Map_thumbnail_large_font

Spheniscus magellanicus 

Scope: Global
Language: English
Status_ne_offStatus_dd_offStatus_lc_offStatus_nt_onStatus_vu_offStatus_en_offStatus_cr_offStatus_ew_offStatus_ex_off

Translate page into:

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Aves Sphenisciformes Spheniscidae

Scientific Name: Spheniscus magellanicus (Forster, 1781)
Common Name(s):
English Magellanic Penguin
Spanish Pingüino de Magallanes, Pingüino patagónico
Taxonomic Source(s): Turbott, E.G. 1990. Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand. Ornithological Society of New Zealand, Wellington.

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Near Threatened ver 3.1
Year Published: 2017
Date Assessed: 2016-10-01
Assessor(s): BirdLife International
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.
Justification:
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:

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:

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).


Countries occurrence:
Native:
Argentina; Brazil; Chile; Falkland Islands (Malvinas); Peru; Uruguay
Vagrant:
Antarctica; Australia; New Zealand; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Additional data:
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO):No
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO):NoEstimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2:2340000
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO):UnknownExtreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO):No
Continuing decline in number of locations:No
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations:No
Upper elevation limit (metres):85
Range Map:Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

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
Additional data:
Continuing decline of mature individuals:Unknown
Extreme fluctuations:NoPopulation severely fragmented:No
Continuing decline in subpopulations:Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations:NoAll individuals in one subpopulation:No

Habitat and Ecology [top]

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).

Systems:Terrestrial; Marine
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat:Unknown
Generation Length (years):17.5
Movement patterns:Full Migrant
Congregatory:Congregatory (and dispersive)

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s):

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 [top]

Conservation Actions:

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.

Amended [top]

Amended reason: Edits to habitat coding - some marine habitats removed and terrestrial breeding habitats added.

Classifications [top]

1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:No
3. Shrubland -> 3.4. Shrubland - Temperate
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:No
4. Grassland -> 4.3. Grassland - Subantarctic
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:No
4. Grassland -> 4.4. Grassland - Temperate
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:No
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic
suitability:Suitable season:non-breeding major importance:Yes
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.1. Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:Yes
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.1. Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)
suitability:Suitable season:non-breeding major importance:Yes
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.2. Marine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc
suitability:Suitable season:breeding major importance:No
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.2. Trade management
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.1. International level
5. Law & policy -> 5.3. Private sector standards & codes
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.1. International level

In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
  Action Recovery plan:No
  Systematic monitoring scheme:Yes
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
  Conservation sites identified:Yes, over part of 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:Yes
  Included in international legislation:No
  Subject to any international management/trade controls:No
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.3. Tourism & recreation areas
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.1. Habitat shifting & alteration
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Whole (>90%) ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.3. Temperature extremes
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 6 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.4. Storms & flooding
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Whole (>90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 7 
→ Stresses
  • 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 ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.4. Marine & freshwater aquaculture -> 2.4.2. Industrial aquaculture
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ 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 ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources -> 5.4.3. Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 6 
→ 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:Whole (>90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 7 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources -> 5.4.5. Persecution/control
♦ timing:Past, Unlikely to Return ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Past Impact 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1. Recreational activities
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ 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:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. 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 [ Vulpes vulpes ]
♦ 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 -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species [ Unspecified Rattus ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.6. Diseases of unknown cause
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

9. Pollution -> 9.1. Domestic & urban waste water -> 9.1.1. Sewage
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

9. Pollution -> 9.2. Industrial & military effluents -> 9.2.1. Oil spills
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 6 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

9. Pollution -> 9.3. Agricultural & forestry effluents -> 9.3.1. Nutrient loads
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends

Bibliography [top]

Alemany, D.; Iribarne, O. O.; Acha, E. M. 2013. Effects of a large-scale and offshore marine protected area on the demersal fish assemblage in the Southwest Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70: 123-134.

