Hippocamelus antisensis 

Scope: Global
Language: English
Status_ne_offStatus_dd_offStatus_lc_offStatus_nt_offStatus_vu_onStatus_en_offStatus_cr_offStatus_ew_offStatus_ex_off

Translate page into:

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Cetartiodactyla Cervidae

Scientific Name: Hippocamelus antisensis (d'Orbigny, 1834)
Common Name(s):
English Taruca, North Andean Deer, North Andean Huemul, Peruvian Guemal, Peruvian Huemul
French Cerf des Andes Septentrionales, Guémal Péruvien, Huémuld des Andes Septentrionales
Spanish Ciervo Andino Septentrional, Guemal, Tarugo, Taruka

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Vulnerable A2cd; C2a(i) ver 3.1
Year Published: 2017
Date Assessed: 2016-08-01
Assessor(s): Barrio, J., Nuñez, A., Pacheco, L., Regidor, H.A. & Fuentes-Allende, N.
Reviewer(s): Zanetti, E.S.Z. & González, S.
Justification:
This species is considered to be Vulnerable due to a small population size and decline, reaching ≥ 30% (A2cd); suspected to have resulted from hunting and from a reduction of habitat due to destruction, and decreased quality. Given the reduction in population size (effective population size below 6,000 individuals), we also assessed criteria C. Due to the fact that all populations may be well below 1,000 individuals, we can also use criteria C2a(i) to assign a Vulnerable category.

Population sizes have been estimated as 750-<1,000 in Chile (Sielfeld and Guzmán 2011), 9,000-13,000 for Perú (Barrioand and Ferreyra 2008), between 1,900-3,000 in Argentina (Regidor et al. 1997, Regidor and Costilla 2003), and 5,000-6,000 in Bolivia (Nuñez 2008, Nuñez and Pacheco, unpubl. Data). Therefore, the total population estimate for the species would be between 16,650-23,000 individuals. Based on population structure data from Perú (74% adults, Barrio 2007), Bolivia (69% adults, Rumiz et al. 2010) and Chile (81% adults, Sielfeld and Guzmán 2011), we may infer that about 75% are adult individuals (11,800-15,750 adult individuals). However, it would not be wise to believe that all adult individuals are reproducing, since effective population sizes for wildlife may average 0.11 of total population size (Frankham 1995). There are no single estimate of effective population sizes for Tarukas, but there is a recent one for guanacos (Sarno et al. 2015). These authors indicate that the relationship between effective population size to census population size range from 0.04 to 0.99, but decreased to 0.24 when only potentially breeding adults are considered. Therefore, if we believe that effective population size is 25% on census population size, then we may be under a conservative scenario of 4,162-5,750 mature breeding Tarukas.

Habitat fragmentation is also a serious threat to the existing subpopulations, especially near human settlements (Rechberger et al. 2014, Sielfeld and Guzmán 2011). Additionally, although there are no single monitoring programs at the regional level, there is a widely shared expert opinion of a perceived continuing decline in a large portion of the species range (Argentine, Chile and Bolivia, Barrio and Ferreyra 2008, Nuñez 2009, Sielfeld and Guzmán 2011), except for a few sites in Argentina, and Bolivia.

Given that most populations seem to be small and given that, with a few exceptions, populations may be threatened by habitat loss, and other threats, we think it is much safer to consider that Tarukas are vulnerable to extinction.
Previously published Red List assessments:

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:The Taruka occurs as scattered subpopulations with very few contact areas among them, a distribution explained by the specialized habitat it uses. Its distribution can be regarded as almost continuous along the highlands of the Andes from the north of Peru to northeastern Chile, but we should be aware that the habitat type used is isolated in some areas, and human density is high between patches. The Taruka occurs in heavily fragmented subpopulations throughout the high Andes of Bolivia (with no records in the southwest), as well as in Chile (with three fragmented populations between Tacora volcano and Tarapacá gorge, Matta pers. Comm.) and in northwest Argentina.

The historical distribution was probably the same as the current one, but subpopulations might have been less fragmented. Nevertheless, historical (Mellet 1908) and archaeological records (Díaz 1995) suggest that Taruka distribution in Chile extended to Antofagasta district, approximately 590 km to the south of the current limit in this country.

