively as areas with insufficient
information but very high biological
importance (Giulietti, 2004). For birds, the
Raso da Catarina is considered of very high
biological importance (Pacheco, 2004).
In 2002, a census, the area was
visited to verify the possible presence of
Lear’s Macaws. However, only part of the Unit
was surveyed. The results of this visit indicated
an abundance of licuri palms in the Esec, but
the type of vegetation formation where there
is dense “caatinga”, without emergent trees
that can be used as perches by the sentinels
makes its utilization by the macaws difficult.
It was observed that several local inhabitants
at the borders of the Unit use the area to
establish of plantations and pastures for goats
and cattle; the presence of cattle was recorded
in every area visited within the Esec.
There are places in the Esec where
the plantations (corn and beans) have
substituted the original vegetation, but in these
places the licuri palms have been maintained,
being exposed and thus used by the macaws.
The owner of one of these plantations (in the
locality known as Logradouro) reported that
the macaws fed on licuri fruits, but did not
attack the corn plantation, but in a nearby
plantation one producer lost the entire crop
due to attack by macaws. An evaluation of all
the cliffs in the southwest part of the Esec is
necessary to check their possible occupation
by macaws. One limiting factor for this
evaluation is the difficulty of access to this area
(Y. Barros, pers. comm., 2006).
The main problem is that the “land
ownership” situation of the Esec is not entirely
regularized, which makes its protection and
the protection of the macaws difficult.
According to the Directorate of Ecosystems/
Ibama, the limits of the Esec are under review
and the Management Plan of the Unit must
be concluded by the end of 2006.
During the “1st Meeting for the
Establishment of Protection Strategies for the
Lear’s Macaw Anodorhynchus leari”, carried
out in 2003 by Ibama, the urgent need for
the effective implementation of this UC was
identified.
5.2.2. Biological Station of
Canudos
This area is included in the category
“Private Reserve of Natural Heritage – RPPN”
(Sustainable Use), and is created in a private
area in perpetuity, with the objective to
conserve biological diversity. The creation of
a RPPN is a voluntary act of the owner, who
decides to transform his property, or part of
it, into a RPPN without losing ownership of it.
In this kind of Conservation Unit research is
allowed and it is open to the public with
tourism, education and recreation purposes
(Snuc, Ibama).
This Station of 160 hectares is in the
city of Canudos, was created in 1989 and is
one of the breeding and roosting sites of the
Lear’s Macaw. The Biological Station of
Canudos, also known as “Toca Velha” is a
property of Biodiversitas Foundation, has two
field stations for researchers, and it is funded
by the Judith Hart Fund (G. Moreira, pers.
comm., 2006).
5.2.3. Area of Relevant
Ecological Interest
Cocorobó
“Area of Relevant Ecological Interest – ARIE”,
(Sustainable Use), such areas being small, with
low or no human occupation, with
extraordinary natural characteristics or that
present rare samples of the regional biota, and
with the objective to maintain the natural
ecosystems of local or regional importance
and regulate the use of these areas compatible
with the nature conservation objectives.
This area was created by a Conama
Resolution N° 005, of 5 June, 1984, but the
Directorate of Ecosystems/Ibama reports that
its implementation is still under study. (Conama
is the National Council for the Environment,
a consultative and deliberative body of the
National System for the Environment –
Sisnama).
5.2.4. Area of Environmental
Protection Serra Branca
“Area of Environmental Protection – APA”,
(Sustainable Use), these areas generally being
45
big , with a certain degree of human
occupation, and with biotic, abiotic, aesthetic
or cultural attributes especially important for
the quality of life and well-being of the human
populations, and with the main objective to
protect the biological diversity, to regulate the
occupation process and assure sustainable use
of the natural resources.
This is a State UC, created in 2001,
through the State Decree Nº 7.972, of 5 June,
2001, with 67,234 hectares, and located in
the city of Jeremoabo. The south limit is the
Vaza Barris River and the north limit is the
Esec of Raso da Catarina.
This UC has the objective to protect
the Lear’s Macaw and make possible the
formation of an ecological corridor with the ESEC
of Raso da Catarina (www.semarh.ba.gov.br).
The Serra Branca Farm, one of the main
breeding and roosting sites of the species is
in this APA.
5.2.5. State Park of Canudos
“State Park – PE” (Integral Protection) that has
as its main objective the preservation of
natural ecosystems of great ecological
relevance and natural beauty, the conducting
of scientific research being possible, as well
as the development of education and
environmental interpretation activities,
recreation in contact with nature and
ecological tourism.
This is a State UC, created in 1986,
by the State Decree 33.333 of 30 June, 1986,
with 1,321 hectares, located in the city of
Canudos.
5.3. In situ conservation
46
Preliminary studies of the species
were carried out initially by Judith Hart in
1986, in partnership with Biodiversitas
Foundation, and included censuses,
awareness and involvement of the local
community, acquisition of one of the breeding
sites of the species (Toca Velha) and a pilotproject for licuri management.
In 1995 and 1996, Ibama, in
partnership with the Biodiversitas Foundation,
resumed the field work, with the
establishment of a biologist in the city of
Canudos, for the development of the following
activities: survey of the feeding areas, search
for new roosting and breeding sites, periodic
censuses, collaboration in law enforcement
operations, local community involvement and
maintenance of the licuri plantations
previously established.
During 1997 and 1998, Ibama, with
resources from the National Fund for the
Environment (FNMA), and in partnership with
Biodiversitas Foundation, created the Lear’s
Macaw Project, with the establishment of a
field team in the area full time, to conduct
studies on the species.
The work developed included
activities such as:
! population dynamics: periodic
censuses;
! breeding behavior: monitoring
of the nests to obtain data on
incubation, duration of the
young in the nest, parental care
and recruitment;
! feeding: improvement of the
survey of feeding areas, with the
recording of licuri patches used
by the macaws, as well as
estimates of the sizes of these
patches and beginning of studies
on the licuri palm’s phenology,
and establishment of an
experimental licuri plantation;
! law enforcement: increase in
efficiency of law enforcement
aiming to inhibit the trapping
and trade of Lear’s Macaws,
through periodic enforcement
operations together with the
local authorities.
After this period there was a
discontinuity of the field work, due to the lack
of resources.
Figure 17a – Research station of Cemave in
Jeremoabo, Bahia.
In the period between 2001 and
2006, the main activities developed were:
Figure 17 b – Field station at Serra Branca Farm, in
Jeremoabo.
From 2001 on, Ibama created the
Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program,
executed in partnership with Cemave/Ibama
and Proaves. Cemave coordinates this
Program, in accordance with the guidelines
of the International Committee for the
Conservation and Management of the
Lear’s Macaw. Some activities of this
Program have the participation of
Biodiversitas Foundation.
Between 2001 and 2005, the
activities of this program have been carried
out with funds from Ibama, the National Fund
for the Environment (FNMA) and Proaves. In
2006, Loro Parque Fundación also became
also one of the main institutions sponsoring
the program, which also received donations
from Parrots International and the Lymington
Foundation.
