Rhinoplax Vigil, Helmeted Hornbill

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ ISSN 2307-8235 (online) IUCN 2008: T22682464A134206677 Scope: Global Language: English

Rhinoplax vigil, Helmeted Hornbill

Assessment by: BirdLife International

View on www.iucnredlist.org

Citation: BirdLife International. 2018. Rhinoplax vigil. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22682464A134206677. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.

If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ Taxonomy

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family

Animalia Chordata Aves Bucerotiformes Bucerotidae

Taxon Name: Rhinoplax vigil (Forster, 1781)

Synonym(s): • Buceros vigil Forster, 1781 — BirdLife International (2000) • Buceros vigil ssp. vigil Forster, 1781 — Collar and Andrew (1988) • Buceros vigil ssp. vigil Forster, 1781 — Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993) • Buceros vigil ssp. vigil Forster, 1781 — Collar et al. (1994)

Common Name(s): • English: Helmeted Hornbill • Spanish: Cálao de Casco Taxonomic Source(s): del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A. and Fishpool, L.D.C. 2014. HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Volume 1: Non-passerines. Lynx Edicions BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.

Identification Information: 110-120 cm. Very large hornbill. Mostly dark brown and white with long central tail feathers. Distinctive high red casque, yellow at front. Male with bare red areas on neck, female with pale turquoise skin on head and neck (Kemp et al. 2014). Voice A long series of rather high-pitched "pooh" calls which suddenly shift to several bisyllabic “poohooh” calls, ending in a harsh, cackling laugh (Kemp et al. 2014). Assessment Information

Red List Category & Criteria: Critically Endangered A3cd ver 3.1

Year Published: 2018

Date Assessed: August 19, 2018

Justification: This species has been uplisted from Near Threatened to Critically Endangered owing to severe hunting pressure and habitat loss. The level of hunting is expected to increase and spread across the range, given the value that is placed on the species's casque in illegal trade.

Previously Published Red List Assessments 2017 – Critically Endangered (CR) http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T22682464A117225617.en

2016 – Critically Endangered (CR) http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22682464A92947540.en

2015 – Critically Endangered (CR)

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Rhinoplax vigil – published in 2018. 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22682464A84412814.en

2012 – Near Threatened (NT) http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22682464A38073187.en

2008 – Near Threatened (NT)

2004 – Near Threatened (NT)

2000 – Lower Risk/near threatened (LR/nt)

1994 – Lower Risk/near threatened (LR/nt)

1988 – Threatened (T)

Geographic Range

Range Description: This species is confined to the Sundaic lowlands, where it is known from south Tenasserim, Myanmar, peninsular Thailand, Sabah, Sarawak and peninsular Malaysia, Singapore, Kalimantan and Sumatra, Indonesia, and Brunei (BirdLife International 2001). It is generally scarce, occurring at low densities even in optimal habitat, and is is the least commonly encountered of the forest hornbills in peninsular Malaysia (D. L. Yong in litt. 2016).

Country Occurrence: Native: Brunei Darussalam; Indonesia; Malaysia; Myanmar; Thailand

Regionally extinct: Singapore

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Rhinoplax vigil – published in 2018. 3 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en Population The population size of this species has not been quantified. In prime habitat, the density varies from 0.19 to 2.6 individuals per km2 (references in Jain et al. 2018). However, populations subjected to even low hunting pressure have been demonstrated to have greatly suppressed densities, e.g. 0.3 birds per km2 (Johns 2004). Current hunting pressure is far higher than reported in that study (Jain et al. 2018).

Trend Justification The population is predicted to undergo an extremely rapid and severe decline over the next three generations (59 years) as a result of intense hunting pressure and habitat loss. On Sumatra, the species has almost disappeared from habitats where it was previously abundant (J. Eaton in litt. 2015). The number of Helmeted Hornbills in the illegal trade indicate that severe declines and local extinctions are likely to be the norm across the range. Current Population Trend: Decreasing

Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information) It occurs in primary semi-evergreen and evergreen lowland forest, in elevations up to 1,500 m. In particular, it prefers rugged terrain, especially in foothills, and can persist locally in selectively logged forest, but avoids open areas, disturbed forest and peatswamp (Lum and Poonswad 2005, Kinnaird and O'Brien 2007, Poonswad et al. 2013). It feeds on fruits, especially figs, which make up the majority of the diet (Kitamura et al. 2011, Poonswad et al. 2013) and travels widely in search for fruiting trees, which makes this species a key seed disperser in lowland forest. It has also been recorded feeding on small animals including squirrels, snakes and birds and even other hornbill species (Kemp et al. 2014, Utoyo et al. 2017). Helmeted Hornbills form monagamous breeding pairs. The female is sealed inside the nest chamber for the entire incubating and chick-rearing period, which can be over 160 days (Chong 2011). During this time, she is dependent upon the male for food for herself and the chicks (Collar 2015). In Thailand, the species mainly uses trees in the Diptocarpaceae family, particularly Hopea spp. and Shorea spp. (Meijaard et al. 2005), and appears to require a perch at the entrance upon which the male can perch (Jain et al. 2018). No reports of breeding in captivity or of accepting artificial nestboxes (Jain et al. 2018).

Systems: Terrestrial

Threats (see Appendix for additional information) The species is heavily targeted by hunters and illegally traded. The species has a solid horn or casque on the upper side of its beak, which is highly prized. China is the biggest consumer of the casques, which are often carved for decorations or used in traditional medicine (Hughes 2015). Currently, the trade in this species is centered on Indonesia, but will likely move to Malaysia once the supply of birds becomes limiting in Indonesia (S. Mahood in litt. 2015). Between March 2012 and August 2014, 1,117 heads/casques were seized in Indonesia during enforcement actions, and in the same period 1,053 heads/casques were confiscated in China (Beastall et al. 2016). It has also been recorded in trade in Laos (EIA 2015). Large numbers of hunters have been observed in the forests of Sumatra searching for this species (J. Eaton in litt. 2015), and in June 2015 a group of around 30 hunters was broken up in northern Sumatra (Hughes 2015).

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Rhinoplax vigil – published in 2018. 4 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en The trade network is thought to be largely managed by organised crime. This means that trade pressure is likely to continue, eventually reaching every part of the species's range, and will be very difficult to control (N. Collar in litt. 2015). Many traders seized have also been involved in the trade of other high- value wildlife such as Sumatran Tiger Panthera tigris sumatrae and Sunda Pangolin Manis javanica (Beastall et al. 2016). In West Kalimantan, it is thought that as many as 500 birds were being killed every month in 2013, resulting in an annual loss of 6,000 individuals (Y. Hadiprakarsa in litt. 2015, Hii 2015). There is no information to suggest that such levels of exploitation should be any different in other Indonesian provinces; indeed trade in hundreds of birds per month from Sumatra has been reported within the last year (N. Collar in litt. 2015). Owing to the species's breeding behaviour, hunting is likely to have a particularly severe impact: Breeding involves the female being incarcerated for c.160 days, while the male provisions the female and nestling in the nest. Although the female will break out of the nest should the male stop providing food, she is likely to be in heavy moult and her ability to survive will be seriously compromised. Thus, the killing of the male could lead to the subsequent death of both the chick and the female (Collar 2015). In addition to hunting the species for its casque, it is also targeted for its feathers. Although this trade is small, it exerts an additional pressure, which is also likely to contribute to population declines (Collar 2015). An analysis of remote sensing data on forest loss has estimated that the total area of forest within the species's range has decreased from c.643,000 km2 in 2000 to c.565,000 km2 in 2012, a loss of c.12% (Tracewski et al. 2016). Assuming that the rate of forest loss is constant, this represents a loss of c.25% of forest habitat within the species's range across three generation lengths (26.1 years). Rates of forest loss in the Sundaic lowlands have been extremely rapid, owing partly to the escalation of illegal logging and land conversion, with deliberate targeting of all remaining stands of valuable timber including those inside protected areas. Perhaps a crucial additive factor is that logging has created access to a much greater percentage of the species's range, enabling hunters access to virtually the entire population. The species is generally confined to lowland and lower-slope forest up to an elevation of 750 m, which is targeted for conversion to oil palm and logging for timber (N. Collar in litt. 2015). The species has specific nesting requirements, using the largest trees and apparently requiring trees with nest holes topped with a perch for the male to use while provisioning the female (Jain et al. 2018). Logging is therefore likely to significantly reduce available nest sites. As a fig-specialist, it is also likely to be strongly affected by loss of fig trees due to logging (Meijaard et al. 2005). Forest fires have also had a damaging effect and are exacerbated by fragmentation (Cochrane 2001).

Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information) Conservation and Research Actions Underway CITES Appendix I. The Helmeted Hornbill Working Group was created in September 2015 to bring attention to the crisis affecting the species (Collar 2015, Jain et al. 2018). In Thailand, poachers have been encouraged to become hornbill observers and guides for tourists (Hii 2015). The escalating demand for and trade in the species prompted the adoption of a resolution (WCC-2016-Res-009) on The Conservation of the Helmeted Hornbill at the IUCN World Conservation Conference (WCC), urging international action and support for local conservation efforts and calling on governments to address legislative, policy or enforcement gaps and enhance awareness of applicable laws (Jain et al. 2018). At the 2016 CITES CoP 17 (Johannesburg, South Africa) the resolution on the Conservation of and Trade in Helmeted Hornbill (Resolution Conf. 17.11), a revised resolution initially proposed by Indonesia, was adopted by consensus in Plenary. One of the outcomes was the preparation of an Action Plan, which was prepared by under the auspices of the Helmeted Hornbill Working Group and was published in August 2018 (Jain et al. 2018). A project to identify key sites and create a roadmap for enforcement

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Rhinoplax vigil – published in 2018. 5 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en activity for the species commenced in 2018 (A. Jain in litt. 2017).

Conservation and Research Actions Proposed Urgently enforce legislation to prevent illegal hunting. Support livelihoods in forest communities, so that the incentive to poach is minimised. Monitor populations across the species's range to determine the magnitude of declines and rates of range contraction. Monitor the impact of hunting pressure on populations. Campaign for the protection of remaining tracts of lowland forest throughout the range. Credits

Assessor(s): BirdLife International

Reviewer(s): Hermes, C.

Contributor(s): Collar, N., Eaton, J., Hadiprakarsa, Y., Jain, A., Mahood, S. & Yong, D.

Facilitators(s) and Ashpole, J, Benstead, P., Gilroy, J., Martin, R., Symes, A., Taylor, J., Westrip, J., Compiler(s): Wheatley, H.

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Rhinoplax vigil – published in 2018. 6 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en Bibliography Beastall, C.; Shepherd, C. R.; Hadiprakarsa, Y.; Martyr, D. 2016. Trade in the Helmeted Hornbill Rhinoplax vigil: the 'ivory hornbill'. Bird Conservation International 26: 137-146.

BirdLife International. 2001. Threatened birds of Asia: the BirdLife International Red Data Book. BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K.

Chong, M.H.N. 2011. Observations on the breeding biology of Helmeted Hornbill in Pahang, peninsular Malaysia. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 24: 163-165.

Collar, N.J. 2015. Helmeted Hornbills Rhinoplax vigil and the ivory trade: the crisis that came out of nowhere. BirdingASIA 24: 12-17.

EIA. 2015. Sin City – Illegal wildlife trade in Laos’ Golden Triangle Special Economic Zone. Environmental Investigation Agency, London, U.K.

Hii, R. 2015. Helmeted Hornbills on the Verge of Extinction. Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hii/helmeted-hornbills-on-the_b_6804302.html. (Accessed: 29/09/2015).

Hughes, A. 2015. Not just rhinos: Hornbill horns fetch stunning prices in illegal wildlife trade. Alliance of Leading Environmental Researchers and Thinkers. Available at: http://alert-conservation.org/issues- research-highlights/2015/8/18/not-just-rhinos-hornbill-horns-fetch-stunning-prices-in-illegal-wildlife- trade. (Accessed: 29/09/2015).

IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 15 November 2018).

Jain A., Lee J. G. H., Chao N., Lees C., Orenstein R., Strange B. C., Chng S. C. L., Marthy W., Yeap C. A., Hadiprakarsa Y. Y. and Rao M. (Eds). 2018. Helmeted Hornbill (Rhinoplax vigil): Status Review, Range- wide Conservation Strategy and Action Plan (2018-2027). IUCN Species Survival Commission Hornbill Specialist Group.