Contrary to several publications (Geist 1998, Weber and Gonzalez 2003, Wemmer 1998), the Taruka has never occurred in Ecuador (Barrio 2013, Pinto et al. 2015). It is unlikely that the Taruka has ever crossed north of the Huancabamba depression in north Peru, even during the Pleistocene, when the habitat type it currently uses was lower than present altitude. Then, the high Andes were populated by other deer genera (Hoffstetter 1986, Wheeler et al. 1976). The asseveration of the former presence of Taruka in Ecuador was based on doubtful records (Tirira 2001). One specimen in the Buenos Aires museum and another in the Field Museum, Chicago, were marked as coming from Ecuador (Voss 2003), but both have disappeared and could have come from anywhere else, for example Peru or Chile, if they were correctly identified. Another two specimens were deposited in the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales in Madrid (Voss 2003). These were authentic records from Ecuador, as the collector, the collection site and the year were identified (Voss 2003), but both specimens were also lost and there is no way to verify the species.
Countries occurrence:
Native:
Argentina; Bolivia, Plurinational States of; Chile; Peru
Additional data:
Lower elevation limit (metres):1800
Upper elevation limit (metres):5000
Range Map:Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population:Based on data and assessments from a few localities in every country, the total population estimate would be 15,750-21,000 individuals (see the Rationale for data for each country). According to a conservative effective population size of 25% of total population, we may infer that the number of mature breeding adults may be between 4,162 and 5,750 individuals (<60% of the threshold 10,000 individuals set for a vulnerable category for the species).
Current Population Trend:Decreasing
Additional data:
Number of mature individuals:4162-5750Continuing decline of mature individuals:Yes
Population severely fragmented:No
Continuing decline in subpopulations:Yes
All individuals in one subpopulation:No

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:Tarukas have been found at 2,000-3,500 m asl in the southern portion of their distribution in Argentina (Cajal 1983), at 2,500-4,600 m asl in northern Chile (Contreras et al. 1986, Lagos, pers. Comm.), and at 3,500-5,000 m asl in the highlands of Peru and Bolivia (Jungius 1974, Merkt 1985, Yensen et al. 1994, Barrio 1998, Barrio 2004). In Bolivia, this species was also found at lower altitudes (2,300 m asl) at the interandean valley named Araca (Nuñez 2008), which is covered mostly by sparse trees.

Tarukas live in areas with wet weather on the eastern Andes (Jungius 1974, Barrio 2004), as well as areas with dry weather on the western Andes (Merkt 1985, Contreraset al. 1986, Barrio 1998). Tarukas are usually found above the treeline on mountain slopes characterized by rock and cliff-like outcrops amid grassland vegetation (Jungius 1974, Merkt 1985, Merkt 1987, Barrio 2004). They seem to prefer rocky areas of sparse vegetation with nearby water sources - usually a small ravine, lagoon or marsh (Merkt 1985, Barrio 2004), however, they have been observed in dense shrubbery near rivers and inside Polylepis sp. forests (Barrio in prep).

In several sections of the distribution, Taruka subpopulations live in fragmented portions of the range (Cajal 1983, Barrio 1999). The Taruka shares its habitat with domestic stock, which might compete with Taruka and decrease the area available to them (Barrio 1999, 2004).
Systems:Terrestrial
Generation Length (years):3

Use and Trade [top]

Use and Trade: The species is hunted as an agricultural pest, or for sport. Antlers are used in traditional medicine to cure facial paralysis (Tarifa pers. comm.) and dried meat is used by rural populations (J. Barrio pers. obs).

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): Threats to the species include competition with domestic stock, habitat destruction, trophy hunting, and predation by domestic dogs (Miller et al. 1973, Merkt pers. comm). In Bolivia, major threats are habitat destruction and illegal hunting (Nuñez 2009, Rechberger et al. 2014). Antlers are used in traditional medicine to cure facial paralysis (Tarifa pers. comm.) and dried meat is used by rural populations (CDC 1987). Threats in Chile include conflict with local farmers, predation by domestic dogs and displacement from their former habitat (gorges with water courses) to drier areas (Fuentes-Allende et al. 2016).

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions: The species is included on CITES Appendix I and occurs in several protected areas across its range. Recommended conservation actions include: systematic surveys to determine status and extent of geographic distribution; support continued ecological studies of the species throughout its range; strengthen protected areas management; improve livestock management through farmer education demonstration projects. Population trends monitoring programs are needed. We suggest that at least three study sites per country should be included, considering the use of a standardized method, probably including direct observations, and spoor. At least one of the sites should be within a protected area for each country.

This species has been evaluated as Endangered in Bolivia (Nuñez 2009), based on a thorough survey within the country (Nuñez 2008).

Hippocamelus antisensis has been declared a natural national monument (Monumento Natural Nacional) by Law Nº 24702 in Argentina, since 1996. This enabled the protection of taruka’s hábitat in Argentina.

Tarukas are considered as “Endangered” in Chile, by Law Nº 19300 and their hunting is banned by Law 19473. There is also a National Plan for their conservation since 2006 (CONAF 2006), but no actions have been developed so far and its habitat is poorly represented in protected areas (Matta pers. comm).