! Installation of the infra-structure for the
field work, i.e. a research station in the
city of Jeremoabo (Figures 17a and 17b)
and establishment of a field team in the
area full time;
! Conducting of periodic simultaneous
Figure 18 – Cemave’s researchers carrying out the
simultaneous census at the Lear’s Macaws roosting
sites.
censuses, with the aim of population
monitoring, identification of movement
patterns and seasonal variation in the
utilization of the traditional roosting sites;
(Figure 18) and carrying out of searches
for remnant populations or other roosting
sites;
! Conducting of studies on the species
reproduction, to obtain data on breeding
biology, mapping of the nests and
evaluation of the annual recruitment to the
population in the wild;(Figure 19)
! Conducting of experiments on licuri
cultivation to support the management of
Figure 19 –Cemave’s researchers carrying out
studies on Lear’s Macaws breeding behavior.
47
the species, ensuring the long term food
supply for the Lear’s Macaw (Figure 20).
The first experiment was carried out in
1998 by, at that time, the Lear’s Macaw
Project, in which 600 seedlings of licuri
were planted in the Santa Ana Farm, one
of the feeding sites of the species. The
seedlings were donated by BioBrasil
Foundation. Due to a long period of
drought, there were problems with the
irrigation of the seedlings, and most of
them were lost. In 2004, the Lear’s
Macaw Conservation Program carried out
a revitalization of this plantation, through
the transplantation of seedlings,
supplementary irrigation during the
drought periods (an artesian well was built)
and organic manuring . A second
experimental licuri field was also
implemented, in a 2 hectare area in the
Serra Branca Farm. The seedlings were
provided by Chesf (Hydroelectric
Company of São Francisco). Evaluations
carried out on the first experimental licuri
field indicate that the losses are within an
acceptable margin (around 30%),
confirming that the transplantation
technique is a viable alternative for the
licuri; after the recovery of this field, licuri
palms with inflorescences and fruits were
observed.
The second experimental field was
implemented through a partnership between
the Lear’s Macaw Conservation Program and
the City Hall of Jeremoabo. 250 licuri
seedlings were planted and around 20
seedlings of native species that are used as
perches by the macaws that act as sentinels
while the flock is feeding. Fifty two students
and eight teachers participated in this activity.
The plants are being irrigated and later
evaluations have indicated minimal losses
(less than 2%). (Lear’s Macaw Conservation
Program, 2006).
48
Figure 20– Licuri plantation experiment.
! Conducting of an experiment to maintain
savannah, and pruning of the licuri palm
leaves to increase production and allow
access of the macaws to the palms;
! Estimates of the damage caused by the
attacks of macaws on corn plantations in the
cities of Jeremoabo, Canudos and Euclides
da Cunha, to obtain support for the
development of alternatives to minimize
the impact;
! Undertaking of environmental education
activities (Figure 21) in the range of the
Lear’s Macaw by means of informative
materials, lectures and art workshops in
schools of the region, a daily radio
program, a Lear’s Macaw Newspaper,
demonstrations, capacity building courses
for teachers, participation in local
celebrations and events, such as the “São
João Fiesta”, which is the most traditional
fiesta of the city (in this period, the number
of people in the city increases significantly
with visitors). In 2005 the theme of the
fiesta was the Lear’s Macaw, indicating the
involvement of public support for the
species’ conservation;
! Dissemination of information, through the
publication of scientific articles and lectures
inside and outside Brazil;
Figure 21a – Environmental education activities: a)
lectures.
Figure 21d) event with the Program for the
Eradication of the Child Labour.
Figure 21e – Parade.
Figure 21b) course to local teachers,
Figure 21f – Presentation at the semi-arid fair.
! Preparation of two birds to conduct a pilot
Figure 21c) “São João” fiesta in Jeremoabo, the
theme of which was the Lear’s Macaw.
experiment of monitored release of Lear’s
Macaws. During the conducting of
49
Figure 22b) keeper with a costume that obscures
the human shape.
censuses in March 2003, at Serra Branca
Farm, two young which had fallen from the
nest were found. The young were injured
and debilitated, and they were taken to
the Cemave/Ibama station in Jeremoabo,
where they received veterinary care,
provided by the team of Rio de Janeiro
Zoo. In April they were transferred back
to the Serra Branca Farm and placed in an
aviary at the field, so as to interact with
the wild macaws. In November 2003 they
were transferred to a bigger aviary,
measuring 15m X 5m X 5m, to exercise
the flight muscles and prepare for
reintroduction. As a crucial part of this
release attempt, the birds are receiving
rigorous training for aversion to humans
and predators, given that they have shown
signs of tameness. This monitored release
project would give support to, and make
possible the testing of, methodologies for
possible future reintroductions of Lear’s
Macaws, and is under discussion by Ibama
and the Committee. (Figure 22).
Figure 22c – Birds feeding on a licuri palm inside
the aviary.
50
Figure 22a – Birds being adapted for release: :
adaptation aviary.
Since 1989 the Biodiversitas
Foundation has been carrying out a program
for the in situ conservation of the Lear’s
Macaw at the Ecological Station of Canudos
(Toca Velha). The activities developed in the
region have included environmental
education, research on the species’ biology,
and mainly intensive surveilance. These
activities have the continuous monitoring of
the researchers and employees of
Biodiversitas Foundation. The main activities
carried out at the Station and surroundings
are (G. Moreira, pers. comm., 2006):
! Surveilance: a permanent team composed
of four employees of Biodiversitas
Foundation carries out the daily
surveilance in the areas used by the
macaws within the limits of the Station.
Sporadically embracing operations are also
carried out, checking a higher number of
areas; these operations are carried out
together with the team of inspectors of
Ibama.
! Censuses: At Toca Velha, there are three
points for counting the macaws that roost
in the area: Saco I, Saco II and Esquentada.
The censuses are carried out in partnership
with the Lear’s Macaw Conservation
Program.
! Search for new roost sites: In 2005 two
support (accommodation, field staff,
vehicle) for conducting research at the
Station. Currently, researchers of the State
University of Feira de Santana (BA) are
conducting two projects about polinization
and honey production in the area.
Mr. Otávio Nolasco, owner of Serra
Branca Farm has for many years been
undertaking activities for the macaws’
protection, through the presence of guards
that patrol the are with the aim to inhibit the
activities of trappers. He also provides
supplementary food to the macaws at his farm
(corn and licuri) in an attempt to keep the
birds in safety inside Serra Branca.
5.4. The Captive Program
5.4.1. Objectives
expeditions were conducted in
partnership with the Lear’s Macaw
Conservation Program to search for areas
with potential to hold macaws roosting
sites. The results showed no new are of
occurrence, but indicated potential areas
in the city of Canudos: Bom Jardim, Raso,
Rasinho and Rosário.
The Captive Program has the
following goals:
! Environmental education: giving lectures
! improvement of the species’ reproduction
to elementary schools about the
conservation of the Lear’s Macaw, animal
traffic, garbage. The manager of the
program in Canudos carries out lectures
and workshops for students of the region.
Some monitored visits to the Station are
also carried out. Biodiversitas created in
Canudos the “Lear’s Macaw HOLE” with
educative materials (environmental videos,
books, booklets) that can be consulted by
teachers and students of the region.
! Partnership with universities: The
Biodiversitas Foundation provides logistic
! the management of the captive birds as a
single population, aiming to increase the
captive population in a genetically and
demographically sustainable way,
in captivity as a result of research;
! by means of environmental education and
other activities, to improve awareness and
knowledge, as well as to increase funding
for in situ conservation.