Barbosa, A.; Ortega-Mora, L. M.; García-Moreno, F. T.; Valera, F.; Palacios, M. J. 2007. Southernmost record of the Magellanic Penguin Spheniscus magellanicus in Antarctica. Marine Ornithology 35: 79.

Boersma, P. D. 2008. Penguins as marine sentinels. BioScience 58(7): 597-607.

Boersma, P. D., and Parrish, J. K. 1999. Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a limited solution. Ecological Economics 31: 287-304.

Boersma, P. D.; Frere, E.; Kane, O.; Pozzi, L. M.; Pütz, K.; Raya Rey, A.; Rebstock, G. A.; Simeone, A.; Smith, J.; Van Buren, A.; Yorio, P.; Garcia Borboroglu, P. 2013. Magellanic Penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus). In Penguins. Natural History and Conservation (Garcia Borboroglu, P. and Boersma, P. D., eds.) University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.: 233-263.

Boersma, P. D.; Garcia Borboroglu, P. Frere, E.; Kane, O.; Pozzi, L. M.; Pütz, K.; Raya Rey, A.; Rebstock, G. A.; Simeone, A.; Smith, J.; Van Buren, A., y Yorio, P. 2015. Pinguino de Magallanes (Spheniscus magellanicus). En Pinguinos. Historia Natural y Conservacion (Garcia Borboroglu, P. y Boersma, P. D., eds.) Vazquez Mazzini Editores, Buenos Aires, Argentina: 233-263.

Boersma, P. D.; Rebstock, G. A. 2009. Foraging distance affects reproductive success in Magellanic penguins. Marine Ecology Progress Series 375: 263-275.

Boersma, P. D.; Rebstock, G. A. 2014. Climate change increases reproductive failure in Magellanic penguins. PLoS ONE : 9: e85602.

Boersma, P. D., Rebstock, G. A., Frere, E., Moore, S. E. 2009. Following the fish: penguins and productivity in the South Atlantic. Ecological Monographs 79: 59-76.

Boersma, P. D.; Rebstock, G. A.; García-Borboroglu, P. 2015. Marine protection is needed for Magellanic penguins in Argentina based on long-term data. Biological Conservation 182: 197-204.

Boersma, P. D.; Redstock, G. A.; Stokes, D. L.; Majluf P. 2007. Oceans apart: conservation models for two temperate penguin species shaped by the marine environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 335: 217-225.

Boersma, P. D. Stokes, D. L., and Strange, I. J. 2002. Applying ecology to conservation: tracking breeding penguins at New Island South Reserve, Falkland Islands. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12: 63-74.

Brasso, L.B., Chiaradia, A., Polito, M.J., Raya Rey, A., Emslie, S.D. 2015. A comprehensive assessment of mercury exposure in penguin populations throughout the Southern Hemisphere: Using trophic calculations to identify sources of population-level variation. Marine Pollution Bulletin 97: 408-418.

Cardoso, L.G., Bugoni, L., Mancini, P.L., Haimovici, M. 2011. Gillnet fisheries as a major mortality factor of Magellanic penguins in wintering areas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 840-844.

Carvalho, F. M.; Castello, J. P. 2013. Argentine anchovy (Engraulis anchoita) stock identification and incipient exploitation in southern Brazil. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 41 : 820-827.

Croxall, J. P.; McInnes, S.; Prince, P. A. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds at the Falkland Islands. In: Croxall, J.P.; Evans, P.G.H.; Schreiber, R.W. (ed.), Status and conservation of the world's seabirds, pp. 271-292. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, U.K.

Ellis, S., Croxall, J.P. and Cooper, J. 1998. Penguin conservation assessment and management plan: report from the workshop held 8-9 September 1996, Cape Town, South Africa. IUCN/SSC, Apple Valley, USA.

Frere, E.; Gandini, P.; Boersma, P. D. 1996. Aspectos particulares de la biología de reproducción y tendencia poblacional del Pingüino de Magallanes Spheniscus magellanicus en la Colonia de Cabo Virgenes, Santa Cruz, Argentina. Hornero 14: 50-59.

