Bird Conservation International r Fo Ruddy-headed Goose Chloephaga rubidiceps: former plague and present protected species on the edge of extinction Journal: Manuscript Type: Date Submitted by the Author: BCI-MP-2015-0102.R2 Main Paper 22-Feb-2016 vi Complete List of Authors: Re Manuscript ID Bird Conservation International ew Cossa, Natalia; Universidad de Buenos Aires, Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución - Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires (IEGEBA) Fasola, Laura; Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC) Roesler, Ignacio; Universidad de Buenos Aires, Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución - Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires (IEGEBA) Reboreda, Juan; Universidad de Buenos Aires, Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución - Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires (IEGEBA) On Keywords: population trends, Ruddy-headed Goose, <i>Chloephaga rubidiceps</i> ly Cambridge University Press Page 1 of 36 Bird Conservation International 1 Ruddy-headed Goose Chloephaga rubidiceps: former plague 2 and present protected species on the edge of extinction 3 4 Natalia A. Cossa1*, Laura Fasola2, Ignacio Roesler1 and Juan Carlos Reboreda1. 5 1 6 Buenos Aires (IEGEBA) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), 7 Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Pabellón II Ciudad 8 Universitaria, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (C1428EGA), Argentina. 9 2 Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución - Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de r Fo Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET); Bernardo Houssay 200, Ushuaia (V9410CAB), Tierra del Fuego. 11 Argentina. 12 *Author for correspondence; e-mail: [email protected] vi 13 ew 14 Running head: Population decline of continental Ruddy-headed Goose 15 17 Author head: N. Cossa et al. ly On 16 Re 10 18 19 Keywords: Chloephaga rubidiceps, population trends, Ruddy-headed Goose 20 Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International Summary 22 The Ruddy-headed Goose has two separate and genetically distinct populations, one 23 sedentary that inhabits the Malvinas/Falklands Islands and another migratory which inhabits 24 continental southern South America. New information suggests that this population should be 25 considered as different evolutionary significant units. The latter population breeds in Austral 26 Patagonia (Argentina and Chile) and overwinters in Central Argentina. It was a very common 27 species in Austral Magellanic steppe grasslands before 1931, when it was declared an 28 “agriculture pest” by the Argentinian government, together with other sheldgeese species. 29 Since then, the continental Ruddy-headed Goose population has declined becoming one of 30 the scarcest species in Austral Magellanic steppe. Nowadays, its population is categorized as 31 critically endangered in Argentina and endangered in Chile. We present data of six road 32 censuses conducted in the breeding areas of Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego provinces, 33 Argentina, during 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 (>4600 km, 70 days) and review population 34 trends of the Ruddy-headed Goose since early 1900s. We counted a maximum of 19 35 individuals in Santa Cruz and 49 in Tierra del Fuego throughout the breeding season. 36 Literature reviewed indicates that during the last 40 years the size of continental population 37 of Ruddy-headed Goose has been less than 800 individuals, approximately 10% of the 38 estimated population in 1900s. This decline matches with the period following the application 39 of control techniques and the introduction of exotic predator species in the breeding grounds 40 of Tierra del Fuego. We review and discuss formerly proposed conservation actions that may 41 have a positive and rapid effect on sheldgeese numbers recovery. We suggest that the 42 continental population of Ruddy-headed Goose should be precautionary treated as a CR 43 group until genetic studies determine whether we are in the presence of a new ‘critically 44 endangered’ species. r Fo 21 ew vi Re ly On 45 Cambridge University Press Page 2 of 36 Page 3 of 36 Bird Conservation International Resumen 47 El Cauquén Colorado presenta dos poblaciones separadas y distintas genéticamente, una 48 sedentaria que habita las Islas Malvinas/Falklands y otra migratoria que habita la zona 49 continental sur de Sudamérica. Nueva información sugiere que dichos grupos deben ser 50 considerados como unidades evolutivas significativas distintas. La población continental se 51 reproduce en Patagonia Austral (Argentina y Chile) y pasa el invierno en la zona central de 52 Argentina. Fue una especie muy común en la estepa magallánica antes de 1931, año en el que 53 fue declarada “plaga agrícola” por el gobierno argentino junto a otras especies de cauquenes. 