Furthermore, given that the number
of wild birds of this species is very small, the
captive population plays the role of a “backup
population”, in case of any catastrophe
which could eventually decimate and/or
drastically reduce further the size of the wild
population.
51
5.4.2. Breeding Centers
Fernanda Junqueira Vaz
The Captive Program is coordinated
by the Fauna Species Protection Coordination/
Ibama and currently has five Breeding
Centers:
! São Paulo Zoo (São Paulo, Brasil)
– 12 birds; (Figure 23)
Fernanda Junqueira Vaz
Figure 23a
Figures 23a and 23b – Lear’s Macaws Breeding
Center at the São Paulo Zoo.
Figure 23b
52
Denise Monsores
! Rio de Janeiro Zoo (Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) – 11 birds; (Figure 24)
Figures 24a and b – Lear’s Macaw Breeding Center
at the Rio Zoo. Photos: Denise Monsores.
Denise Monsores
Figure 24a
Figure 24b
53
William Wittkof
! Lymington Foundation (São Paulo, Brasil) – 6 birds; (Figure 25)
William Wittkof
Figure 25a
Figures 25a and b – Lear’s Macaw Breeding Center
at the Lymington Foundation.
Figure 25b
54
! Crax Research Society on Wild Fauna (Belo Horizonte, Brasil) – 2 birds;
Roberto Azeredo
(Figure 26)
Figure 26a
Roberto Azeredo
Figure 26a and b – Lear’s Macaws Breeding Center at the
Crax Research Society.
Figure 26b
55
! Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation (Doha, Qatar) – 9 birds (The ownership of these
birds was returned to the Brazilian Government and this institution became one of the Breeding
Centers of the species). (Figure 27)
Figure 27a
Figures 27a , b and c – Lear’s Macaw Breeding
Center at Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation. Photo: Al
Wabra Wildlife Preservation.
Figure 27b
56
Figure 27c
Lorenzo Crosta
! Harewood Hall (Leeds, England) – 3 birds (The ownership of these birds was
returned to the Brazilian Government, and this institution became one of the Breeding Centers
of the species). (Figure 28)
Lorenzo Crosta
Figure 28a and b – Lear’s Macaws at Harewood Hall.
57
expected and desirable that they lose from
15% to 16% of their weight during incubation,
up to external pip, but even with the use of
techniques to increase the weight loss – such
as making a small hole in the air pocket area
– the final weight loss was of about 9%. As a
result, the chick inside the egg was too big to
rotate naturally for hatching and had to be
assisted by the AWWP staff. The hatch weight
was 19.26 grams, and the nestling is being
hand-raised (Figure 29). The three eggs all had
very thick shells, which explains the poor
weight loss. The incubation period of this egg
was 28 days, but considering that the hatching
was difficult and prolonged due the shell
thickness, it is possible that under normal
circumstances the incubation period could be
shorter (Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation,
unpubl. data).
This is the first occurrence of
breeding success for the birds that are
included in the Captive Program.
In July of 2006, one pair held by Al
Wabra Wildlife Preservation laid three eggs.
The pair is kept in an aviary with the following
dimensions: 17.5 m long, 5 m wide and 8 m
high. At one end there is an artificial wall, of a
similar color to the cliffs at Serra Branca, with
artificial cavities simulating natural nests. The
tunnels that connect to the cavity entrance and
the egg chamber are up to 4 meters deep, and
get cooler the deeper the birds go inside.
The eggs were removed, as the
parents were observed to be incubating
poorly. They were artificially incubated and
replaced with dummy eggs that were
incubated by the parents until a few days after
the third egg was due to hatch, after which
the parents removed them from the nest. The
first egg was fertile, the second; infertile and
the third one did not start development
although it was fertile. During artificial
incubation it was observed that the eggs were
not losing enough weight; normally it is
58
Figure 29 – Lear’s Macaw nestling that hatched at Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation in 2006. Photo: Al Wabra
Wildlife Preservation
Excepting the bird that was bred in
Qatar this year, all the other macaws that are
included in the Captive Program come from
the wild, originating from repatriations,
rescues and confiscations. The majority of
them are the estimated to be 7 to 8 years old.
! Repatriations
In 1996 two birds apprehended in
France were destined for repatriation,
although one of them died at the airport
before repatriation, the other one was
returned to Brazil.
In 2001 two birds were repatriated
from Singapore, after years of judicial dispute.
Currently there are three birds in
England, which were confiscated in 1998,
from Mr. Henry Sissen. Since then the
Brazilian Government has been negotiating
their repatriation. Finally, in 2005, after a long
judicial dispute, with Mr. Sissen trying to gain
the ownership of the birds, they were
declared property of the crown, and the
British Government agreed to their
repatriation. To ensure that these birds could
be repatriated without posing a risk to the
captivity population in Brazil, Ibama
requested complete health examination, in
accordance with guidance from Dr. Lorenzo
Crosta, official veterinary consultant of the
Captive Program. Exams carried out with
these birds in 2001 registered the presence
of Herpes Virus (“Pacheco Disease” - PDV).
According to Crosta (in litt., 2005), “ it is very
difficult, to date, to exclude that a bird is
negative, after it has been proved positive
once. The only chance, according to the
world leading scientists, is to keep the birds
isolated and test them 2-4 times per year. If
they constantly test negative for a couple of
years, it is generally considered that they are
PDV-free”. Another concern of Ibama is that
the birds are in a collection where it some
cases of PDD (Proventricular Dilatation
Disease) were diagnosed, an extremely
dangerous disease that to date has not been
diagnosed in Brazil. Considering this scenario
and after consulting the International
Management of the Lear’s Macaw, Ibama
agreed to the establishment of a Breeding
Center at Harewood Hall, were the birds are
currently housed. Ibama and Harewood Hall
will sign a Loan Agreement, which returns the
ownership of the birds to the Brazilian
Government. These birds will be managed
within the Captive Program.
! Rescues
In 2001-2002 Ibama rescued three
macaws, which were probably shot by
producers while they fed on corn plantations.
In all three cases it was necessary to amputate
part or the entire wing (Figure 30), which
made their return to the wild impossible, and
they are now included in the Captive Program
for the species (Y. Barros, pers. comm.).
Yara Barros
5.4.3. Origin of the birds
Figure 30 – Lear’s Macaw rescued after being shot
in the wing.
59
To support the Captive Programs of
the Lear’s and Spix’s Macaws, a Quarantine
Center at Praia do Forte, Bahia is in final phase
of construction (Figure 31).
Yara Barros
Even without amputation, it is very
difficult to reintroduce to the wild birds that
have had severe lesions in the wing, especially
considering that, according to Araújo (1996),
these birds have to fly up to 169 Km/day.
Therefore, birds that do not have the wings
in perfect condition have little chance of
survival in the wild. In 2006 another bird was
rescued, also with an injury in the wing.
! Confiscations
As mentioned before, probably only
a small proportion of the birds removed from
the wild are confiscated.
The following confiscations were
carried out of Lear’s Macaw in Brazil: (Y.
Barros, pers. comm.)