Frias, J. E., Gil, M. N., Esteves, J. L., García Borboroglu, P., Kane, O. J., Smith, J. R., and Boersma, P. D. 2012. Mercury levels in feathers of Magellanic penguins. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64: 1265-1269.

Gandini, P. A.; Frere, E.; Pettovello, A. D.; Cedrola, P. V. 1999. Interaction between Magellanic Penguins and shrimp fisheries in Patagonia, Argentina. Condor 101(4): 783-798.

Gandini, P.; Boersma, P. D.; Frere, E.; Gandini, M.; Holik, T.; Lichstein, V. 1994. Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) affected by chronic petroleum pollution along coast of Chubut, Argentina. The Auk 111: 20-27.

García-Borboroglu, Pablo., Boersma, Dee, Reyes, Laura and Skewgar, Elizabeth. 2008. Petroleum Pollution and Penguins: Marine Conservation Tools to Reduce the Problem. In: Hofer, T.N. (ed.). Marine Pollution: New Research. Edited by Nova Science Publishers Inc. : 339-356.

García-Borboroglu, P.; Boersma, P. D.; Ruoppolo, V.; Pinho-da-Silva-Filho, R.; Corrado-Adornes, A.; Conte-Sena, D.; Velozo, R.; Myiaji-Kolesnikovas, C.; Dutra, G.; Maracini, P.; Carvalho-do-Nacimento, C.; Ramos-Júnior, V.; Barbosa, L., Serra, S. 2010. Magellanic penguin mortality in 2008 along the SW Atlantic coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 1652-1657.

García Borboroglu, P., D. Boersma, Dee, V. Ruoppolo, L. Reyes, G. Rebstock, A. Rodrigues Heredia, A. Corrado and R. Pinho da Silva A. 2006. Chronic Oil Pollution Harms Magellanic Penguins in The Southwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(2): 193–198.

García Borboroglu, P., Reyes, L., Giaccardi, M., Boersma, D. Filippo, P. Góngora, M.E. Caloni, N. Paura, y Fratto V. 2015. Area Marina Protegida Punta Tombo: Propuesta y fundamentacion para su creación. Global Penguin Society, Gobierno Provincia Chubut. 47 pags. .

Garcia-Borboroglu, P.; Reyes, L.M.; Giaccardi, M.; Paura, F.; Boersma, P.D.; Góngora, M.E.; Fratto, V. 2015. The new UNESCO Blue Patagonia Biosphere Reserve benefits seabirds in Argentina. World Seabird Congress II. 25-30 October. Cape Town, Sudáfrica.

García Borboroglu, P., Yorio, P., Boersma, P.D., Del Valle, H. and Bertellotti, M. 2002. Habitat use and breeding distribution of Magellanic penguins in northern San Jorge Gulf, Patagonia, Argentina. The Auk 119 (1): 233-239.

González-Zevallos, D. and Yorio, P. 2006. Seabird use of discards and incidental captures at the Argentine hake trawl fishery in the Golfo San Jorge, Argentina. Marine Ecology Progress Series 316: 175–183.

González-Zevallos, D., Yorio, P. and Svagelj, W.S. 2011. Seabird attendance and incidental mortality at shrimp fisheries in Golfo San Jorge, Argentina. Marine Ecology Progress Series 432: 125–135.

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

IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 7 December 2017).

Marinao, C. and Yorio, P. 2011. Use of fishery discards and incidental mortality of seabirds attending coastal shrimp trawlers in Isla Escondida, Patagonia, Argentina. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 123: 709–719.

Marinao, C., Góngora, M.E., González Zevallos, D. and Yorio, P. 2014. Factors affecting Magellanic Penguin mortality at coastal trawlers in Patagonia, Argentina. Ocean and Coastal Management 93: 100–105.