54 Desde entonces, la población continental del Cauquén Colorado declinó, convirtiéndose en 55 una de las especies más raras de la estepa magallánica. Hoy en día, su población está 56 categorizada como ‘en peligro crítico’ en Argentina y ‘en peligro’ en Chile. Se presentan 57 resultados de seis censos terrestres realizados durante las temporadas reproductivas 2013- 58 2014 y 2014-2015 en las provincias de Santa Cruz y Tierra del Fuego, Argentina (>4600 km, 59 70 días) y una revisión de la tendencia poblacional del Cauquén Colorado desde principios de 60 1900. Contamos un máximo de 19 individuos en Santa Cruz y 49 individuos en Tierra del 61 Fuego durante la temporada reproductiva. La literatura revisada indica que durante los 62 últimos 40 años el tamaño de la población continental del Cauquén Colorado ha sido de 63 menos de 800 individuos, aproximadamente un 10% de la población estimada en el 1900. 64 Dicha declinación coincide con el período posterior a la aplicación de técnicas de control y a 65 la introducción de predadores exóticos en el área reproductiva de Tierra del Fuego. 66 Revisamos y discutimos las acciones de conservación propuestas anteriormente que puedan 67 tener un efecto positivo y rápido en la recuperación de los cauquenes. Sugerimos que la 68 población continental del Cauquén Colorado sea tratada precautoriamente como ‘en peligro 69 crítico’ hasta que los estudios genéticos determinen si estamos en presencia de una nueva 70 especie "en peligro crítico". r Fo 46 ew vi Re ly On Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International Introduction 72 The Ruddy-headed Goose C. rubidiceps is the smallest of the five South American 73 sheldgeese (Chloephaga spp.) (Casares 1934, Rumboll 1975). It has two separate 74 populations, one sedentary that inhabits the Malvinas/Falklands Islands and another 75 migratory which inhabits continental southern South America (Canevari 1996, Blanco et al. 76 2003). The latter population breeds in Austral Patagonia (Argentina and Chile) and 77 overwinters in Southern Buenos Aires province (Central Argentina). Malvinas/Falkland 78 Islands and continental populations are genetically distinct, reciprocally monophyletic and do 79 not share mtDNA haplotypes (Bulgarella et al. 2013). These differences indicate that these 80 populations should be considered as different evolutionary significant units (Bulgarella et al. 81 2013). New evidence based on nuclear DNA reinforces this result and provides extra 82 evidence (Kopuchian pers. comm.). vi Re 83 r Fo 71 The Ruddy-headed Goose is generally associated to the Upland Goose C. picta and ew the Ashy-headed Goose C. poliocephala (Carboneras 1992). The three species were once 85 considered harmful to agriculture and declared “agriculture pests” by the Argentinian 86 government in 1931 (Pergolani de Costa 1955). This promoted massive destruction of eggs at 87 the breeding grounds, while hunting and the use of aircrafts to move them away from crops 88 were common control techniques in the wintering areas (Delacour 1954, Weller 1975, Blanco 89 et al. 2003, Petracci et al. 2008). Since then, continental Ruddy-headed Geese population, 90 that were very common in Austral Magellanic steppe grasslands before 1950 (Crawshay 91 1907, Blaauw 1916, Casares 1934, Olrog 1948), became extremely scarce. The increase of 92 populations of introduced predators, like the South American Grey Fox Pseudalopex griseus 93 and the American Mink Neovison vison, in the breeding grounds of Tierra del Fuego, 94 combined with the disappearance of tall grasses due to overgrazing by sheep and cows, could 95 also have facilitated the predation of eggs, chicks and adults. ly On 84 Cambridge University Press Page 4 of 