- 1998: eight birds in Rondônia
- 1999: two birds in Bahia, five
birds in Rio Grande do Sul
- 2000: three birds in Minas Gerais
- 2004: six birds in São Paulo
- 2005: two birds in Minas Gerais
5.4.4. Management
60
In July 2001 in Curitiba the
“Workshop to the Establishment of
Management Strategies to the Lear’s Macaws
(Anodorhynchus leari)” was conducted,
resulting in the Captive Management Plan for
the Lear’s Macaw, which defined some rules
for the operation of the Quarantine Center
and the Breeding Centers for the species. This
plan can be revised as necessary by the
International Committee for the Conservation
and Management of the Lear’s Macaw.
The birds included in the Program
are managed as a single population, in spite
of being located in different Breeding Centers.
The current recommendation of the Plan is
for each Breeding Center to hold a maximum
of four pairs of Lear’s Macaws, as a safety
measure against catastrophes and diseases.
Figure 31 – Quarantine Center at Praia do Forte,
Bahia.
All the birds of these species should
pass through this Quarantine Center before
being directed to the Breeding Centers in
Brazil, considering that any bird rescued,
confiscated and/or repatriated must be
considered potentially exposed to other birds
and possibly carry infectious agents, which
represents a risk to the captivity population.
Praia do Forte has the necessary
infrastructure for the maintenance of the
Quarantine Center, has good access
conditions, and is also close to the airport in
Salvador, thereby facilitating the transit of
birds, technical staff and equipment.
This area was donated to Ibama by
the Garcia D’Ávila Foundation, which also
donated the area where a Breeding Center
for Blue Macaws will be built.
The birds included in the Captive
Program are submitted to standardized annual
health checks, carried out by Dr. Lorenzo
Crosta; the exams include hematological,
hematochemical, histological and virological
analyses, as well as endoscopy when
necessary (Figure 32).
The Studbook for the birds in the
Captive Program is under compilation. The
Studbook Keepers are Mathias Reinschmidt
(Loro Parque Fundación), Ryan Watson (Al
Wabra Wildlife Preservation) and Onildo João
Marini-Filho (COFAU – Ibama).
Detailed photo: André Vilella
Yara Barros
Figure 32 – Endoscopy carried out on a Lear’s Macaw: on the detailed image obtained through endoscopy
of the testicle of an adult male.
Genetic analysis of the captive
population is also carried out, conducted by
Dr. Cristina Myiaki and Dr. Denise Monnerat.
5.4.5. Genetic Analysis
Dr. Denise Monerat Nogueira,
professor at the Veterinary School of the
Federal Fluminense University, carried out
cytogenetic analysis of the Lear’s Macaws,
describing the caryotype of the species, and
compared it with that one of Anodorhynchus
hyacinthinus. Four individuals were studied,
two males and two females. The cytogenetic
analysis was made from a short duration
culture of the bulb of young feathers. The
diploid number found was 2n = ± 70, being
22 macrosomes and the rest of them
microsomes. On the partial caryotype the pair
of autosomes 1.7 and 10 are metacentric; the
pairs 2,3,4,5,6 and 9 are subtelocentric and
the pair 8 is submetacentric. The sex
chromosome Z is metacentric with the size
corresponding to the 5 th pair, and the
chromosome W is submetacentric with the
size corresponding to the 9 th pair. The
caryotype of A. leari was similar to the pattern
found in A. hyacinthinus (Nogueira et al.,
2004).
Dr. Cristina Miyaki, professor of the
University of São Paulo, and her team, carried
out genetic analysis of the Lear’s Macaw. Presti
(2006) analyzed samples of A. leari with
nuclear markers (microsatellites) and
mitochondrial markers (cytocrome b,
controlling region and ATPase 8) to estimate
the genetic similarity between individuals of
this species. Fourteen pairs of microsatellite
“primers” were tested, and eleven of them
generated amplification products, but only
61
four were revealed polymorphic and without
deviation of the Hardy-Weinberg balance. On
the mitochondrial DNA sequences, variation
was not found. Despite the low variability
found in the locus of microsatellites, it was
possible to estimate the similarity between the
individuals of A. leari. This way, the four
polymorphic loci of microsatellites were used
to calculate the simple similarity index, and
62
of r (that must reflect the kinship) for all the
pairs of individuals. The results obtained by
the team will be used to guide the choice of
breeding pairs in the Captive Program, with
the aim to minimize inbreeding and maintain
the heterozygosity and gene diversity of the
stock. Table 7 shows the similarity index
between males and females included in the
Captive Program.
Table 7 – Similarity index simple (top figure) and index r (bottom figure)
between males and females included in the Captive Program. The birds are
listed by their studbook number (Presti, 2006).
25
34
23
24
35
0.625
0.5
0.25
39
38
41
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
47
48
51
52
53
0.5
0.375
0.5
0.625
0.375
44
46
49
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.625
0.133 -0.633
0.336
0.5
0.625
0.75
0.276
0.411
0.375
0.375
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.576 -0.633 -0.378 -0.378
0.625
0,75
0.125
0.463 -0.356 -0.592
0.625
0.75
0.75
0,75
0.625
0.625
0.331 -0.188
0.411
0.411
0.427
0.284
0.75
0.375
0.5
57
58
0.375
0.625
0.551 -0.538 -0.380
0.086 -0.184
0.300
0,375
0.875
0.625
0.25
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.478 -0.019
0.784
0.438 -0.203 -0.294
0.377
0.273
0.364
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.125
0.5
0.25
0.375
0.25
0.375
0,375
0.625
0.875
0.625
0.875
0.875
0,625
0.875
0.625
0.170
0.651 -0.516 -0.031
0.651
0.651 -0.014
0.727
0.512
0.625
0.625
0.125
0.625
0.625
0.625
0,375
0.625
0.5
0.439
0.130 -0.757
0.354
0.130
0.130 -0.492
0.073
0.625
0.875
0.625
0.875
0.875
0,75
0.75
0.5
0.547 -0.254 -0.331
0.547
0.547
0.130
0.334
0.271
0.625
0.375
0.625
0.625
0,75
0.5
0.25
0.194 -0.038 -0.592
0.194
0.194
0.476
0.5
0.5
0,625
0.371 -0.612 -0.088 -0.088
0.204
0.375
0.75
-0.550
0.546
0.5
0.5
0.375
0.5
0.5
0.625
0,375
0.25
0.5
0.375
0.25
0.375
0.25
0.088 -0.551
0.25
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.004 -0.336
0.220
0.338
0.200
0.375
0.375
0.625
0.375
0.375
0.238 -0.043
0.115 -0.427
0.5
0.25
0.128 -0.527
0.093 -0.433
0.625
0.25
0.107 -0.500
0.875
0.375
0.795 -0.168
0.5
0.25
0.75
0.521 -0.458
0.5
0.625
0.373 -0.032
0.031
0.75
0.375
0.625
0.575 -0.298
0.349
0.625
0.375
0.625
0.105 -0.006 -0.035 -0.470
0.356 -0.309
0.343
0.875
0.75
0,75
0.875
0.625
0.091 -0.570
0.546
0.546
0.555
0.808
0.350
0.5
0.5
0,75
0.5
0.25
0.75
0.625
0.625
0.375
0.75
-0.356 -0.088 -0.048 -0.343 -0.088 -0.088
0.469
0.105 -0.437
0.586
0.264
0.356 -0.309
0.562
0.5
0.375
0.625
0.5
0.625
0.5
0.75
0.25
0.5
0.045
63
0.375
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.101 -0.327
0.375
0.75
0.815 -0.315
0.811
0.375
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.875
0.625
0.538 -0.475 -0.370
0.538
0.538
0.096
0.805
0.343
0.088 -0.073
0.435
0.167
0.425
0.375
0.375
0.375
0,375
0.25
0.125
0.375
0.125
0.375
0.25
0.625
0.25
0.375
0.026 -0.437
0.375
-0.771 -0.592
62
0.375
0.375
0.026 -0.315 -0.319
0.375
0.375
