Download Spheniscus mendiculus, Galapagos Penguin

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T22697825A93642773
Scope: Global
Language: English
Spheniscus mendiculus, Galapagos Penguin
Assessment by: BirdLife International
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: BirdLife International. 2016. Spheniscus mendiculus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2016: e.T22697825A93642773. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20163.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
Copyright: © 2016 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Animalia
Chordata
Aves
Sphenisciformes
Spheniscidae
Taxon Name: Spheniscus mendiculus Sundevall, 1871
Common Name(s):
• English:
• Spanish:
Galapagos Penguin, Galápagos Penguin
Pájaro bobo de Galápagos, Pingüino de las Galápagos
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. Lynx Edicions BirdLife International,
Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.
Identification Information:
53 cm. Small, black-and-white penguin. Black head with white border from behind eye, around black
ear-coverts and chin, joining up on throat. Blackish-grey upperparts. Whitish underparts with two black
bands across breast, lower band extending down flanks to thigh. Juvenile differs in wholly dark head,
greyer on side and chin, and lacks breast-band.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Endangered A2bde; B2ab(iii,v)c(iv); C2a(ii)b ver 3.1
Year Published:
2016
Date Assessed:
October 1, 2016
Justification:
Long-term monitoring indicates that this species is undergoing severe fluctuations, primarily as a result
of marine perturbations that may be becoming more extreme. These perturbations have caused an
overall very rapid population reduction over the last three generations (34 years). In addition, it has a
small population, and is restricted to a very small range, with nearly all birds breeding at just one
location. These factors qualify it as Endangered.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2012 – Endangered (EN) – http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22697825A40192584.en
2010 – Endangered (EN)
2008 – Endangered (EN)
2007 – Endangered (EN)
2005 – Endangered (EN)
2004 – Endangered (EN)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
1
2000 – Endangered (EN)
1996 – Vulnerable (VU)
1994 – Vulnerable (VU)
1988 – Near Threatened (NT)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
Spheniscus mendiculus is endemic to the Galápagos archipelago, Ecuador. It is the most northerly
species of penguin, breeding on Isabela, Fernandina, Floreana and Santiago, islands, and several
offshore islets. Approximately 95% of the Galápagos penguin population is found on Isabela and
Fernandina islands in the western part of Galápagos (Vargas et al. 2007, Boersma et al. 2013, 2015).
Isabela has the majority of penguins and has serious issues with introduced species. The main breeding
range stretches along the coast of the two westernmost islands, encompassing approximately 400 km of
coastline, where 96% of all nests are found (Steinfurth 2007). During the breeding season penguins
forage close to the shore and nest sites, while there is evidence that non-breeding adults move further
off shore and longer distances away from the colony. The marine habitat use by juvenile birds is largely
unknown (Boersma 1977, Steinfurth 2007, 2008, Vargas et al. 2005). Vagrants have been recorded from
Panama (Eisenmann 1956, Ridgely and Gwynne 1976).
Country Occurrence:
Native: Ecuador (Galápagos)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
2
Distribution Map
Spheniscus mendiculus
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
3
Population
Although the population is small, the exact size is unknown it could have been as low as 700 individuals
in 1983 or as high as 10,000 in 1971. The population in 2009 was likely between 1,800 and 4,700
individuals (Boersma et al. 2013, 2015). The 1971-1972, 1982-1983 and the 1997-1998 El Niño Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) reduced the number of penguins to half of the number seen in the early 1970s
(Boersma 1977, Mills and Vargas 1997, Boersma 1998, Ellis et al. 1998, Vargas et al. 2005, 2006, 2007,
Boersma et al. 2013, 2015). A count of 1,009 penguins in 2007 was half the number counted in 1970
(2,020) and 1971 (2,099) (Boersma et al. 2013, 2015).
Trend Justification
Declined 60% between 1970 and 2004, equating to 60% over 34 years.The ‘‘Current El Niño" scenario,
based on the frequency of El Niño events recorded in the Galápagos between 1965 and 2004, indicated
an approximately 30% probability of extinction within the next 100 years (Vargas et al. 2007).
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
Located on the equator, the Galápagos Penguin is the most northerly breeding penguin species.