Kemp, A.C., Sharpe, C.J. and Boesman, P. 2014. Helmeted Hornbill (Rhinoplax vigil). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. and de Juana, E. (eds), Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive, Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

Kinnaird, M. F.; O'Brien, T. G. 2007. The ecology and conservation of Asian Hornbills: farmers of the forest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.

Kitamura, S.; Thong-Aree, S.; Madsri S.; Poonswad, P. 2011. Characteristics of hornbill-dispersed fruits in lowland dipterocarp forests of southern Thailand. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology: 137-147.

Lum, S.; Poonswad, P. 2005. The Ecology of Hornbills: Reproduction and Populations. Pimdee Karnpim Co., Ltd., Bangkok.

Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Augeri, D., Rosenbaum, B., Iskandar, D., Setyawati, T., Lammertink, M., Rachmatika, I., Wong, A., Soehartono, T., Stanley, S. and O'Brien, T. 2005. Life after logging - Reconciling wildlife conservation and production forestry in Indonesian Borneo. CIFOR and UNESCO, Jakarta.

Poonswad, P., Kemp, A.C. and Strange, M. 2013. Hornbills of the World: A Photographic Guide. Draco Publishing and Hornbill Research Foundation.

Tracewski, L.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Di Marco, M.; Ficetola, G.F.; Rondinini, C.; Symes, A.; Wheatley, H.; Beresford, A.E.; Buchanan, G.M. 2016. Toward quantification of the impact of 21st-century deforestation

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Rhinoplax vigil – published in 2018. 7 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology.

Utoyo, L.; Marthy, W.; Noske, R. A.; Surahmat, F. 2017. Nesting cycle and nest tree characteristics of the Helmeted Hornbill Rhinoplax vigil, compared to the Wreathed Hornbill Rhyticeros undulatus, in Sumatran lowland rainforest. Kukila 20: 12-22.

Citation BirdLife International. 2018. Rhinoplax vigil. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22682464A134206677. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en

Disclaimer To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.

External Resources For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.

Habitats (http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

Major Season Suitability Habitat Importance? 1. Forest -> 1.6. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland Resident Suitable Yes

1. Forest -> 1.9. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane Resident Marginal -

Threats (http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score 2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & Ongoing Minority (50%) Slow, significant Low impact: 5 perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder declines farming Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation 2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry 90%) declines impact: 6 farming Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation 2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.2. Wood & pulp Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium plantations -> 2.2.2. Agro-industry plantations 90%) declines impact: 6 Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation 5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping Ongoing Majority (50- Very rapid High impact: 8 terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is 90%) declines the target) Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality 5. Biological resource use -> 5.3. Logging & wood Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium harvesting -> 5.3.4. Unintentional effects: (large 90%) declines impact: 6 scale) [harvest] Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation 7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium suppression -> 7.1.1. Increase in fire 90%) declines impact: 6 frequency/intensity Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

Conservation Actions in Place (http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Rhinoplax vigil – published in 2018. 9 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en Conservation Actions in Place In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning

Action Recovery plan: Yes

Systematic monitoring scheme: No

In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management

Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range

Occur in at least one PA: Yes

Invasive species control or prevention: No

In-Place Species Management

Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: No

Subject to ex-situ conservation: No

In-Place Education

Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: No

Included in international legislation: Yes

Subject to any international management/trade controls: Yes

Conservation Actions Needed (http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

Conservation Actions Needed 1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection

5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.1. International level

5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.2. National level

6. Livelihood, economic & other incentives -> 6.1. Linked enterprises & livelihood alternatives

Research Needed (http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

Research Needed 3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends

3. Monitoring -> 3.3. Trade trends

Additional Data Fields

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Rhinoplax vigil – published in 2018. 10 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en Distribution Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Yes

Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No

Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 3540000

Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Yes

Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No

Continuing decline in number of locations: Yes

Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No

Upper elevation limit (m): 1100

Population Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes

Extreme fluctuations: No

Population severely fragmented: No

Continuing decline in subpopulations: Yes

Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No

All individuals in one subpopulation: No

Habitats and Ecology Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes

Generation Length (years): 19.8

Movement patterns: Not a Migrant

© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Rhinoplax vigil – published in 2018. 11 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22682464A134206677.en The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ ISSN 2307-8235 (online) IUCN 2008: T22682464A134206677 Scope: Global Language: English

The IUCN Red List Partnership

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.

The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™