36 Page 5 of 36 96 Bird Conservation International Whilst the Malvinas/Falklands population appears to be of least concern (i.e. 40000 - 97 80000 mature individuals; Blanco et al. 2003, Wetlands International 2015), the maximum 98 size recorded for the genetically distinct continental population during the last 15 years has 99 been 779 adults (reproductive season year 2000, Madsen et al. 2003). As a result, this 100 population has been categorized as critically endangered in Argentina (AA/AOP and SAyDS 101 2008), endangered in Chile (CONAMA 2009), and was declared “Natural Monument” in 102 Buenos Aires and Santa Cruz provinces (Argentina). In this work we present the results of recent censuses and a multi-source compilation r Fo 103 of population data of the continental population of the Ruddy-headed Goose in order to 105 encourage an urgent evaluation of the worrying conservation situation of the species. Finally, 106 we go across the different hypothesis about threats and the management actions that have 107 been suggested to counteract them and describe how these unattended negative effects have 108 changed with time. ew 109 vi Re 104 Methods 111 Study site 112 The study was conducted in the breeding areas of continental Ruddy-headed Goose 113 population in Argentina, in southern Santa Cruz Province (below latitude 51º 38’S) and the 114 northern part of the main Island of Tierra del Fuego Province (above latitude 54º 07’ S). 115 These areas are included in the Magellanic steppe, dominated by the tussock grasslands, 116 mainly Festuca gracillima, associated with bushy vegetation in varying percentages. 117 Lowland parts are associated to shallow lakes, streams or temporary flooded areas called 118 ‘vegas’ or ‘mallines’ where other grasses (Deschampsia antarctica, Hordeum halophilum, 119 Festuca magellanica) as well as rushes and Carex spp. dominate (Madsen et al. 2003, 120 Petracci et al. 2014). ly On 110 Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International 121 Censuses 123 We conducted six censuses using the line transect census technique (Bibby et al. 1992). For 124 each census, we conducted road transects following main and secondary roads in a vehicle at 125 40-60 km/h (Figure 1). We recorded the number of Ruddy-headed Goose observed in a strip 126 of 500 m at both sides of the road. Observations were made using 10x42 and 8x32 binoculars, 127 and a 20-60x spotting scope. We censed along 1080 km in November-December 2013 (Santa 128 Cruz and Tierra del Fuego, 18 days), 720 km in January-February 2014 (Tierra del Fuego, 9 129 days), 465 km in April-May 2014 (Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego, 9 days), 728 km in 130 October 2014 (Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego, 10 days), 1160 km in January-February 2015 131 (Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego, 11 days) and 464 km in April-May 2015 (Santa Cruz and 132 Tierra del Fuego, 13 days). Even though all censuses were planned along the same transects, 133 it was not possible to maintain survey effort across censuses due to strong road dependence 134 on climate conditions (melting snow and rain). r Fo 122 ew vi Re 135 On Bibliographic review 137 We sought for Ruddy-headed Goose information on censuses or sightings in all available 138 publications including “grey literature” (see Supplementary material). We included 139 information collected between 1907 (year of the first publication with data about populations 140 of the Ruddy-headed Goose) and 2014, published in 12 scientific papers, eight technical 141 reports and one book. We also included information from two conversations with experts. We 142 extracted information on the date of the survey/sighting, type of survey methodology when 143 reported (systematic census or isolated sighting), region and number of Ruddy-headed Goose 144 adults, goslings or nests reported. From Imberti et al. 2007 we only extracted information 145 from “Estancia Cóndor” since counts were not simultaneous at the different locations. Also, ly 136 Cambridge University Press Page 6 of 36 Page 7 of 36 Bird Conservation International we extracted recommended management actions from 17 publications and grouped them into 147 10 different categories involving ‘habitat restoration’, ‘creation of protected areas’, ‘hunting 148 