|Scientific Name:||Spheniscus magellanicus|
|Species Authority:||(Forster, 1781)|
|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.|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Near Threatened ver 3.1|
|Reviewer(s):||Butchart, S. & Symes, A.|
|Contributor(s):||Boersma, P., Frere, E., Garcia Borboroglu , P., Harris, S., Komar, O., Nisbet, I., Raya Rey, A., Rebstock, G., Ruoppolo, V., Simeone, A., Stanworth, A., Woods, R.W. & Yorio, P.|
|Facilitator/Compiler(s):||Boersma, P., Calvert, R., Clay, R.P., Garcia Borboroglu , P., Lascelles, B., Moreno, R., Sharpe, C J, Taylor, J.|
This species has fluctuated in numbers in different parts of its range, but overall moderately rapid declines are thought to have been sustained and as a result it is listed as Near Threatened.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
Spheniscus magellanicus breeds on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of South America, in Argentina (at 66 sites), Chile (at least 31 known locations but detailed complete surveys are necessary), and the Falkland Islands (Malvinas, at least 100 locations) (Woods and Woods 1997, Ellis et al. 1998, Boersma et al. 2013, 2015). In the Atlantic, most individuals in the winter migrate north to northern Argentina, Uruguay, or southern Brazil, exceptionally to northern Brazil (García-Borboroglu et al. 2010, Stokes et al. 2014). Magellanic penguins in the Pacific are less migratory, but some travel as much as 1000 km north (Skewar et al. 2014, Pütz et al. 2016) and are rare nonbreeding visitors to Peru (Zavalaga and Paredes 2009). Vagrants have been found as far north as El Salvador (O. Komar in litt. 2007), and south to Avian Island (67°, 46'S) on the Antarctic Peninsula (Barbosa et al. 2007), as well as Australia and New Zealand.
Along the Argentinian coast, there are no consistent population trends in the 66 colonies. In southern Atlantic Patagonia, at the southern part of their distribution on Bahía Franklin, Staten Island numbers increased from 500 pairs (1998) to 1,600 pairs (2010) reaching 2,300 pairs during the last survey in 2015 as well as on Martillo Island where population increased 15% in a 20-year period (Raya Rey et al. 2014, Raya Rey unpublish. data). Unfortunately, numbers from Observatorio Island (around 105,000 pairs) have not been updated since the last survey performed in 1995 (Schiavini et al. 2005). In Santa Cruz Province, Argentina, the population seems to be stable during the last 30 years, with eight colonies increasing and nine declining (E. Frere pers. comm. 2016). In northern Patagonia (Chubut Province, Argentina), which is the stronghold of the known global population, trends are mixed: the largest colonies are declining in the southern part of northern Patagonia (Punta Tombo has declined 37% since 1987 (Rebstock et al. 2016) and Isla Leones, Isla Tova and nearby big colonies have declined more than 50% (Pozzi et al. 2015, Boersma et al. 2013, 2015, Garcia Borboroglu pers. comm. 2016). The breeding population has expanded north since the 1960s, with new colonies established and growing rapidly (Schiavini et al. 2005, Boersma et al. 2013, Pozzi et al. 2015). In Argentina, San Lorenzo colony on the Peninsula Valdés increased from a few pairs to 134,000 pairs and more new colonies were established since 2000 expanding the northern breeding range (Schiavini et al. 2005, Pozzi et al. 2015).
Although little is known about the population size in Chile, 31 breeding sites are known; the 14 breeding sites that have been surveyed have 144,000 pairs, so the Chilean population is presumed much larger than that (Boersma et al. 2015). Population trend in Chile is unknown, but colonies in the north of the range and in the Juan Fernández Islands seem to have been abandoned (Boersma et al. 2013, 2015).
In the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas, the historical population estimate was 100,000 pairs at 41 breeding sites (Croxall et al. 1984) and later Woods and Woods (1997) reported 76,000-142,000 pairs at about 100 breeding sites; however, Croxall et al. (1984) was reported as a minimum, and it is not thought that these changed numbers represent a true increase in the population size. On the other hand, it was also reported that the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands colonies have declined almost 50% since the 1980s, but data are insufficient to substantiate this (R. Woods in litt. 1999, Pütz et al. 2001). Since 1999, burrow occupancy at two sites in the islands fluctuated annually with no clear trend (Stanworth 2015).