Nonetheless, its distribution is highly linked to the cool and nutrient-rich oceanic waters in the western
Galápagos archipelago that allows for a high density of prey when upwelling is present (Boersma 1977,
1978, Vargas 2006, Palacios et al. 2006, Boersma et al. 2013, 2015, Karnauskas et al. 2015). It nests just
above sea level and forages close to shore and at relatively shallow depths (Mills 2000, Steinfurth et al.
2008, Boersma et al. 2013, 2015). Galápagos Penguins breed throughout the year, coinciding with
increased upwelling (Boersma 1978, Steinfurth 2007, Boersma et al. 2013, 2015). During chick rearing,
adult birds move up to 23.5 km from the nest, concentrating foraging within 1 km of the shore
(Steinfurth et al. 2007). While breeding Galápagos Penguins show high site fidelity (>80%), non-breeding
Galápagos Penguins (adults and juveniles) tend to migrate away from their colony (max. 64 km)
(Boersma 1977, Vargas et al. 2006,Steinfurth 2007). After fledging, if food is available, adults continue to
feed fledglings (Boersma et al. In Press).
The ecological relationships between penguins and their prey varies depending on upwelling frequency
and strength making predictions in population size unknown and extremely difficult to estimate. This is
due to the high variability of cool, mineral rich upwelling water.
Systems: Terrestrial, Marine
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
In recent decades, this species has been influenced primarily by the effects of ENSO on the availability of
shoaling fish (Boersma 1978, Boersma 1998, Vargas et al. 2005, 2006, 2007, Boersma et al. 2013, 2015).
In 1982-83 and 1997-98, penguin counts declined by 77% and 65%, respectively. The annual penguin
count then increased, so the population may have been relatively stable, and then increased slightly
until 2009 when the last complete count was done. Numbers were still 48% below the pre-El Niño
counts (Mills and Vargas 1997, Boersma 1998, Ellis et al. 1998, Vargas et al. 2007). Recovery from the
1982-1983 ENSO may have been slowed by the lower frequency of La Niña cold water events and above
average surface water temperatures (Boersma 1998). Also, ENSO may have a disproportionate impact
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
4
on females, which could result in a biased sex ratio, making population recovery slower (Boersma 1998,
Vargas et al. 2007). Climate change may lead to an increase in the frequency of ENSO events in the
future (Trenberth and Hoar 1996, 1997, Houghton et al. 2001, Karl and Trenberth 2003), which will also
reduce the species' resilience to other threats such as disease outbreaks, oil spills, and predation by
introduced predators (Boersma 1998, Boersma et al. 2005, Steinfurth and Merlen 2005, Travis et al.
2006, Vargas et al. 2007). Locations of upwelling vary with climate variation (Karnauskas et al. 2016).
The Galápagos cold-water pool has been intensifying and expanding northward since 1982, which may
shift the mean position of the Equatorial Undercurrent and would likely impact the penguins
(Karnauskas et al. 2015). Local fishing boats operating in inshore waters in the western part of the
archipelago are documented as incidentally drowning Galápagos penguins due to floating nets (Cepeda
and Cruz 1994). Increasing demand for bait fish could dramatically increase inshore bait fisheries with all
its associated problems (Trathan et al. 2015). Contamination from oil spills poses another severe
potential threat. Non-native predators like rats, cats, and dogs remain problems on many islands.
Predation by one individual feral cat (Felis catus) at one of the species’ breeding site resulted in adult
mortality of 49% (Steinfurth 2007). Feral cats are also vectors of parasites, such as Toxoplasma gondii,
which has recently been found in Galápagos penguins with still unknown consequences (Deem et al.
2010, Boersma et al. 2013, 2015). Mosquitoes (Culex quinquefasciatus) arrived in the Galápagos in the
1980s as a result of human actions (Whiteman et al. 2005). Since they are vectors for avian malaria, and
West Nile Virus, and penguins in the genus Spheniscus are highly susceptible to these diseases, these
insects represent a potential new threat for the Galápagos penguins (Travis et al. 2006). The
Plasmodium blood parasite has been found in Galápagos penguins (Levin et al. 2009, 2013). Many of the
above threats are potentially exacerbated by an ever-expanding human population and an increase in
tourists visiting the islands.