control’, ‘outreach’, ‘promotion of scientific studies’, ‘cooperation policies’, ‘ex situ 149 reproduction’, ‘control of invasive species’, ‘enclosures at the breeding areas’ and ‘economic 150 compensation', and indicated their level of implementation. We excluded actions that were 151 out of date. ‘Region’ information was classified as wintering grounds (Buenos Aires and 152 north of Rio Negro provinces, continental Argentina), reproductive grounds of Santa Cruz 153 province (continental Argentina), reproductive grounds of Magallanes (continental Chile), 154 reproductive grounds of Tierra del Fuego province (insular Argentina), and reproductive 155 grounds of Tierra del Fuego Chile (insular Chile). Periods after 1970 were divided into 156 decades. Since available data sets were the result of different or undefined survey 157 methodologies and isolated records, for the evaluation of population trends we only used the 158 maximum number of individuals recorded. r Fo 146 ew vi Re 159 Results 161 Censuses 162 We counted 24 Ruddy-headed Goose (5 in Santa Cruz and 19 in Tierra del Fuego) in 163 November-December 2013, 37 in Tierra del Fuego in January-February 2014, 36 (9 in Santa 164 Cruz and 27 in Tierra del Fuego) in April-May 2014, 26 (6 in Santa Cruz and 20 in Tierra del 165 Fuego) in October 2014, 56 (16 in Santa Cruz and 40 in Tierra del Fuego) in January- 166 February 2015 and 54 (5 in Santa Cruz and 49 in Tierra del Fuego) in April-May 2015. In 167 January-February 2015 census, we sighted a couple with three goslings at 25 km west from 168 Río Grande city, Tierra del Fuego. ly On 160 169 170 Bibliographic review Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International 171 Table 1 shows the maximum numbers of Ruddy-headed Goose reported since 1907. Since 172 2000, the maximum count at the wintering grounds in Argentina was 386 individuals, while 173 at the breeding grounds the counts were 122 individuals in Chile, 34 in Santa Cruz and 49 in 174 Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. The most recommended management actions were ‘outreach’ and ‘promotion of 176 scientific studies’ (Table 2). For the reproductive grounds, most of the authors highlighted the 177 importance of the ‘control of invasive species’, whilst ‘hunting control’ was the most 178 recommended conservation practice for the wintering grounds. Among the 10 conservation 179 practices listed, one can be classified as “implemented”, five as “partially implemented” and 180 four as “not implemented”. r Fo 175 Re 181 Discussion 183 During the last 40 years, the continental population of Ruddy-headed Goose has been 184 sustained with less than 800 individuals and since early 1900s it has decline 90%. This 185 reduction in population size was associated with the application of control techniques after 186 sheldgeese were declared a plague. Egg destruction was particularly important in Tierra del 187 Fuego, where 250,000 and 150,000 Chloephaga spp. and other anatids’ eggs were destroyed 188 in 1947 and 1972-1973 respectively (Delacour 1954, Weller 1975). Because the Ruddy- 189 headed Goose is the only migratory sheldgeese that reproduces exclusively in the magellanic 190 steppe of Austral Patagonia (the Upland Goose and the Ashy-headed Goose reproduce in a 191 wider Patagonian area, BirdLife International 2015), the effect of egg destruction likely 192 affected this species more than other two species. Once the declining situation prompted the 193 protection of the Ruddy-headed Goose, 1983 in Argentina, 1996 in Chile (Blanco et al. 2001) 194 and former actions were banned, new threats appeared. In 1951 the South American Grey 195 Fox was introduced to Tierra del Fuego for European Rabbit control (Jaksic & Yañez 1983). ew vi 182 ly On Cambridge University Press Page 8 of 36 Page 9 of 36 Bird Conservation International This predator faced a habitat with a fading rabbit population after myxomatosis virus 197 introduction. Additionally, during 1930–1950, American Mink was imported to southern 198 Chile and Argentina (Jaksic et al. 2002). Wild mink were expanding in Tierra del Fuego in 199 the early 1960’s, product of accidental escapes and intentional releases from fur farms 200 (Valenzuela et al. 2014). Both foxes and mink prey on sheldgeese in the Fuegian Archipelago 201 (Atalah et al. 1980, Ibarra 2009). These