Native:Argentina; Brazil; Chile; Falkland Islands (Malvinas); Peru; Uruguay
Vagrant:Antarctica; Australia; New Zealand; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||The world population is estimated at between 1.1 and 1.6 million pairs: about 900,000 along the Argentinian coast, at least 100,000 in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and a minimum of 144,000 pairs and a maximum guess of 500,000 pairs in Chile (Boersma et al. 2013, 2015). Population trends vary among colonies and regions. The trend for 43 of the 66 colonies of Argentina that represent 70% of the estimated global population indicates a decline that approaches but does not exceed 30%.|
Trend Justification: Overall population declines are thought to have been moderately rapid during the past three generations (27 years).
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|Habitat and Ecology:|
Magellanic penguins forage only in the oceans and breed on land in a variety of island and mainland coastal habitats (Garcia Borboroglu et al. 2002). They use intertidal and beach habitats to avoid excessive heat at colonies (Pozzi et al. 2013). At sea, they typically remain over the continental shelf in Argentina (Stokes et al. 1998, Boersma et al. 2002, Boersma and Rebstock 2009, Raya Rey et al. 2010, 2012; Rosciano et al. 2016), but may forage in deep waters off the relatively narrow shelf in Chile (Raya Rey et al. 2013; Pütz et al. 2016), where the shelf is very narrow, and in the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (Pütz et al. 2002). They dive up to ~100 m, but more often to a few dozen metres. They may be seen foraging in shallow water close to the shore but more often forage out of sight of land. Penguins tracked by satellite and global location sensor tags during incubation typically foraged more than 100 km, and sometimes as much as 600 km from various colonies in Argentina (Wilson et al. 2005, Boersma and Rebstock 2009, Boersma et al. 2013, 2015). Even when provisioning chicks, adults forage hundreds of kilometers from the colony (Boersma et al. 2009, Boersma and Rebstock 2009). Breeding habitats include scrublands and grasslands in Argentina, tussock grass in the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands and temperate forests in Chile. Individuals show high site fidelity, with nearly all birds returning to the colony in which they hatched, and most adults using the same nest site year after year (Boersma 2008).
|Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat:||Unknown|
|Generation Length (years):||17.5|
|Movement patterns:||Full Migrant|
|Congregatory:||Congregatory (and dispersive)|
The main current threats are oil pollution, fisheries interactions, and climate change. In the 1980s and early 1990s oil pollution was estimated to kill more than 20,000 adults and 22,000 juveniles every year on the Argentinian coast (Gandini et al. 1994, Boersma 2008) (also the wintering ground for the Falklands population [Pütz et al. 2000]), although this threat is now much reduced at least in Chubut Province (less than 100 individuals every year) (Boersma and E. Frere pers. comm. 2016). Chronic oil pollution and mortality still occurs off Brazil, Uruguay, northern Argentina, and Chile (Garcia-Borboroglu et al. 2006, 2008, Matus and Blank 2008). Future petroleum extraction is under consideration offshore of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Patagonia and Uruguay, which would likely increase mortality. In one northern colony, Punta Tombo, Frias et al. (2012) found little exposure to mercury. The southern colonies are subject to high levels of mercury exposure probably due to a natural hot spot (Brasso et al. 2015). Detrimental effects were not evident in that study, but mercury exposure could be a long-term or synergetic threat and thus more studies on this are needed. It is known that this species interacts with fisheries, through bycatch mortality in gillnets, trawls and purse-seines along the coast of South America (Gandini et al. 1999; Tamini et al. 2002; González-Zevallos and Yorio 2009; Skewgar et al. 2009; Schlatter et al. 2009; Yorio et al. 2010; Cardoso et al. 2011; González-Zevallos et al. 2011; Marinao and Yorio 2011; Seco Pon et al. 2013; Marinao et al. 2014; Suazo et al. 2014, 2016; Boersma et al. 2015; L. Tamini pers. comm. 2016) and potential reduction of prey resources (Boersma et al. 2015), but population trends in response to these threats have not been quantified. Fisheries reduce prey for penguins; the hake fishery in Argentina collapsed due to overfishing during the 90’s (Alemany et al. 2013). A potential expansion of the Argentinian anchovy fishery might impact breeding penguins. Fisheries in northern Argentine Patagonia may be having an additional effect, as bycatch includes anchovy and juvenile hake, which are an important part of the species' diet (Frere et al. 1996; Gandini et al. 1999, Scolaro et al. 1999; Wilson et al. 2005), and fisheries for anchovy and sprat, both considered “underexploited” stocks, may be developed in Argentina and Brazil (Skewgar et al. 2007, Carvalho and Castello 2013, Sanchez et al. 1995).