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.367 -0.084
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.175
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.5
0.75
0.125
0.375
0.25
0.478
0.193 -0.222 -0.222 -0.199 -0.577 -0.465
0.478
61
0.375
0.5
0.375
0.391 -0.204 -0.158
60
0.164 -0.036
0.293 -0.222 -0.332
-0.181
59
0.5
0.478 -0.218 -0.547
-0.582 -0.088
55
0.5
0.208 -0.171
-0.566
54
0.5
0.385 -0.375
-0.015
50
64
0.042 -0.051 -0.103
-0.182 -0.546 -0.276 -0.149 -0.546 -0.546 -0.329 -0.507 -0.419
43
56
0.416 -0.184 -0.184 -0.440
-0.310
40
38
0.273 -0.184 -0.789
-0.599 -0.378
37
36
0.625
0.625
0.5
0.317 -0.203 -0.203 -0.015 -0.512 -0.429 -0.004
0.75
0.625
0.625
0.361 0.0262 0.0262
0.25
0.375
0.375
0,625
0.75
0.528
0.194 -0.476
0.369 -0.258
0.625
0.375
0.375
0.5
0.368 -0.471
0.141
0.5
0.625
0.625
0.128 -0.765 -0.147
0.128
0.128 -0.415
0.5
-0.739 -0.130
0.375
0.125
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.275 -0.789 -0.130
0,5
0.5
0.375
0.5
0.390 -0.160
0.625
0.375
0.375
0.065 -0.342
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.328 -0.618
0.055 -0.289 -0.414
0.383 -0.835 -0.592 -0.592 -0.036 -0.314 -0.560
0.25
0.5
0.625
0.5
0.625
0.5
0.5
0.375
0.056 -0.041
0.129 -0.066 -0.130
0.217 -0.386
0.375
0.125 0.75
0.5
0,625
0.375
0.375
-0.130
0.336
0.234 -0.038 -0.075 -0.192
Low index – pairs with minor kinship probability (ISS 0,375 e r -0,20)
Medium index – pairs with intermediary kinship probabilities (0,35 ISS 0,625 e – 0,20
High index – pairs with higher kinship probabilities (ISS 0,625 e r 0,20)
0.25
r
0.75
0.630 -0.804 0.624
0,20)
63
5.4.6.Revision of data for
Population and Habitat
Viability Assessment
Ibama is planning to carry out a
PHVA (Population and Habitat Viability
Assessment) of the Lear’s Macaw in a near
future.
During the PHVA, the available data
about the Lear’s Macaw will be used to
evaluate its extinction probability and obtain
a better understanding of the risk factors that
affect the species, as well as evaluate the
several management strategies possible. The
program used to carry out the simulations will
be the VORTEX.
The data that will be used for the
simulations are given below. They include
both the data currently available on the species
and some estimates; these data and estimates
to be reviewed, complemented and
confirmed, in as far as the field work can
generate more information to can make more
accurate our knowledge of the species.
! Number of populations: 1
! Initial population size: 650 birds
! Carrying capacity of the environment: it
is estimated to be 800 birds, with an
annual loss of the carrying capacity of 0.5%
! Catastrophes – it is estimated that there is
one type of catastrophe affecting the
species, which would be two consecutive
64
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
years of drought. This is estimated to
happen every 15 years and would not
affect the birds’ survival, but would reduce
reproduction by 50%
Breeding system: long term monogamy
Age of first offspring: 8 years
Maximum age of reproduction: 28 years
Life span: 35 years
Maximum number of offspring per year: 2
Sex ratio: 50%
Proportion of breeding females: 42%
(considering that, for macaws, the rate of
reproductive individuals in a population is
around 20%)
Offspring: 1 bird in 80% of the cases, 2
birds in 19.5% of the cases and 3 birds in
0,5% of the cases.
Mortality rates for both sexes:
• 0-1 year old - 35%
• 1-2 years old - 5%
• 2-8 years old - 1%
• Adults: 3%
! Harvesting: The estimate is that it occurs
every year, with the removal of 20 birds,
being 55% females and 45% males (based
on data of the birds currently in captivity,
that came from the wild. These data may
not reflect the reality of the harvesting)
The data and estimates presented
are liable to alterations and any information
that can make them more precise should be
sent to Ibama.
Part 2
CONSERVATION PLAN
6. Objectives
The goal of this Management Plan is
to ensure the permanent maintenance of the
population(s) of Lear’s Macaw Anodorhynchus
leari in its original range, guaranteeing the
integrity of its habitat and its protection in the
wild, as well as managing the captive birds as
a single viable population. The long term
objective is to reduce to the maximum
possible the threat levels over the species.
To achieve these goals, specific
objectives are proposed in different thematic
areas, as described below.
Specific objectives
Each specific objective is given a
priority level, a timescale and an indication
of the possible actors involved in its execution.
The priority scale indicates the
qualitative relevance of the objective to the
species’ conservation, and has four levels:
! Fundamental – a specific objective that
is indispensable for the species’
conservation program;
! High – a specific objective whose
accomplishment has a high impact on the
species’ conservation program;
! Medium – a specific objective whose
accomplishment has a medium impact on
the species’ conservation program;
! Low - a specific objective whose
accomplishment has a low impact on the
species’ conservation program.
The timescale for the accomplishment
of each objective is estimated on a seven
point scale:
! Immediate – needs to be completed
within the next year;
! Short - needs to be completed within the
next 1-3 years;
! Medium – needs to be completed within
the next 1-5 years;
! Long - needs to be completed within the
next 1-10 years;
! Ongoing – a specific objective that is
currently being implemented and should
continue;
! Completed – a specific objective that was
completed during the preparation of the
action plan (such actions may nevertheless
need reviewing or carrying out again as
circumstances develop in the future).
! Continuous – a specific objective that,
once started, should be maintained
throughout the conservation program.
In the short term, the priorities for
the conservation of the Lear’s Macaw are the
reduction of harvesting by trappers and
avoiding that the macaws are shot by corn
producers. For these reasons, the application
of laws that forbid capture, associated law
enforcement and protection of the nesting and
67
roosting sites, as well as awareness activities
and refunding of the rural producers of the
region, are extremely important. In medium
and long term, environmental degradation
represents the main threat.
The Lear’s Macaw population is
apparently increasing, but it is necessary to
continue and improve the monitoring of the
total and reproductive populations in order
to determine the precise growth rate.
Therefore, the conducting of studies on food
availability, programs that motivate the landowners to preserve the licuri palms, and
management work at the regeneration of
these palms are essential for the conservation
The specific objectives are divided
into the following areas:
1. Protection of the species and its
habitats
2. Public policies, legislation and
governmental involvement
3. In situ research
4. Ex situ research
5. Public awareness
6. Collaboration and dissemination
of information
1. Protection of the species and
its habitat
1.1. Increase the extension of protected
areas according to Snuc within the
range of the Lear’s Macaw, in order to
legally protect important areas for
breeding, roosting and feeding.