predators show occupancy levels over 0.9 in 202 Northern Tierra del Fuego and artificial nest trials show high levels of predation pressure, 203 mostly attributable to South American Grey Fox (Cossa, Fasola, Roesler, Reboreda 204 unpublished data). These facts likely explain why Ruddy-headed Goose population has not 205 recovered since the species has been protected. r Fo 196 Re The recent sighting of a couple with goslings is the first successful reproductive event 207 recorded since 1993 in the Argentinian part of the Tierra del Fuego Island (Benegas 1997, in 208 Petracci et al. 2014). Since 1970’s, the maximum counts in this area do not exceed 50 209 individuals, contrasting with those before 1950 that were over 1000 individuals. Similarly, 210 there has been a reduction in the number of Ruddy-headed Geese observed in the Chilean 211 part of Tierra del Fuego (407 in the 1990’s, 122 in the 2000’s and 84 in the 2010’s, table 1). 212 Although reproduction continues in the continent both in Argentina and Chile (P. Irazoqui 213 and R. Matus pers. comm.), the numbers since the 1990s are extremely low for Santa Cruz 214 Province (below 40 individuals) and a decreasing trend has been reported for the continental 215 Magallanes Province in Chile (R. Matus pers. comm.). ew vi 206 ly On 216 217 Management actions 218 The only action that we considered as already implemented was ‘outreach’, as several 219 educational activities were organized by different institutions (Governmental and Non- 220 Governmental Organizations). Although some areas of the Ruddy-headed Goose distribution Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International are protected, we consider the ‘creation of protected areas’ action class as “partially 222 implemented” with most of the protected areas focused on the breeding distribution of the 223 species. In San Juan River, Magallanes, Chile, the “Área de Protección para el Canquén 224 Colorado (Area of protection for the Ruddy-headed Goose)” was created in 2003 to protect 225 its breeding habitat. In Argentina, there are two reserves in Santa Cruz Province that are 226 frequently used by the Ruddy-headed Goose: “Reserva Costera Urbana de Río Gallegos (Río 227 Gallegos Urban Coastal Reserve)” and “Reserva Provincial Cabo Vírgenes (Cabo Vírgenes 228 Provincial Reserve)”, where they breed occasionally. There are not protected areas either in 229 Tierra del Fuego Island (both Argentinian and Chilean portion) or in the winter grounds. 230 Another “partially implemented” actions are ‘enclosures at the breeding areas’. There are two 231 areas managed in this way in Chile (Area of protection for the Ruddy-headed Goose in San 232 Juan River and Leñadura Center of Rehabilitation) where fences protect the sheldgeese from 233 foxes and dogs. Regarding hunting control, even though in Argentina hunt is banned for all 234 sheldgeese (Resolution n° 551/2011 SAyDS), illegal recreational hunting still occurs in 235 Buenos Aires province (Aves Argentinas pers. comm.). Thus, we consider ‘hunting control’ 236 as “partially implemented” because regulation of this resolution requires improvement and 237 reinforcement. In Chile, only the hunt of Ruddy-headed Goose is prohibited, but due to its 238 resemblance to the female of the Upland Goose, the former is usually affected as result of 239 misidentification. In Argentina, there had been several organizations involved in sheldgeese 240 censuses and studies, both governmental (INTA, SAyDS-National Wildlife Agency and 241 OPDS-Buenos Aires Province wildlife agency, CONICET-including the present work) and 242 non-governmental (Wetlands International, Aves Argentinas/AOP, Asociación Ambiente 243 Sur). However, we considered the action ‘promotion of scientific studies’ as “partially 244 implemented” because not all the important aspects of sheldgeese ecology have been covered 245 yet (e.g. migratory routes, intra-seasonal movements). Also, in the management and r Fo 221 ew vi Re ly On Cambridge University Press Page 10 of 36 Page 11 of 36 Bird Conservation International 246 conservation of small-population species, it is of major concern to study the genetic 247 variability of the population and determine parameters such as observed and expected 248 heterozygosities and inbreeding coefficients (Hedrick & Steven Kalinowski 2000, 249 Witzenberger & Hochkirch 2011) as an indirect indicator of lack of recruitment and small 250 emigration or immigration among different sub-populations. 