Matus, R., Blank, O. 2008. Habilitación de una estación de rehabilitación para la atención de pingüinos de Magallanes contaminados por petróleo en Punta Arenas. In: IX Congreso Chileno de Ornitología, pp. 22. Boletín Chileno de Ornithología, El Tabo, Chile.

Pozzi, L. M.; Boersma, P. D.; Pascual, M. A. 2013. Beach attendance in Magellanic penguins Spheniscus magellanicus. Ardeola 60: 279-290.

Pozzi, L. M.; García Borboroglu, P.; Boersma, P. D.; Pascual, M. A. 2015. Population regulation in Magellanic penguins: what determines changes in colony size? ? PLoS ONE 10: e0119002.

Pütz, K.; Ingham, R. J.; Smith, J. G. 2000. Satellite tracking of the winter migration of Magellanic Penguins Spheniscus magellanicus breeding in the Falkland Islands. Ibis 142: 614-622.

Pütz, K.; Ingham, R. J.; Smith, J. G. 2002. Foraging movements of Magellanic penguins Spheniscus magellanicus during the breeding season in the Falkland Islands. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12: 75-87.

Pütz, K.; Ingham, R. J.; Smith, J. G.; Croxall, J. P. 2001. Population trends, breeding success and diet composition of Gentoo, Magellanic and Rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands. Polar Biology 24: 793-807.

Pütz, K.; Raya Rey, A.; Hiriart-Bertrand, L.; Simeone, A.; Reyes-Arriagada, R.; Lüthi, B. 2016. Post-moult movements of sympatrically breeding Humboldt and Magellanic penguins in south-central Chile. Global Ecology and Conservation 7: 49-58.

Raya Rey A, CA Bost, A Schiavini, K Pütz. 2010. Foraging movements of Magellanic Penguins Spheniscus magellanicus in the Beagle Channel Argentina related to tide and tidal currents. Journal of Ornithology 151: 933-943.

Raya Rey A, Pütz K, Hiriart-Bertrand L, Simeone A, Reyes-Arriagada R, Riquelme V, Lüthi B. 2013. Foraging behaviour during chick rearing of sympatric breeding Humboldt and Magellanic penguins at Islotes Puñihuil, southern Chile. Emu 113(2): 145-153.

Raya Rey A, Pütz K, Scioscia G, Lüthi B, Schiavini A. 2012. Breeding-stage related sexual segregation in the foraging behavior of Magellanic Penguins from Martillo Island, Argentina. Emu 112: 90-96.

Raya Rey A, Rosciano N, Liljestrhöm M, Saenz Samaniego R, Schiavini A. 2014. Species-specific population trends detected for penguins, gulls and cormorants over 20 years in sub-Antarctic Fuegian Archipelago . Polar Biology 37(9): 1343-1360 DOI 10.1007/s00300-014-1526-6.

Rebstock, G. A.; Boersma, P. D.; García-Borboroglu, P. 2016. Changes in habitat use and nesting density in a declining seabird colony. Population Ecology 58: 105-119.

Rosciano NG, M Polito, A Raya Rey. 2016. Do penguins share? Evidence of foraging niche segregation between but not within two sympatric, central-place foragers. Marine Ecology Progress Series 548: 249–262.

Sanchez, R. P.; Remeslo, A.; Madirolas, A.; de Ciechomski, J. D. 1995. Distribution and abundance of post-larvae and juveniles of the Patagonian sprat, Sprattus fuegensis, and related hydrographic conditions. Fisheries Research 23: 47-81.

Schiavini, A.; Yorio, P.; Gandini, P.; Rey, A. R.; Boersma, P. D. 2005. Los pingüinos de las costas Argentinas: estado poblacional y conservación. Hornero 20(1): 5-23.

Schlatter, R. P., Paredes, E., Ulloa, J., Harris, J., Romero, A., Vasquez, J., Lizama, A., Hernández, C., Simeone, A. 2009. Mortandad de pingüino de Magallanes (Spheniscus magellanicus) en Queule, Región de la Araucanía, Chile. Boletín Chileno de Ornitología 15: 78-86.