Priority: Fundamental
Timescale: Immediate
Actors: Ibama, MMA, state
environmental agencies.
1.2. Regularize the “land ownership” situation
of the Ecological Station of Raso da
Catarina, review its limits and effectively
implement this Conservation Unit.
68
Timescale: Short
Actors: Ibama.
1.3. Reduce or eliminate the capture of
macaws at the nests, roost sites and
feeding areas, through periodic law
enforcement operations and protection
in the range of the Lear’s Macaw.
Timescale: Continuous
Actors: Ibama, polices, state and
municipal law enforcement bodies.
1.4. Implement a continuous surveillance
system during the breeding season at
the nesting sites of the Lear’s Macaws.
Actors: Ibama, Ngo’s and polices.
1.5. Promote the retraining of law
enforcement agents, through courses
about the conservation program of the
Lear’s Macaw, in order that the
development of law enforcement actions
be integrated with the community
involvement work carried out by the
researchers, and without causing a
negative image of law enforcement
bodies with the local population.
Priority: Medium
Actors: Ibama, Ngo’s and polices.
2. Public policies, legislation and
governmental involvement
2.1. Invest governmental resources in the
activities for conservation of the Lear’s
Macaw.
Actors: Ibama, MMA.
2.2. Modify the Law of the Environmental
Crimes in order to consider the
hunting, trapping or illegal trade (traffic)
of threatened species as very severe
infractions, subject to arrest without bail.
Timescale: Short
Actors: Legislative Power with
suggestions from Ibama and MMA.
2.3. Strengthen the current legislation for
fauna protection, especially the topics
relevant to the protection of the Lear’s
Macaw and its habitat.
Priority: High
suggestions from Ibama and MMA.
2.4. Assure that the analysis, licensing and
approval of economic developments in the
range of the Lear’s Macaw contemplate
mitigation and compensation measures
that generate benefits for the conservation
of this species and its habitat.
Priority: High
Timescale: Short and continuous
Actors: Ibama, MMA, state and
municipal environmental agencies,
Public Ministry and entrepreneurs.
2.5. Stimulate the adoption of efficient
agricultural practices that have low
environmental impact in the range of
the Lear’s Macaw.
Priority: Medium
Timescale: Short
Actors: Ibama, NGO’s, research
institutions, Embrapa, Emater and
Mapa.
2.6. Submit to environmental licensing
ecotourism activities and other actions
of regional economic development that
are potentially harmful to threatened
species, in order to assure that they do
not have a negative impact on these
species.
Priority: Medium
Timescale: Medium
suggestions from Ibama, MMA,
Ministry of Tourism, state and
municipal tourism and environmental
agencies.
3.
In situ research
3.1. Reproduction, genetics and diseases
3.1.1. Carry out searches for new breeding
and/or roosting sites of the Lear’s
Macaw.
Actors: Ibama, NGO’s and research
institutions.
3.1.2. Carry out the mapping and
characterization of the nests used by the
Lear’s Macaw, considering internal
form, height, orientation of the
entrance, humidity, temperature and
others.
Timescale: Short
institutions.
3.1.3. Monitor active nests and study the size
of the groups in order to obtain data on
breeding behavior, clutch size, hatching
rates, fecundity, incubation period,
post-embryonic ontogeny and annual
reproductive success at the different
breeding sites.
institutions.
3.1.4. Estimate the annual recruitment rates.
institutions.
69
3.1.5. Carry out evaluation of the cliffs in the
southwest portion of the Ecological
Station of Raso da Catarina to evaluate
their possible utilization as a breeding
and/or roosting site by the Lear’s
Macaw.
Priority: High
institutions.
3.1.6. Carry out annual estimates of the size
of the breeding population.
Priority: High
institutions.
3.1.7. Carry out a health study of the wild
birds (collecting blood from adults and
nestlings) to identify the diseases that
naturally occur in the wild population,
including the study of the possibility of
occurrence of an endemic herpes virus.
Priority: High
institutions.
3.1.8. Collect blood samples of nestlings and
adult birds from the wild to establish
the hematological, hematochemical
and genetic profile of the population.
Priority: High
Timescale: Medium
institutions.
3.1.9. Introduce microchips into all the birds
(young or adults) handled, to allow
their monitoring in case they are
captured by trappers and afterwards
seized.
70
Priority: Medium
Timescale: Medium
institutions.
3.1.10. Evaluate the need to carry out the
management of nests with the aim to
increase reproductive success
through the management of the
second or third egg/nestling.
Priority: Medium
Timescale: Long
institutions.
3.2. Population status
3.2.1. Carry out monthly censuses on the
known roost sites to record the
seasonal variation in population size
and continue the studies on patterns
of roost site use.
institutions.
3.2.2. Carry out searches for new populations
of the Lear’s Macaw, using satellite
images, topographic maps and tools
such as GARP (Genetic Algorithm for
Rule Set Production).
Priority: High
Timescale: Immediate and continuous
institutions.
3.3. Feeding
3.3.1. Update the mapping, and carry out
the monitoring of the feeding sites of
the Lear’s Macaws.
institutions.
3.3.2. Carry out studies on the phenology of
the licuri palms in the range of the
Lear’s Macaw.
Priority: Medium
Importance: Fundamental
Timescale: Short and continuous
institutions.
3.3.3. Carry out studies on the feeding
ecology of the Lear’s Macaw, to
increase knowledge of the diet
composition and its seasonal variation.
Priority: High
institutions.
3.3.4. Carry out nutritional analysis of the
plants used as food by the Lear’s
Macaw to determinate the nutritional
requirements of the species.
Priority: High
institutions.
3.3.5. Carry out a study on the consumption
of licuri by the Lear’s Macaw
throughout the year.
Priority: High
institutions.
3.3.6. Carry out a search of new feeding
areas for the Lear’s Macaws, and
include the Ecological Station of Raso
da Catarina.
Priority: High
institutions.
3.3.7. Identify the corn plantations in the
range of the Lear’s Macaw that are
subjected to attacks by the macaws
and implement preventive measures
to minimize the impact of the corn
consumption by the species.
Priority: High
Timescale:
Immediate
and
continuous
institutions.
3.3.8. Carry out a study on the carrying
capacity of the feeding areas used by
the Lear’s Macaw.
Priority: High
Timescale: Short
institutions.
3.3.9. Develop experiments on the
cultivation of licuri palms to establish
suitable methodologies for its
plantation and transplantation.
Priority: High
institutions.
3.3.10. Carry out the management of licuri
palms (planting , transplant and
recovery) to assure long term food
supply for the macaws.
Priority: High
institutions.
3.3.11. Quantify the losses caused by attacks
on corn plantations by the macaws
and apply the necessary mitigation
and compensatory measures.
Priority: High
institutions.
71
3.3.12. Evaluate the possibility of providing
supplementary food to the Lear’s
Macaws in safe places during periods
of food shortage, aiming to minimize
the attacks on plantations.
Priority: High
Timescale: Short
institutions.
3.3.13. Carry out studies on the influence of
group size on the foraging efficiency.
Priority: Medium
Timescale: Short
institutions.
3.4. Movements
3.4.1. Carry out a study of the daily and
seasonal movements of the Lear’s
Macaw by means of radio telemetry
using young and adult birds.