Classifications [top]

3. Shrubland -> 3.7. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical High Altitude
suitability:Suitable  major importance:Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.7. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical High Altitude
suitability:Suitable  major importance:Yes
0. Root -> 6. Rocky areas (eg. inland cliffs, mountain peaks)
suitability:Suitable  major importance:Yes
0. Root -> 17. Other
suitability:Marginal  
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
3. Species management -> 3.2. Species recovery
4. Education & awareness -> 4.1. Formal education
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.3. Sub-national level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.3. Sub-national level

In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
  Occur in at least one PA:Yes
In-Place Species Management
  Subject to ex-situ conservation:Yes
In-Place Education
  Subject to recent education and awareness programmes:Yes
  Included in international legislation:Yes
  Subject to any international management/trade controls:Yes
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.2. Droughts
♦ timing:Past, Likely to Return    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.1. Shifting agriculture
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder farming
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry farming
♦ timing:Future    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming & ranching -> 2.3.1. Nomadic grazing
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming & ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming & ranching -> 2.3.3. Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

3. Energy production & mining -> 3.2. Mining & quarrying
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

4. Transportation & service corridors -> 4.1. Roads & railroads
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is the target)
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals -> 5.1.3. Persecution/control
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1. Recreational activities
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire suppression -> 7.1.3. Trend Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.1. Unspecified species
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.2. Competition

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species [ Canis familiaris ]
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.2. Problematic native species/diseases -> 8.2.1. Unspecified species
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

9. Pollution -> 9.3. Agricultural & forestry effluents -> 9.3.4. Type Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing:Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
1. Research -> 1.6. Actions
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends

Bibliography [top]

Barrio, J. 1998. Population and habitat viability analysis of the taruka (Hippocamelus antisensis) in the southern Andes of Peru. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Florida.

Barrio, J. 1999. Población y hábitat de la taruka en la Zona Reservada Aymara-Lupaca, Perú. In: Fang, T., Montenegro, O. and Bodmer, R. (eds), Manejo y Conservación de Fauna Silvestre en América Latina, pp. 453-460. La Paz, Bolivia.

Barrio, J. 2004. Possible cattle influence on the population of two deer species at the highlands of Rio Abiseo National Park, Peru.

Barrio, J. 2007. Population viability analysis of the taruka, Hippocamelus antisensis (D’Órbigny, 1834) (Cervidae) in southern Peru. Revista Peruana de Biología 14: 193-200.

Barrio, J. 2013. Hippocamelus antisensis (Artiodactyla:Cervidae). Mammalian Species 45(901): 45-59.

Barrio, J. and Ferreyra, N. 2008. Hippocamelus antisensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2008. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.

Barrio, J. In prep.. Biogeography of deer in Peru. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida.

Begon, M., Townsend, C.R. and Harper, J.L. 2006. From individuals to ecosystems. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishers.

Cajal, L. 1983. La situación del taruka en la provincia de La Rioja, República Argentina. Programa Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

CONAF. 2006. Plan nacional para la conservación de la taruca (Hippocamelus antisensis D'Orbigny,1834) Chile. Gobierno de Chile.

Contreras, M., Lanino, I., González, L. and Arenas, J. 1986. Informe I: Antecedentes generales de la Primera Región de Chile. Proyecto CONAF/PNUD/FAO-CHI/83/017.

Corti, P., Wittmer, H.U. and Festa-Bianchet M. 2010. Dynamics of a small population of endangered huemul deer (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in Chilean Patagonia. Journal of Mammalogy 91: 690-697.

Díaz, N.I. 1995. Antecedentes sobre la historia natural de la taruca (Hippocamelus antisensis d'Orbigny 1834) y su rol en la economía andina. Chungará: Revista de Antropología Chilena 27(1): 45-55.

Flueck, W.T. and Smith-Flueck, J.M. 2012a. Huemul heresies: beliefs in search of supporting data. 1 Historical and zooarcheological considerations. Animal Production Science 52: 685-693.

Frankham, R. 1995. Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genet. Res. 66: 95-107.

Fuentes-Allende, N., Vielma, A., Paulsen, K., Arredondo, C., Corti, P., Estades, C.F. and González, B.A. 2016. Is human disturbance causing differential preference of agricultural landscapes by taruka and feral donkeys in high Andean deserts during the dry season? Journal of Arid Environments 135: 115-119.

Gaillard, J.M., Festa-Bianchet, M., Delorme, D. and Jorgenson, J. 2000. Body mass and individual fitness in female ungulates: bigger is not always better. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 267(1442): 471-477.

Geist, V. 1998. Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

Hoffstetter, R. 1986. High Andean mammalian faunas during the Plio-Pleistocene. In: Vuilleumier, F. and Monasterio, M. (eds), High altitude tropical biogeography, pp. 218-245. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.

IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 14 September 2017).

Jungius, H. 1974. Beobachtungen am Weisweldelhirsch und an anderen Cerviden in Bolivia. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 39(6): 373-383.