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
Conservation Actions Underway
The whole Galápagos penguin population is found within the Galápagos National Park and Galápagos
Marine Reserve (GMR), that is managed by the Galápagos National Park Service (GNPS) and the
authorities of the GMR. Access to breeding sites is strictly regulated, take of adults and/or eggs is
prohibited and research is only possible with special permission. Introduced predators are to be
controlled by the GNPS. On a few islands introduced predators, have been successfully eradicated.
Research projects have been encouraged by the GNPS with the aim to protect this species by
determining its marine needs, and strengthening local capacity in scientific research, practical
conservation, decision-making and sustainable management for this species (Vargas 2006, Steinfurth
2007). To create more quality breeding habitat for the penguin’s artificial nests were built in 2010 and
some are being used (Boersma pers. obs.). Research on the value of these constructed lava nests and
marine protected areas continues. To protect penguins, the President in 2016 recommended no take
(fishing) zones are to be established within the GMR at three sites where penguins breed. New marine
protected areas were recommended by the President in 2016 around Wolf and Darwin Islands and three
protected no-take areas for penguins. iGalápagos.org engages people in taking pictures of penguins to
determine penguin molting and breeding to gain more information on the penguin’s breeding cycle and
to raise awareness for the precarious population status. The Galápagos Conservancy, together with the
National Park, has developed an educational program for children in the islands.Conservation Actions
Proposed
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
5
The need for long-term monitoring of the population, improve fisheries management and increase
protection levels within the Galápagos Marine Reserve in areas of penguin breeding remain. Monitoring
and minimizing penguin mortality from alien species at breeding sites is needed. Providing constructed
nests in predator-free areas and monitoring reproductive success, or building artificial islands for
penguin breeding would likely help the population. Recommendations for conservation are detailed in
Boersma et al. 2013, 2015. In February 2016, the President of Ecuador declared three no take zones
around three penguin-foraging areas, Elizabeth Bay, Bartolomé and Sombrero Chino islands and Caleta
Iguana, some of the penguin’s main foraging sites. These no-takes zones urgently need to be
implemented.
Credits
Assessor(s):
BirdLife International
Reviewer(s):
Butchart, S. & Symes, A.
Contributor(s):
Boersma, P., Cappello, C., Hernan, V., Karnauskas, K., Merlen, G., Parker, P.,
Steinfurth, A. & Vargas, H.
Facilitators(s) and
Compiler(s):
Allinson, T, Benstead, P., Bird, J., Boersma, P., Calvert, R., Clay, R., Lascelles, B.,
Moreno, R.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
6
Bibliography
Boersma, P.D. 1977. An ecological and behavioural study of the Galápagos penguin. Living Bird 15: 4393.
Boersma, P.D. 1978. Galápagos penguins as indicators of oceanographic conditions. Science 200: 14811483.
Boersma, P.D. 1998. Population trends of the Galápagos Penguin: impacts of El Niño and La Niña. Condor
100: 245-253.
Boersma, P.D., Cappello, C.D., and Merlen, G. In press. First Observations of Post-Fledging Care in
Galápagos Penguins (Spheniscus mendiculus). Wilson Bulletin.
Boersma, P.D., Steinfurth, A., Merlen, G., Jímeñez-Uzcategui, G., Vargas, H., and P. Parker. 2013.
Galápagos Penguin (Spheniscus mendiculus). In Penguins: Natural History and Conservation (GarciaBorboroglu and Boersma eds.) University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA.: 286-302.
Boersma, P.D., Steinfurth, A., Merlen, G., Jímeñez-Uzcategui, G., Vargas, H., and P. Parker. 2015. Pingüino
de Galápagos (Spheniscus mendiculus). En Pingüinos: Historia Natural y Conservación (GarciaBorboroglu and Boersma eds.) Vazquez Mazzini Editores. Buenos Aires, Argentina: 308-328.
Boersma, P.D., Vargas, H. and Merlen, G. 2005. Living laboratory in peril. Science 308: 925.
Cepeda, F. and Cruz, J.B. 1994. Status and management of seabirds on the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador.