In some areas of Chile, eggs and adults are collected for human consumption and adults are taken for bait (Suazo et al. 2013 Boersma et al. 2013, 2015, Trathan et al. 2014). The introduction of feral dogs and other invasive species in the breeding colonies have resulted in local extirpations (Suazo et al. 2013), but population level declines have not been quantified.
Climate change have had been reported to have an impact in one colony as increased precipitation at some nesting colonies wets chicks so they die from hypothermia, and precipitation causes nest burrows to collapse (Boersma 2009, Boersma and Rebstock 2014). Egg-collection occurred in the Falklands and local sites in Chile in the past. Climate models show precipitation will increase over much of the species’ range, lowering reproductive output of many colonies (Boersma and Rebstock 2014). Decreasing breeding synchrony interacted with climate change to increase the part of the season when chicks are vulnerable to wetting (Boersma and Rebstock 2014). Indirect effects of climate change through changes in prey populations or availability are completely unknown. Tourism may also disturb individuals at breeding colonies when not well managed (Boersma 2008). Many of the threats have low impacts on the population, but there are many threats that probably have additive effects.
Conservation Actions Underway
Many non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and individuals’ work on the conservation of Magellanic penguins, and data from many studies have advanced conservation. Tanker lanes were moved 40 kilometers farther offshore along the coast of Chubut in 1997. This added to improvements at port loading facilities, which greatly reduced the number of oiled penguins in that area (Boersma 2008). The management plan for Punta Tombo is in place but has not yet been effectively implemented by Chubut Province authorities. The Argentine government has created new marine protected parks along the coast that include some penguin breeding areas and fragments of foraging areas (Patagonia Austral, Isla Pinguino, Makenke, and Monte Leon). Specifically, a new UNESCO Biosphere Reserve will help give protection to 20 colonies (Garcia Borboroglu et al. 2015) and a new marine-protected area (MPA) for the largest colony has been designated in Argentina (Boersma et al. 2015, Garcia Borboroglu et al. 2015)). Unfortunately, many of the parks lack effective planning and/or implementation. As marine protected areas are in general ineffective for the protection of highly mobile species such as penguins (Boersma and Parrish 1999), protection of penguin populations requires new conservation tools (Boersma et al. 2002, 2007; Garcia Borboroglu et al. 2008; Yorio 2009; Stokes et al. 2014; Boersma et al. 2015). CADIC-CONICET is working together with the Tierra del Fuego government on the management plan for the Staten Island reserve and the intention is to include marine protected regions based on the tracking studies (Rosciano et al. 2016).
Tracking studies are underway in the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands to identify areas of conflict between penguins and the developing hydrocarbon industry (http://www.south-atlantic-research.org/research/current-research/the-gap-project). Also, tracking studies and interaction with fisheries are under development around Staten Island.
Conservation Actions Proposed
Conduct population censuses and determine the ratios of juveniles to adults in Argentina, Chile and the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Monitor effects of fisheries in breeding and wintering areas. Reduce bycatch and oiling incidents. Place or improve design of marine protected areas in wintering and breeding areas. Eradicate introduced predators from islands with colonies. Reduce impact of tourism at breeding colonies, for example by controlling unrestricted visits and defining appropriate visiting hours. Prepare contingency plans for emerging diseases, or fires.
|Citation:||BirdLife International. 2016. Spheniscus magellanicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22697822A93642328.Downloaded on 21 August 2017.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|