Mellet, J. 1908. Viajes por el interior de la América Meridional de Julian Mellet: traducido de la 2.a edición francesa de 1824. Imprenta i encuadernacion universitaria.

Merkt, J. 1985. Social structure of Andean deer in southern Peru. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia.

Merkt, J. 1987. Reproductive seasonality and grouping patterns of the north Andean deer or taruka in southern Peru. In: Wemmer, C. (ed.), Biology and Management of the Cervidae, pp. 388-401. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Miller, S., Rottmann, J., and Taber, R. 1973. Dwindling and endangered ungulates of Chile: Vicugna, Lama, Hippocamelus and Pudu. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 38: 55-68.

Nuñez, A. 2008. Estado de conservación de la taruka (Hippocamelus antisensis) en Bolivia. Universidad Nacional Experimental de los Llanos Occidentales Ezequiel Zamora.

Nuñez, A. 2009. Mamíferos. In: Libro Rojo de la Fauna Silvestre de Vertebrados de Bolivia, pp. 479-481. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua, La Paz, Bolivia.

Pinto, C.M., Soto-Centeno, J.A., Quiroz, Á. M.N., Ferreyra, N., Delgado-Espinoza, F., Stahl, P.W. and Tirira, D.G. 2015. Archaeology, biogeography, and mammalogy do not provide evidence for tarukas (Cervidae: Hippocamelus antisensis) in Ecuador. Journal of Mammalogy.

Rechberger, J., Pacheco, L.F., Nuñez, A., Roldán, A.I. and Mendieta, G. 2014. The recovery of an Andean deer (Hippocamelus antisensis) population near La Paz city. Opportunities for conservation and education. Oryx 48: 445-450.

Regidor, H.A. 1998. Estructura social de una población de tarucas Hippocamelus antisensis (D’Orbigny, 1834) en Salta, Argentina. XIII Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología. Puerto Iguazú, Misiones.

Regidor, H.A., Garrido, D. and Ragno, R. 1997. Unidades de paisaje aptas para taruca Hippocamelus antisensis en Salta, Argentina. Parte I - Una Clasificación no supervisada. Manejo de Fauna. Publicaciones Técnicas. Universidad Nacional de Salta.

Regidor, H. and Costilla, M. 2003. Un mapa de distribución para la taruca (Hippocamelus antisensis) en el Noroeste Argentino. Memorias: Manejo de Fauna Silvestre en Amazonia y Latinoamérica: 266-268.

Rumiz, D.I., Rivero, K., Gómez, H., Sainz, L., Nuñez, A., and Wallace, R.B. 2010. Cervidae. In: Wallace, R.B. (ed.), Distribución, ecología y conservación de los mamíferos medianos y grandes de Bolivia, pp. 631-658.

Sarno, R.J., Jennings, D.E. and W.L. Franklin. 2015. Estimating effective population size of guanacos in Patagonia: an integrative approach for wildlife conservation. Conservation Genetics 16(5): 1167-1180.

Sielfeld, W. and Guzmán, J.A. 2011. Distribution, reproduction and grouping patterns in the taruca deer (Hippocamelus antisensis D’Orbigny, 1834) in the extreme north of Chile. Animal Production Science 51: clxxx-cxc.

Sielfeld, W., Carrasco, C., González, G., Torres, J., Carevic, A. and Lanino, I. 1988. Estudio de la taruka (Hippocamelus antisensis) en Chile. Proyecto CONAF/ PNUD/ FAO-CHI/ 83/ 017. Universidad Arturo Prat, Iquique, Chile.

Tirira, D. 2001. Libro Rojo de los Mamíferos del Ecuador. Sociedad para la Investigación y Monitoreo de la Biodiversidad Ecuatoriana (SIMBIOE) / Ecociencias / Ministerio del Ambiente / UICN. Publicación Especial sobre los Mamíferos del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.

Voss, R.S. 2003. A new species of Thomasomys (Rodentia: Muridae) from eastern Ecuador, with remarks on Mammalian diversity and biogeography in the Cordillera Oriental. American Museum Novitates 3421: 1-48.

Weber, M. and González, S. 2003. Latin American deer diversity and conservation: a review of status and distribution. Ecoscience 10(4): 443-454.

Wemmer, C. 1998. Deer Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Wheeler, J., Pires-Ferreira, E. and Kaulicke, P. 1976. Pre-ceramic animal utilization in the central Peruvian Andes. Science 194: 483-490.

Yensen, E., Tarifa, T. and Anderson, S. 1994. New distributional records of some Bolivian mammals. Mammalia 58: 405-413.


Citation: Barrio, J., Nuñez, A., Pacheco, L., Regidor, H.A. & Fuentes-Allende, N. 2017. Hippocamelus antisensis. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T10053A22158621. . Downloaded on 26 September 2017.
Disclaimer: To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>.
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