In: Nettleship, D.N.; Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M. (ed.), Seabirds on islands: threats, case studies and action
plans, pp. 268-278. BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K.
Deem, S.L., Merkel, J., Ballweber, L., Vargas, F.H., Cruz, M.B. and Parker, P.G. 2010. Exposure to
Toxoplasma gondii in Galapagos Penguins (Spheniscus mendiculus) and Flightless Cormorants
(Phalacrocorax harrisi) in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46(3): 1005-1011.
Eisenmann, E. 1956. Galápagos penguin in Panama. Condor 58: 74.
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.
Houghton, J., Ding, Y., Griggs, D., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C. 2001.
Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Third Assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 07 December 2016).
Karl, T.R., Trenberth, K.E. 2003. Modern global climate change. Science 302(5651): 1719-1724.
Karnauskas, K.B., Cohen, A.L., and Gove, J.M. 2016. Mitigation of Coral Reef Warming Across the Central
Pacific by the Equatorial Undercurrent: A Past and Future Divide. Scientific reports 6: 21213.
Karnauskas, K.B., Jenouvrier, S., Brown, C.W., and R. Murtugudde. 2015. Strong sea surface cooling in the
eastern equatorial Pacific and implications for Galápagos Penguin conservation. Geophysical Research
Letters 42 (15): 6432-6437, doi: 10.1002/2015GLO64456.
Levin, I. I., Outlaw, D.C., Vargas, F.H. and Parker, P.G. 2009. Plasmodium blood parasite found in
endangered Galapagos Penguins (Spheniscus mendiculus). Biological Conservation 142: 3191-3195.
Levin, II, P Zwiers, SL Deem, EA Geest, JM Higashiguchi, TA Iezhova, G Jimenez-Uzcategui, DH Kim, JP
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
7
Morton, NG Perlut, RB Renfrew, EHR Sari, G Valkiunas, PG Parker. 2013. Multiple lineages of avian
malaria parasites (Plasmodium) in the Galapagos Islands and evidence for arrival via migratory birds.
Conservation Biology 27: 1366-1377.
Mills, K.L. 2000. Diving behaviour of two Galápagos Penguins Spheniscus mendiculus. Marine
Ornithology 28: 75-79.
Mills, K.L. and Vargas, H. 1997. Current status, analysis of census methodology, and conservation of the
Galápagos penguin, Spheniscus mendiculus. Notícias de Galápagos 58: 8-30.
Palacios, D.M., Bograd, S.J., Foley, D.G. and Schwing, F.B. 2006. Oceanographic characteristics of
biological hot spots in the North Pacific: a remote sensing perspective. Deep-Sea Research II 53(3-4):
250-269.
Ridgely R.S. and J.A. Gwynne. 1976. A guide to the birds of Panama. Princeton University press.
Steinfurth, A. 2007. The marine ecology and conservation of the Galápagos penguin. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Kiel.
Steinfurth, A. and Merlen, G. 2005. Predación de gatos salvajes (Felis catus) sobre el pingüino de
Galápagos (Spheniscus mendiculus) en Caleta Iguana, Isla Isabela.
Steinfurth, A., Vargas, F.H., Wilson, R.P., Spindler, M. and Macdonald, D.W. 2008. Space use by foraging
Galápagos Penguins during chick rearing. Endangered Species Research 4: 105-112.
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.
Travis, E.K., Vargas, F.H,, Merkel, J., Gottdenker, N., Jiménez Uzcátegui, G., Miller, E. and Parker, P.G. 2006.
Hematology, serum chemistry, and disease surveillance of the Galápagos penguin (Spheniscus
mendiculus) in the Galápagos islands, Ecuador. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 42(3): 625-632.
Trenberth, K.E., Hoar, T.J. 1996. The 1990-1995 El Niño-southern oscillation event: longest on record.
Geophysical Research Letters 23: 57-60.
Trenberth K.E., Hoar, T.J. 1997. El Niño and climate change. Geophysical Research Letters 24(23): 30573060.
Vargas, F.H. 2006. The ecology of small populations of birds in a changing climate. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Oxford.
