Map_thumbnail_large_font

Megadyptes antipodes 

Scope: Global
Language: English
Status_ne_offStatus_dd_offStatus_lc_offStatus_nt_offStatus_vu_offStatus_en_onStatus_cr_offStatus_ew_offStatus_ex_off

Translate page into:

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Aves Sphenisciformes Spheniscidae

Scientific Name: Megadyptes antipodes (Hombron & Jacquinot, 1841)
Common Name(s):
English Yellow-eyed Penguin
Spanish Pingüino ojigualdo o de ojo amarillo
Taxonomic Source(s): Turbott, E.G. 1990. Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand. Ornithological Society of New Zealand, Wellington.
Identification information: 65 cm. Medium-sized penguin with pale yellow eye. Pale yellow head with black feather shafts. Band of bright yellow from eyes around back of head. Juvenile has greyer head with no band. Similar spp. Distinctive from other crested penguins in range. Voice Slightly musical compared to other penguin species.

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Endangered B2ab(ii,v)c(iv) ver 3.1
Year Published: 2016
Date Assessed: 2016-10-01
Assessor(s): BirdLife International
Reviewer(s): Butchart, S. & Symes, A.
Contributor(s): Ellenberg, U., Houston, D., Lalas, C., Mattern, T., McKinlay, B., Ratz, H., Seddon, P., Webster, T., Young, M. & van Heezik, Y.
Facilitator/Compiler(s): Benstead, P., Calvert, R., Mahood, S., McClellan, R., Moreno, R., Seddon, P., Taylor, J.
Justification:
This species is listed as Endangered because it is confined to a very small range when breeding, in which its forest/scrub habitat has declined in quality. Its population has undergone extreme fluctuations and is now thought to be in overall decline.

Previously published Red List assessments:

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:Megadyptes antipodes is endemic to New Zealand where it breeds on the South Island's south-east coast (452 pairs in 2011-/12 (Seddon et al. 2013), Stewart Island and outliers (178 pairs in 1999-2001; Massaro and Blair 2003), the Auckland Islands group (520-570 pairs in 1989; Moore 1992) and Campbell Island (350-540 pairs in 1992; Moore 2001, Seddon et al. 2013). The South Island population is genetically distinct from the two sub-Antarctic populations (inferred immigration rate 0.003 per generation; Boessenkool et al. 2010). Adults are sedentary and generally forage within 50 km of their breeding colonies (Mattern et al. 2007), but juveniles may disperse north as far as the Cook Strait (Marchant and Higgins 1990). 

Countries occurrence:
Native:
New Zealand
Additional data:
Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) - km2:380Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO):Yes
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO):NoEstimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2:395000
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO):NoExtreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO):No
Number of Locations:12Continuing decline in number of locations:No
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations:No
Upper elevation limit (metres):75
Range Map:Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population:There are estimated to be around 1,700 breeding pairs (3,400 breeders), with an estimated 60% of these in the sub-Antarctic (Auckland Campbell Islands) (Seddon et al. 2013). There is very little movement between the mainland and sub-Antarctic and genetic analyses reveal three distinct sub-populations (mainland New Zealand including Stewart Island, and the sub-Antarctic Auckland and Campbell Islands), which should be managed as separate conservation units (Boessenkool et al. 2009). Little is known about the suspected “species stronghold” on the sub-Antarctic Islands. The Auckland Islands population has never seen a comprehensive census but judging from a brief reconnaissance in 1989 may support an estimated 520-570 pairs (Moore 1992). The Campbell Island population was last estimated in 1992 at 350-540 pairs (Moore 2001). Stewart Island and outliers were estimated at 220-400 pairs in 1994, dropping to 178 pairs in 1999-2001 (Massaro and Blair 2003). Annual nest counts in most South Island breeding areas reveal considerable population fluctuations in the past; since 1996 the population has declined by 76% (Mattern et al. 2016). In 2015, a total of 216 breeding pairs were counted on the South Island (Melanie Young, DOC; unpublished data).    



Trend Justification:  The species is thought to be declining overall as a result of a number of threatening processes, principally introduced predators, habitat conversion and disturbance. Although survey results from South Island are not indicative of declines (but rather fluctuations), there is evidence of declines on Stewart Island (D. Houston in litt. 2012).