251 Regarding to ‘cooperation policies’, as Ruddy-headed Goose mainland population is listed in the Appendixes I and II of the “Convention on the Conservation of Migratory 253 Species of Wild Animals”, Argentina and Chile signed a Memorandum of Understanding on 254 the conservation of this specie, which became effective in 2006. In 2009, both countries 255 drawn up the Binational Action Plan for Ruddy-headed Goose Conservation in Chile and 256 Argentina, which was signed in 2013. However, we consider the action might be taken as 257 “partially implemented” because concerted actions between the two signatory countries were 258 never fully implemented. Finally, ‘control of invasive species’, ‘habitat restoration’, 259 ‘economic compensation’ and ‘ex situ reproduction’ are recommended management actions 260 that were never implemented. ew vi Re On 261 r Fo 252 Regional assessment of Ruddy-headed Goose conservation status 263 The IUCN (IUCN 2012) suggests conducting a regional categorization assessment for species 264 to evaluate the situation of populations or groups that are not representative of the whole 265 species. The regional guidelines assessment (Step 3) also leaded us to consider very 266 important to conduct an evaluation, as there was strong evidence to consider the continental 267 population independent and genetically distinct from the larger Malvinas/Falkland Islands 268 population (Bulgarella et al. 2013, C. Kopuchian pers. comm.), so propagule migration 269 capable of rescuing continental population is not expected. According to the criteria of 270 population size, the continental population of Ruddy-headed Goose qualifies as ‘Endangered’ ly 262 Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International (EN C.1 or EN C.2.a.i) as the population holds between 250 and 2500 individuals (EN C), 272 and shows a continuing decline observed, projected or inferred (EN C.2) with a structure (EN 273 C.2a) in the form of no subpopulations estimated to hold more than 250 mature individuals 274 (EN C.2i). Nevertheless, the present low numbers (c. 380) are much closer to the lower limit 275 of EN category. Although there is no quantitative analysis yet, we consider that with the 276 continuing deterioration of environmental conditions and unstopped direct threats, this 277 population might have a high probability of extinction in the wild (at least 50% within 10 278 years or three generations, CR E), and this will cause the continental population numbers to 279 cross the threshold between the EN (Endangered) and CR (Critically endangered) categories 280 in the short term. So, we suggest that the continental population of Ruddy-headed Goose 281 should be precautionary categorized as CR. Re 282 r Fo 271 Our regional categorization assessment was prompted by the urgent situation of the vi continental population and the new evidence showing that it is unlikely that the 284 Malvinas/Falklands population can rescue the continental group. More importantly, 285 Bulgarella et al. (2013) results indicate that we might be in the presence of two distinct 286 species, and if this were the case, the continental species would be facing a very high risk of 287 extinction. For this reason we consider that the continental group should be precautionary 288 treated as a separate conservation unit matching the CR status criteria and deserving global 289 attention to overcome the effects that prevent its recovery. ew 283 ly On 290 291 Information gaps and required management actions 292 There are still information gaps to fill in order to carry out a conservation plan for the Ruddy- 293 headed Goose. First, it is very important to study the migratory route to improve our 294 knowledge of the network of direct and indirect threats across the species distribution range. 