Scolaro JA, Wilson RP, Laurenti S, Kierspel M, Gallelli H, Upton JA. 1999. Feeding preferences of the Magellanic penguin over its breeding range in Argentina. Waterbirds 22: 104–110.

Seco Pon, J.P., Copello, S., Moretinni, A., Lértora, H.P., Bruno, I., Bastida, J., Mauco, L., Favero, M. 2013. Seabird and marine-mammal attendance and by-catch in semi-industrial trawl fisheries in near-shore waters of northern Argentina. Marine and Freshwater research 64: 237-248.

Skewgar, E., Boersma, P. D., Harris, G., and Caille, G. 2007. Anchovy fishery threat to Patagonian ecosystem. Science 315: 45.

Skewgar, E.; Boersma, P. D.; Simeone, A. 2014. Winter migration of Magellanic Penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) along the southeastern Pacific. Waterbirds 37: 203-209.

Skewgar, E., Simeone, A., and Boersma, P. D. 2009. Marine reserve in Chile would benefit penguins and ecotourism. Ocean & Coastal Management . Ocean & Coastal Management 52: 487-491.

Stokes, D. L., Boersma, P. D., and Davis, L. 1998. Satellite tracking of Magellanic Penguin migration. Condor 100: 376-381.

Stokes, D. L.; Boersma, P. D.; de Casenave, J. L.; García-Borboroglu, P. 2014. Conservation of migratory Magellanic penguins requires marine zoning. Biological Conservation 170: 151-161.

Suazo, C. G., Schlatter, R. P., Arriagada, A. M., Cabezas, L. A., and Ojeda, J. 2013. Fishermen’s perceptions of interactions between seabirds and artisanal fisheries in the Chonos archipelago, Chilean Patagonia. Oryx 47: 184-189.

Tamini, L. L., Perez, J. E., Chiaramonte, G. E., and Cappozzo, H. L. 2002. Magellanic penguins Spheniscus magellanicus and fish as bycatch in the cornalito Sorgentinia incisa fishery at Puerto Quequén, Argentina. Atlantic Seabirds 4: 109-114.

Trathan, P.N., Garcia-Borboroglu, P., Boersma, D., Bost, C.A., Crawford, R.J.M., Crossin, G.T., Cuthbert, R.J., Dann, P., Davis, L.S., De La Puente, S., Ellenberg, U., Lynch, H.J., Mattern, T., Putz, K., Seddon, P.J., Trivelpiece, W. and Wienecke, B. 2014. Pollution, habitat loss, fishing, and climate change as critical threats to penguins. Conservation Biology 29(1): 31-41.

Wilson, R. P.; Scolaro, J. A.; Grémillet, D.; Kierspel, M. A. M.; Laurenti, S.; Upton, J.; Gallelli, H.; Quintana, F.; Frere, E.; Müller, G.; Straten, M. T.; Zimmer, I. 2005. How do Magellanic penguins cope with variability in their access to prey? Ecological Monographs 75: 379-401.

Woods, R. W.; Woods, A. 1997. Atlas of breeding birds of the Falkland Islands. Anthony Nelson, Oswestry, U.K.

Yorio, P. 2009. Marine protected areas, spatial scales, and governance: implications for the conservation of breeding seabirds. Conservation Letters 2: 171-178.

Yorio, P., Quintana, F., Dell’Arciprete, P. and González Zevallos, D. 2010. Spatial overlap between foraging seabirds and trawl fisheries: implications for the effectiveness of a marine protected area at Golfo San Jorge, Argentina. Bird Conservation International 20: 320-334.

Zavalaga, C. B.; Paredes, R. 2009. Records of Magellanic Penguins Spheniscus magellanicus in Peru. Marine Ornithology 37: 281-282.


Citation: BirdLife International. 2017. Spheniscus magellanicus. (amended version published in 2016) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22697822A119167908. . Downloaded on 17 December 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