Current Population Trend:Decreasing
Additional data:
Number of mature individuals:3400Continuing decline of mature individuals:Yes
Extreme fluctuations:YesPopulation severely fragmented:Yes
No. of subpopulations:3Continuing decline in subpopulations:Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations:NoAll individuals in one subpopulation:No

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:In the South Island the species tends to nest in forest and scrub remnants, amongst pasture and in exotic vegetation (McKay et al. 1999; Ratz and Murphy 1999; Seddon et al. 2013). Nests generally have surrounding vegetation that conceals them from visual contact with conspecifics (Seddon and Davis 1989), but this is not believed to be a prerequisite for successful breeding (Clarke et al. 2015). Two eggs are laid from mid-September to mid-October, with hatching occurring at the beginning of November. Chicks fledge from mid-February to mid-March (Seddon et al. 2013).  Prey species on the mainland are primarily opalfish, sprat, silversides, ahuru, blue cod and arrow squid; red cod used to be an important prey species in the 1980s (van Heezik 1990, Moore and Wakelin 1997; Browne et al. 2011). Yellow-eyed penguins forage predominantly along the seafloor (87% of all dives) whereas pelagic dives mostly occur when they travel back to their breeding areas (Mattern et al. 2007). They occasionally dive deeper than 120m but predominantly forage in depths of less than 100 m (Seddon et al. 2013). Individuals have foraging sites they revisit on subsequent foraging trips and even between years (Moore 1999; Mattern et al. 2007). They appear very sensitive to disturbance and degradation of their benthic foraging habitat (Browne et al. 2011; Ellenberg and Mattern 2012; Mattern et al. 2013).  

Systems:Terrestrial; Marine
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat:No
Generation Length (years):7
Movement patterns:Not a Migrant

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): Introduced ferret (Mustela furo), stoat (M. erminea),unleashed dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), and possibly feral cats (Felis catus), are predators in the South Island. Predation by pigs on the main Auckland Island and in the Catlins is known to occur (B. McKinlay per D. Houston in litt. 2012). Accidental fires in breeding areas are a known, but infrequent, threat. A rogue female New Zealand sea lion (Phocarctos hookeri) and her daughter had been estimated to eat 20-30 birds annually on the Otago Peninsula (Lalas et al. 2007), but they have since died of natural causes. Repeated adult die-off events remain little understood but might be due to toxins (Gill and Darby 1993). Disease appears to be a problem in some populations in some years, with diphtheritic stomatitis (caused by the bacteria Corynebacterium spp.) and the blood parasite Leucocytozoon tawaki (formerly only known from Fiordland penguins) major causes of mortality for chicks (Argilla et al. 2013). Human disturbance, particularly from unregulated tourists at breeding areas, negatively affects energy budgets, fledgling weight and probability of survival (McClung et al. 2004; Ellenberg et al. 2007, 2009, 2013). By-catch mortality in the commercial gillnet fisheries is an unquantified but potentially significant cause of mortality (Darby and Dawson 2000; Ellenberg and Mattern 2012). Furthermore, fisheries activities appear to affect prey availability and prey quality (Mattern 2007; Browne et al. 2011), and influence penguin foraging behaviour (Mattern et al. 2013). There is a suspected but unconfirmed link between changing sea surface temperature and penguin vital rates, whereby productivity and survival are projected to decline under predicted climate change (Mattern et al. 2016). 

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions:

Conservation Actions Underway

Conservation management projects are and have been undertaken in the South Island by or under NZ Department of Conservation (DOC) approvals. The Yellow-eyed Penguin Trust was formed to raise awareness and funds and now in conjunction with DOC undertakes predator control and coastal revegetation. Many mainland sites have been fenced to minimize disturbance by farm stock and to facilitate vegetation restoration. Predator trapping is intensive during the breeding season at 50% of South Island sites, and habitat is being restored (Seddon et al. 2013). Some sites subject to unregulated visitor disturbance are either closed during critical periods, or patrolled by volunteer wardens. Improved signage and visitor guidelines are promoted at key sites, but these tools are less effective at improving visitor behaviour than closure or strict regulation (Stein et al. 2010). Rehabilitation is undertaken at four mainland sites, including Penguin Place on the Otago Peninsula and Penguin Rescue in North Otago, to prevent losses due to starvation, injury and moult complications. There is a census of South Island colonies approximately every five years, and a census of selected sites annually (Taylor 2000).

Conservation Actions Proposed

Obtain reliable population estimates for the Auckland and Campbell Islands. Eradicate predators (pigs and cats) from the Auckland Islands. Quantify the impact of commercial fishing activity on yellow-eyed penguins (bycatch mortality in gillnets and the influence of bottom disturbance by trawling/dredging on penguin behaviour and food quality). Regulate tourist access to breeding colonies. Develop a comprehensive understanding of the spatial and temporal extent of at-sea distribution during critical seasons (e.g. breeding, pre-moult, winter) and life-history stages (e.g. juvenile dispersal) to quantify fisheries overlap. Derive up to date data on important diet species throughout the range to evaluate changing patterns of foraging and diet, and assess the implications of climate change on marine productivity of relevance for the species.