Priority: Medium
Timescale: Short
institutions.
3.5. Threats
3.5.1. Carry out a more complete analysis of
the threats to the Lear’s Macaw
(hunting, habitat loss, predators) in the
feeding, breeding, and roosting sites.
Priority: High
Timescale: Short
institutions.
3.5.2. Evaluate the attitude of the local
population, especially the corn
producers, to determinate risks and
opportunities.
72
Priority: Medium
Timescale: Short
institutions.
3.6. Reintroduction
3.6.1. Identify suitable release sites that fit the
habitat requirements of the Lear’s
Macaw (especially presence of cliffs
and availability of licuris).
Priority: Low
Timescale: Long
institutions.
3.6.2. Carry out monitored release
experiments in the sites previously
identified, with the aim to develop
suitable strategies and methodologies
for possible future reintroductions of
Lear’s Macaws.
Priority: Low
institutions.
4. Ex situ research
4.1. Carry out a studbook keeper course and
make sure that the studbook keeper has
at his disposal the necessary population
management tools.
Actors: Ibama
4.2. Update the Studbook and the data-base
of the Lear’s Macaw in captivity.
Actors: Ibama, partners
4.3. Revise, update and improve the Captive
Priority: High
Actors: Ibama, holders and partners.
4.4. Carry out a Population and Habitat
Viability Assessment (PHVA) on the
Lear’s Macaw.
Priority: High
Timescale: Short
Actors: Ibama, CBSG (IUCN), partners.
4.5. Implement the revised Captive
Management Plan in all of the breeding
centers already established, and in the
ones that may be created in the future.
Priority: High
Actors: Ibama, holders, partners.
4.6. Invest in the improvement of the already
established breeding centers for the
species.
Priority: High
4.7. Perform standardized yearly health
checks of all the Lear’s Macaws included
in the Captive Program.
Priority: High
Timescale: Continuous and Ongoing
Responsible: IBAMA, holders, official
veterinary consultant
4.8. Establish a quarantine center for blue
macaws at Praia do Forte (Bahia, Brazil).
Priority: High
Timescale: Ongoing
Actors: Ibama and NGO’s.
4.9. Elaborate a proposal to the construction
and functioning of a Breeding Center
for blue macaws at Praia do Forte (Bahia,
Brazil).
Priority: Medium
Actors: Ibama, NGO’s and partners.
4.10 Implement and make operational a
Breeding Center for blue macaws at
Praia do Forte (Bahia, Brazil).
Priority: High
Timescale: Short
Actors: Ibama, NOGO’s and partners.
4.11. Implement a public exhibition program
of Lear’s Macaws inside and outside
Brazil.
Priority: Medium
4.12. Collect blood samples of the birds in
captivity to obtain and improve the
hematological, hematochemical and
genetic knowledge of the population.
Priority: Medium
Actors: Ibama, holders, partners and
research institutions.
4.13. Establish breeding centers for Lear’s
Macaws outside Brazil, by means of the
signing of loan agreements with potential
foreign holders, with a case by case
evaluation, aiming to raise funds for in
situ and ex situ conservation activities
fro the species.
Priority: Medium
4.14. Maximize the reproductive success of
the birds included in the Captive
Program through improvement of their
management.
Priority: Medium
73
Actors: Ibama, holders, partners,
researchers.
4.15. Seek the inclusion into the Captive
Program of any known birds.
Priority: Low
Timescale: Short
Actors: Ibama.
4.16. Investigate information about possible
unknown birds in captivity inside and
outside Brazil.
Priority: Low
Actors: Ibama.
4.17. Determine the breeding condition of
the birds included on the Captive
Program.
Priority: Low
Actors: Ibama, holders, partners,
researchers.
4.18. Establish new breeding centers for the
species in Brazil.
Priority: Low
Actors: Ibama and partners.
5. Public Awareness
5.1. Develop continuous environmental
education activities in the range of the
Lear’s Macaw.
institutions, state and municipal
agencies for environment and
education.
74
5.2. Develop programs aiming to promote
an improvement in the quality of life of
the human populations within the range
of Lear’s Macaw.
Priority: Medium
institutions and state and municipal
agencies.
5.3. Develop environmental activities within
the Indigenous Lands in the range of the
Lear’s Macaw, especially those of the
ethnic groups Pankararé and Kaimbé.
Priority: High
6. Collaboration and dissemination of
information
6.1. Create a fundraising commission for the
program.
Timescale: Completed
Actors: Ibama, partners, Committee
6.2. Strengthen partnerships and institutional
involvement.
Priority: High
Actors: Ibama, partners and the
Committee.
6.3. Broaden the actions to disseminate
information about the Conservation
Program of the Lear’s Macaw.
Priority: High
Actors: Ibama, NGO’s, state and
municipal agencies and partners.
6.4. Periodically disseminate information
about the implementation of this action
plan.
Priority: High
6.5. Formalize the donation of the land where
the Breeding Center and the Quarantine
Center in Praia do Forte will be built.
Priority: High
Timescale: Completed
Actors: Ibama, Garcia D’Ávila
Foundation.
6.6. Create the International Committee for
the Conservation and Management of
the Lear’s Macaw (Anodorhynchus
leari) and revise its composition
periodically.
Priority: Medium
Timescale: Ongoing
Actors: Ibama.
6.7. Formalize the contract to construct the
station for information and research of
the Conservation Program of the Lear’s
Macaw at Praia do Forte.
Priority: Medium
Actors: Ibama, Garcia D’Ávila
Foundation.
6.8. Promote the establishment of the
necessary governmental linkages for the
inclusion of birds confiscated outside
Brazil into the Captive Program.
Priority: Low
Actors: Ibama, MRE and Mapa.
75
References
AB´SABER, A. N. Os domínios morfoclimáticos na América do Sul. Geomorf., v. 52, 1977.
AMARAL, A. C. A.; HERNANDEZ, I. M.; XAVIER, B. F.; BELLA, S. D. Dinâmica de ninho de
arara-azul-de-Lear (Anodorhynchus leari Bonaparte, 1856) em Jeremoabo, Bahia.
Ornithologia, v. 1, p. 59-64, 2005.
ARAÚJO, J. C. C. Relatório Técnico Parcial das Atividades de Campo (novembro de
1995 a abril de 1996) – Programa de Conservação e Manejo da Arara-Azul-de-Lear
(Anodorhynchus leari). Fundação Biodiversitas, 1996.
ARAÚJO, J. C. C., SCHERER-NETO, P. Programa de conservação e manejo da arara-azul-delear – 1º ano de campo. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE ORNITOLOGIA. 6., 1997. Anais...
Belo Horizonte, MG.
BONDAR, G. O licurizeiro e suas possibilidades na economia brasileira. Bol. Inst. Centr.
Form. Econ., Bahia, n. 2, 1938.
BONDAR, G. Palmeiras do Brasil. Bol. Inst. Bot., n. 2, 1964.
BRANDT, A.; MACHADO, R. B. Área de alimentação e comportamento alimentar de
Anodorhynchus leari. Ararajuba, v. 1, p. 57-63, 1990.