295 This study also would provide information about unknown wintering and breeding sites as Cambridge University Press Page 12 of 36 Page 13 of 36 Bird Conservation International 296 there are inconsistencies between wintering and breeding numbers. Secondly, studies 297 focusing sheldgeese movements within wintering and breeding grounds would help to set up 298 strategies that include sensitive areas. Among the actions that may have a positive and rapid effect on sheldgeese numbers 300 recovery, we highlight those that favor the restoration of reproductive conditions and those 301 that increase survivorship of the reproductive population: restoration of breeding sites by 302 controlling introduced carnivores, preserving protective vegetation cover and preventing 303 sheldgeese hunting. With these actions unattended, the persistence of the continental 304 population of Ruddy-headed Goose relies on the present number of adults and thus, the group 305 is susceptible to environmental and demographic stochasticity (Frankham et al. 2002). Re 306 r Fo 299 Even when the information about the species and its threats is nowadays insufficient, the urgent situation of the continental population of Ruddy-headed Goose deserves an 308 adaptive conservation program allowing to incorporate the information gathered during the 309 process (Salafsky et al. 2001). The conservation plan should involve a surveillance method of 310 the Ruddy-headed Goose located in wintering and breeding grounds as an urgent mitigation 311 action until direct threats are approached. Monitoring activities both at the breeding and 312 wintering grounds should continue but protocols (schedule and design) need to be redefined 313 and improved while techniques should be standardized, as largely used single visit designs 314 can lead to important inconsistencies regarding maximum numbers. ew ly On 315 vi 307 A hand-raising program could also be conducted by retrieving eggs from wild pairs 316 and releasing young individuals, which will force pairs to a second nest attempt and thus 317 maximizing the recruitment per season per wild pair. Economic costs of such a breeding 318 program would be in a magnitude order smaller than the creation of enclosure large enough 319 to allow a high recruitment. Nowadays, there are similar initiatives in Chile. Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International Finally, while this revision seeks to complete an overview of the conservation 321 situation of one of the most endangered species of Patagonian waterfowl we consider that the 322 strategy and actions applied to attend the urgent situation of the Ruddy-headed Goose will 323 immediately have a positive effect on Upland and Ashy-headed Goose. Moreover, they will 324 be also positive for other bird species that also breed in the northern portion of Tierra del 325 Fuego, as several authors have pointed out the important reduction of reproductive events in 326 this particular area (Petracci et al. 2013b, Petracci et al. 2014). Also, the species share threats 327 with other two endangered species from Austral Patagonia (Podiceps gallardoi Roesler et al. 328 2012 and Rallus antarcticus Barnett et al. 2014). We foresee that the implementation of a 329 regional control program for invasive carnivores will have a positive impact on Austral 330 Patagonia biodiversity conservation. r Fo 320 vi Re 331 Acknowledgements 333 We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments that improved a 334 previous version of this manuscript. We also thank G. Montero, S. Imberti, P. Irazoqui and E. 335 Tiberi from Asociación Ambiente Sur; M. L. Carranza, M. L. Flotron, E. Curto and D. 336 Valenzuela from Dirección General de Áreas Protegidas y Biodiversidad of Tierra del Fuego; 337 Consejo Agrario Provincial of Santa Cruz; T. Barreto and A. Ramos from Museo Municipal 338 de Río Grande Virginia Choquintel; S. Alvarado from Agencia Ambiental Municipal de Río 339 Gallegos; J. L Hormaechea, G. Connon and L. Barbero from Estación Astronómica Río 340 Grande; A. Gorosabel from Jardín Zoológico de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires; M. L. Marcías; 341 E. Villanova and J. Barría from Estancia Sara; E. O´Birne from Estancia Cullen; I. Menéndez 342 Behety, P. and P. Chevallier Boutel from Estancia María Behety; I. Roberts and M. Poliner 343 from Estancia Flamencos; C. Amorón, S. Cadierno and M. Amorós from Estancia Cóndor; 344 and family Pietrek for support during fieldwork. We thank R. Matus, C. Kopuchian, P. ew 332 ly On Cambridge University Press Page 14 of 36 Page 15 of 36 Bird Conservation International 345 Petracci and S. Martín for provide us with valuable information and J. S. Verón for support. 