Classifications [top]

1. Forest -> 1.3. Forest - Subantarctic
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:Yes
1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.2. Shrubland - Subantarctic
suitability:Suitable season:resident major importance:Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.4. Shrubland - Temperate
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic
suitability:Suitable season:resident major importance:Yes
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.1. Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)
suitability:Suitable season:resident major importance:Yes
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland
suitability:Suitable season:resident major importance:No
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
2. Land/water management -> 2.2. Invasive/problematic species control
5. Law & policy -> 5.2. Policies and regulations

In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
  Action Recovery plan:Yes
  Systematic monitoring scheme:Yes
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
  Conservation sites identified:Yes, over entire range
  Occur in at least one PA:No
  Invasive species control or prevention:Yes
In-Place Species Management
  Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly:Yes
  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:No
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.3. Temperature extremes
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming & ranching -> 2.3.3. Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:No decline ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

3. Energy production & mining -> 3.1. Oil & gas drilling
♦ timing:Future ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

5. Biological resource use -> 5.3. Logging & wood harvesting -> 5.3.3. Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
♦ timing:Past, Unlikely to Return ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Past Impact 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources -> 5.4.3. Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources -> 5.4.4. Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1. Recreational activities
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire suppression -> 7.1.1. Increase in fire frequency/intensity
♦ timing:Past, Likely to Return ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Past Impact 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.3. Other ecosystem modifications
♦ timing:Past, Likely to Return ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Past Impact 
→ 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 ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species [ Mustela erminea ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species [ Felis catus ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species [ Mustela furo ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species [ Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species [ Sus domesticus ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species [ Plasmodium relictum ]
♦ timing:Past, Likely to Return ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Past Impact 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.2. Problematic native species/diseases -> 8.2.2. Named species [ Phocarctos hookeri ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.4. Problematic species/disease of unknown origin -> 8.4.2. Named species [ Unspecified Leucocytozoon ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.4. Problematic species/disease of unknown origin -> 8.4.2. Named species [ Corynebacterium amycolatum ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats

Bibliography [top]

Argilla, L.S., Howe, L., Gartrell, B.D. and Alley, M.R. 2013. High prevalence of Leucocytozoon spp. in the endangered yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) in the sub-Antarctic regions of New Zealand. Parasitology 140(5): 672-682.

Boessenkool, S., B. Star, P. J. Seddon, and J. M. Waters. 2010. Temporal genetic samples indicate small effective population size of the endangered yellow-eyed penguin. Conservation Genetics 11: 539-546.

Boessenkool, S., Star, B., Waters, J.M. and Seddon, P.J. 2009. Multilocus assignment analyses reveal multiple units and rare migration events in the recently expanded yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes). Molecular Ecology 18(11): 2390-2400. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04203.x.

Browne, T., C. Lalas, T. Mattern, and Y. van Heezik. 2011. Chick starvation in yellow-eyed penguins: Evidence for poor diet quality and selective provisioning of chicks from conventional diet analysis and stable isotopes. Austral Ecology (doi: 10.1111/j.1442–9993.2010.02125.x).

Clark, R.D., Mathieu, R., Seddon, P.J. 2015. Selection for protection from insolation results in visual isolation of Yellow-eyed Penguin Megadyptes antipodes nests. Bird Conservation International 25: 192-206 DOI: 10.1017/S0959270914000082.

Darby J.T., and Dawson S.M. 2000. Bycatch of yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes) in gillnets in New Zealand waters 1979 - 1997. Biological Conservation 93: 327 - 332.

Ellenberg, U., and T. Mattern. 2012. Yellow-eyed penguin: review of population information. 144 p. Final Report for Conservation Services Programme project POP2011-08. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand http://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/conservation-services-programme/csp-reports/2011-12/yellow-eyed-penguins-a-review-of-population-information/.

Ellenberg, U., Mattern, T., and Seddon, P.J. 2009. Habituation potential of yellow-eyed penguins depends on sex, character and previous experience with humans. Animal Behaviour 77: 289-296.

Ellenberg, U., Setiawan, A. N., Cree, A., Houston, D. M., & Seddon, P. J. 2007. Elevated hormonal stress response and reduced reproductive output in Yellow-eyed penguins exposed to unregulated tourism. General and comparative endocrinology. 152 1: 54-63.