COLLAR, N. J.; GONZAGA, L. P.; KRABBE, N.; MADROÑO NIETO, A.; NARANJO, L. G.;
PARKER, T. A.; WEGE, D. C. Lear’s Macaw Anodorhynchus leari. In: Threatened Birds of
the Americas. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. Cambridge: International Council for Bird
Preservation, p. 266-281. See App. 3. 1992.
CREPALDI, I. C.; ALMEIDA-MURADIAN, L. B. de; RIOS, M. D. G.; PENTEADO, M. V. C.;
SALATINO, A. Composição nutricional do fruto de licuri (Syagrus coronata (Martius) Beccari).
Rev. Brasil. Bot., São Paulo, v. 24, p. 155-159, jun. 2001.
CRMAAL. Comitê para a Recuperação e Manejo da Arara-Azul-de-Lear. UVPACK Editora,
Ibama, 2000.
GIULIETTI, A. M. (Coord.) Vegetação: áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação da Caatinga
In: SILVA et al. (Org.). Biodiversidade da Caatinga: áreas e ações prioritárias para a
conservação. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente; Universidade Federal de Pernambuco,
2004.
HART, J. K. Conservation of the Lear’s Macaw: management of an endangered species. AFA
Watchbird, v. 19, n. 4, Aug./Sept. p. 8-13, 1992.
HEREDIA, B.; ROSE, L.; PAINTER, M. (Ed.). Globally threatened birds in Europe. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe Publishing, 1996.
IBAMA. Estação Ecológica. Disponível em: https://www.ibama.gov.br/siucweb/
IMMELMANN, K. Drought adaptations in Australian desert birds. In: INTERNATIONAL
ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS. 13., 1963. Proceedings... p. 649-57.
IUCN. Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 2004.
KEAST, J. A.; MARSHALL, A. J. The influence of drought and rainfall on reproduction in Australian
desert birds. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, v. 124, p. 493-9. 1954.
MENEZES, A. C.; NASCIMENTO, J. L. X.; REGO, A. C. G.; PAIVA, A. A.; SERAFIM, R. N.; DELLA
BELLA, S., ALVES, E. M., ALVES, D. M., LIMA, P. C., SANTOS, S. S. Monitoramento da população
de Anodorhynchus leari (Bonaparte, 1856), Psittacidae, na Natureza. Ornithologia, v. 2. No
prelo.
MAURY, C. M. (Org.). Biodiversidade Brasileira: avaliação e identificação de áreas e ações
prioritárias para a conservação, utilização sustentável e repartição de benefícios da
biodiversidade brasileira. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 2002.
MMA. Lista da fauna brasileira ameaçada de extinção. Instrução Normativa do Ministério do
Meio Ambiente nº 03/2003. Diário Oficial da União, nº 101, Seção 1, p. 88-97, 28.05.2003.
MUNN, C. Lear’s Macaw: A second population confirmed. Psittascene, v. 7, n. 4, 1995.
NASCIMENTO, J. L. X.; BARROS, Y. M.; YAMASHITA, C.; ALVES, E. M.; BIANCHI, C. A.;
PAIVA, A. A.; MENEZES, A. C.; ALVES, D. M.; SILVA, J.; LINS, L. V.; SILVA, T. M. A. Censos de
araras-azuis-de-lear (Anodorhynchus leari) na natureza. Tangara, v. 1, p. 135-138, 2001.
NOBLICK, L. R. Palmeiras das Caatingas da Bahia e as potencialidades econômicas. Simpósio
sobre a Caatinga e sua Exploração Racional, Brasília: Embrapa, p. 99-115. 1986.
NOGUEIRA, D. M.; SOUZA, L. M. de; GOLDSCHMIDT, B.; MONSORES, D. W. Descrição
do cariótipo da arara-azul-de-lear Anodorhynchus leari (Aves: Psittaciformes). In: Resumos
– Congresso Brasileiro de Ornitologia, Blumenau, SC. 2004.
PACHECO, J. F. Aves: áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação da Caatinga. In: SILVA et
al. (Org.). Biodiversidade da Caatinga: áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação. Brasília:
Ministério do Meio Ambiente; Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 2004.
PINTO, O. M. de O. Sobre a verdadeira pátria de Anodorhynchus leari. Bonap. Papéis Dep.
Zool. São Paulo, v. 9, n. 24, 1950.
78
PRESTI, F. T. Caracterização da variabilidade genética em espécies de psitacídeos
ameaçados. São Paulo, 2006. Dissertação (Mestrado) - Instituto de Biociências, Universidade
de São Paulo.
RELATÓRIO FNMA. Programa de Conservação e Manejo da Arara-Azul-de-Lear
(Anodorhynchus leari). Relatório Técnico Final do Fundo Nacional do Meio Ambiente.
1999.
PROJETO Arara-Azul-de-Lear. Relatório de Atividades – 2002, Planejamento 2003-2004.
Cemave/Ibama. 2003.
PROGRAMA de Conservação da Arara-Azul-de-Lear. Relatório de Atividades, Período:
novembro/2004 a novembro/2005. Cemave/Ibama. 2005.
RIGUEIRA, S.; SCHERER-NETO, P. Arara-azul-pequena Anodorhynchus leari: Plano de
ação para a sua conservação. Ibama, 1997.
SÁ, I.B. (Coord.). Fatores abióticos: áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação da Caatinga.
In: SILVA et al. (Org.). Biodiversidade da Caatinga: áreas e ações prioritárias para a
conservação. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente; Universidade Federal de Pernambuco,
2004.
SANTOS NETO, J. R. Avaliação da intensidade de ataque a milharais por arara-azul-de-lear
Anodorhynchus leari. Relatório Cemave. 2005.
SEMARH - Secretaria de Meio Ambiente e Recursos Hídricos. Unidades de conservação
da Bahia. Disponível em: http://www.semarh.ba.gov.br.
SICK, H.; TEIXEIRA, D. M.; GONZAGA, L. P. Our Discovery of the land of the Lear´s Macaw
(Anodorhynchus leari). Anais da Acad. Bras. Ciênc., v. 51, n. 3, 1979.
________. Discovery of the home of the Indigo Macaw in Brazil. American Birds, v. 34, n.
2, p. 118-19, 1980.
________. The Lear’s Macaw Anodorhynchus leari Bonaparte, 1856. Rev. Bras. Zool., v. 3,
n. 1, 1987.
SICK, H. 1997. Ornitologia Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Nova Fronteira, 862 p.
SILVA et al. (Org.). Biodiversidade da Caatinga: áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação.
Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente; Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 2004.
SNUC - Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza. lei nº 9.985, de 18 de
julho de 2000; decreto nº 4.340, de 22 de agosto de 2002. 5. ed. Aum. Brasília: MMA/SBF,
2004. 56 p.
WHITE, G. C., GARROT, R. A. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. San Diego: Academic
Press, Inc., 1990. 383 p.
YAMASHITA, C. Field observations and comments on the Índigo Macaw Anodorhynchus leari,
a highly endangered species from northeastern Brazil. Wilson Bull., v. 99, 1987.
79

FOR THE LEAR`S MACAW - Parrots International

Transcription

Similar documents

GREEN-WINGED MACAW

Captive Husbandry Management of the Lear`s Macaw

recommendations - Inteligente Site

average weights of pet birds

history of lear - Lear Corporation

the Green--winged Macaw

Business Minute

Business Minute

The endings of King Lear - E

Brochure