Vargas, F.H., Lacy, R.C., Johnson, P.J., Steinfurth, A., Crawford, R.J.M., Boersma, P.D. and Macdonald, D.W.
2007. Modelling the effects of El Niño on the persistence of small populations: the Galápagos Penguin as
a case study. Biological Conservation 137(1): 138-148.
Vargas, F. H., S. Harrison, S. Rea, and D. W. Macdonald. 2006. Biological effects of El Niño on the
Galápagos penguin. Biological Conservation . Biological Conservation 127: 107-114.
Vargas, H., Lougheed, C. and Snell, H. 2005. Population size and trends of the Galapagos Penguin
Spheniscus mendiculus. Ibis 147: 367-374.
Whiteman, N.K., S.J. Goodman, B.J. Sinclair, T. Walsh, A.A. Cunningham, L.D. Kramer, P.G. Parker. 2005.
Establishment of the avian disease vector Culex quinquefasciatus Say, 1823 (Diptera: Culicidae) on the
Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Ibis 147: 844-847.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
8
Citation
BirdLife International. 2016. Spheniscus mendiculus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
e.T22697825A93642773. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
9
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat
Season
Suitability
Major
Importance?
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic
Resident
Suitable
Yes
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.1. Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)
Resident
Suitable
No
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.1. Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline
Resident
Suitable
Yes
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.2. Marine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or
Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc
Resident
Suitable
Yes
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.3. Marine Intertidal - Shingle and/or Pebble
Shoreline and/or Beaches
Resident
Suitable
Yes
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.4. Marine Intertidal - Mud Flats and Salt Flats
Resident
Suitable
Yes
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.5. Marine Intertidal - Salt Marshes (Emergent
Grasses)
Resident
Suitable
Yes
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat
Timing
Scope
Severity
Impact Score
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.3.
Temperature extremes
Ongoing
Whole (>90%)
Slow, significant
declines
Medium
impact: 7
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Whole (>90%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Whole (>90%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.6. Skewed sex ratios
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Ongoing
Whole (>90%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.4. Storms
& flooding
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.5. Other
impacts
4. Transportation & service corridors -> 4.3. Shipping
lanes
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is
the target)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
Slow, significant
declines
Unknown
Slow, significant
declines
Negligible declines
Medium
impact: 7
Unknown
Medium
impact: 7
Low impact: 4
10
5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting
aquatic resources -> 5.4.3. Unintentional effects:
(subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting
aquatic resources -> 5.4.4. Unintentional effects:
(large scale) [harvest]
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1.
Recreational activities
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.3. Other
ecosystem modifications
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species
(Plasmodium relictum)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Canis
familiaris)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Felis catus)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Rattus
rattus)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.5. Viral/prion-induced diseases -> 8.5.2.
Named species
9. Pollution -> 9.1. Domestic & urban waste water ->
9.1.1. Sewage
9. Pollution -> 9.2. Industrial & military effluents ->
9.2.1. Oil spills
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Future
Whole (>90%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Future
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Negligible declines
Slow, significant
declines
Negligible declines
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Negligible declines
Rapid declines
Low impact: 5
Low impact: 5
Low impact: 4
Low impact: 5
Medium
impact: 6
Medium
impact: 6
Medium
impact: 6
Medium
impact: 6
Medium
impact: 6
Low impact: 4
Low impact: 5
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
11
Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
Action Recovery plan: No
Systematic monitoring scheme: No
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: Yes
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: Yes
Subject to any international management/trade controls: No
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
2. Land/water management -> 2.2. Invasive/problematic species control
3. Species management -> 3.2. Species recovery
4. Education & awareness -> 4.2. Training
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.2. National level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.1. International level
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
12
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²): 90
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 15500
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Number of Locations: 4
Continuing decline in number of locations: No
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No
Upper elevation limit (m): 40
Population
Number of mature individuals: 1200
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: Yes
Population severely fragmented: No
No. of subpopulations: 1
Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: Unknown
All individuals in one subpopulation: Yes
No. of individuals in largest subpopulation: 100
Habitats and Ecology
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes
Generation Length (years): 11.2
Movement patterns: Not a Migrant
Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus mendiculus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697825A93642773.en
13
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™