Ellenberg, U., T. Mattern, and P. J. Seddon. 2013. Heart rate responses provide an objective evaluation of human disturbance stimuli in breeding birds. Conservation Physiology 1:10.1093/conphys/cot1013.

Gill, J.M., and Darby, J.T. 1993. Deaths in yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes) on the Otago Peninsula during the summer of 1990. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 41 : 39-42.

IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 07 December 2016).

Lalas, C., Ratz, H., McEwan, K. and McConkey, S.D. 2007. Predation by New Zealand sea lions (Phocarctos hookeri) as a threat to the viability of Yellow-eyed Penguins (Megadyptes antipodes) at Otago Peninsula, New Zealand. Biological Conservation 135: 235-246.

Marchant, S.; Higgins, P. J. 1990. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds, 1: ratites to ducks. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Massaro M. and Blair D. 2003. Comparison of population numbers of yellow-eyed penguins, Megadyptes antipodes, on Stewart Island and on adjacent cat-free islands. N. Z. J. Ecol. 27: 107-113.

Mattern T, Ellenberg U, Housten DM, Lamare M, Davis LS, van Heezik, Y, Seddon PJ. 2013. Straight line foraging in Yellow-eyed Penguins: New insights into cascading fisheries effects and orientation capabilities of marine predators. PLoS One 8(12): e84381.

Mattern, T., Meyer, S., Ellenberg, U., Houston, D.M., Darby, J.T., Young, M. J., van Heezik, Y. and Seddon, P.J. 2016. Quantifying climate change impacts emphasises the importance of managing regional threats in an endangered species. bioRxiv. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/066696.

Mattern, T., U. Ellenberg, D. M. Houston, and L. S. Davis. 2007. Consistent foraging routes and benthic foraging behaviour in yellow-eyed penguins. Marine Ecology Progress Series 343: 295–306.

McClung, M. R.; Seddon, P. J.; Massaro, M.; Setiawan, A. N. 2004. Nature-based tourism impacts on yellow-eyed penguins Megadyptes antipodes: does unregulated visitor access affect fledging weight and juvenile survival? Biological Conservation 119: 279-285.

McKay, R., Lalas, C., McKay, D., and McConkey, S. 1999. Nest-site selection by yellow-eyed penguins Megadyptes antipodes on grazed farmland. Marine Ornithology 27: 29-35.

McKinlay B. 2001. Hoiho (Megadyptes antipodes) recovery plan, 2000–2005. Threatened species recovery plan 35. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Moore, P. J. 1992. Breeding biology of the Yellow-eyed Penguin Megadyptes antipodes on Campbell Island. Emu 92: 157-162.

Moore, P. J. 1999. Foraging range of the Yellow-eyed Penguin Megadyptes antipodes. . Marine Ornithology 27: 49-58.

Moore, P. J. 2001. Historical records of Yellow-eyed Penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) in southern New Zealand. Notornis 48: 145-156.

Moore, P. J., and M. D. Wakelin. 1997. Diet of the yellow-eyed penguin Megadyptes antipodes, South Island, New Zealand, 1991–1993. Marine Ornithology 25: 17–29.

Ratz, H. and Murphy, B. 1999. Effects of habitat and introduced mammalian predators on the breeding success of Yellow-eyed Penguins Megadyptes antipodes, South Island, New Zealand. Pacific Conservation Biology 5 : 16-27.

Seddon, P. J.; Davis, L. S. 1989. Nest-site selection by Yellow-eyed Penguins. Condor 91: 653-659.

Seddon, P.J., Ellenberg, U., van Heezik, Y. 2013. Yellow-eyed Penguin (Megadyptes antipodes). In: Pablo Garcia Borboroglu and P. Dee Boersma (Eds) Penguins: Natural History and Conservation. University pf Washington Press, Seattle & London. Chapter 2 : 91-112.

Stein, A., Beer, K. & Seddon, P. 2010. Sandfly Bay Revisited: A report on visitor attitudes, awareness and activities at the Sandfly Bay Wildlife Refuge, Otago Peninsula. Wildlife Management Report, University of Otago 237: 1-31.

Taylor, G. A. 2000. Action plan for seabird conservation in New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

van Heezik, Y. 1990. Seasonal, geographical and age-related variations in the diet of the Yellow-eyed Penguin (Megadyptes antipodes). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 17: 201-212.


Citation: BirdLife International. 2016. Megadyptes antipodes. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22697800A93640603. . Downloaded on 16 August 2018.
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