346 We also thank Idea Wild for donation of equipment. 347 348 Financial support 349 The work was supported by Neotropical Grassland Conservancy-NGC (N.C.); Conservation, 350 Research and Education Opportunities International-CREOi (N.C.); and Becas Conservar la 351 Argentina-Aves Argentinas/AOP (L.F.). r Fo 352 353 References 354 AA/AOP and SAyDS (2008) Categorización de las aves de la Argentina según su estado de Re conservación. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Aves Argentinas /AOP and Secretaría de 356 Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable. vi 355 Atalah, A. G., Sielfeld, W. and Venegas, C. (1980) Antecedentes sobre el nicho trófico de 358 Canis griseus Gray 1836, en Tierra del Fuego. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia 359 11: 259–271. On 360 ew 357 Barnett, J. M., Imberti, S. and Roesler, I. (2014) Distribution and habitat use of the Austral Rail Rallus antarcticus and perspectives on its conservation. Bird Conservation 362 International 24: 114–125. 363 364 365 366 367 368 ly 361 Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D. and Hill, D. A. (1992). Bird census techniques. London, UK: Academic Press. BirdLife International (2015) Chloephaga rubidiceps. IUCN Red List for birds. http://www.birdlife.org. (accessed on 26 January 2015). Blaauw, F. B. (1916) Field notes on some of the Waterfowl of the Argentine Republic, Chile and Tierra del Fuego. Ibis 58: 478–492. Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International 369 Blanco, D. E., Matus, R., Blank, O., Benegas, L., Goldfeder, S. et al. (2001) Manual para la 370 conservación del cauquén (Canquén) colorado en Argentina y Chile. Buenos Aires, 371 Argentina: Wetlands International. 372 Blanco, D. E., Zalba, S. M., Belenguer, C. J., Pugnali, G. and Rodríguez Goñi, H. (2003) 373 Status and conservation of the Ruddy-headed Goose Chloephaga rubidiceps Sclater 374 (Aves, Anatidae) in its wintering ground (Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina). 375 Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 76: 47–55. Blanco, D. E. and de la Balze, V. M. (2006) Harvest of migratory geese (Chloephaga spp.) in r Fo 376 Argentina: an overview of the present situation. Pp. 870-873 in G. C. Boere, C. A. 378 Galbraith and D. A. Stroud, eds. Waterbirds around the world: a global overview of 379 the conservation, management and research of the world´s waterbird flyways, 380 Edinburg, UK: The Stationery Office. vi Re 377 Blanco, D. E., de la Balze, V. M. and López-Lanús, B. (2008) Situación actual y propuesta 382 de acciones para la conservación del Cauquén Colorado y otras especies de 383 cauquenes o “avutardas” en el sur de la provincia de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires, 384 Argentina: Wetlands International / Fundación Humedales. On 385 ew 381 Blanco, D. E., Matus, R., de la Balze, V. M., Blank, O., Mac-Lean, D. et al. (2009) El Cauquén colorado (Chloephaga rubidiceps) en peligro de extinción: Estatus 387 poblacional y acciones de conservación en Argentina y Chile. Buenos Aires, 388 Argentina: Wetlands International. 389 ly 386 Bulgarella, M., Kopuchian, C., Di Giacomo, A. S., Matus, R., Blank, O., Wilson, R. E. and 390 McCracken, K. G. (2013) Molecular phylogeny of the South American sheldgeese 391 with implications for conservation of Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and continental 392 populations of the Ruddy-headed Goose Chloephaga rubidiceps and Upland Goose C. 393 picta. Bird Conservation International 24: 59–71. Cambridge University Press Page 16 of 36 Page 17 of 36 Bird Conservation International 394 Canevari, P. (1996) The Austral Geese (Chloephaga spp.) of southern Argentina and Chile: a 395 review of its current status. Gibier Faune Sauvage, Game Wildl. 13: 335–366. 396 Carboneras, C. (1992) Family Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans). Pp. 536-628 in I. del 397 Hoyo, A. Helliot and J. Sargatal, eds.: Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 1, 398 Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions. 399 Casares, J. (1934) Palmípedos argentinos. Hornero 5: 289–306. 400 CONAMA (2009) Especies Amenazadas de Chile. Santiago, Chile: Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente, Departamento de Protección de los Recursos Naturales. r Fo 401 402 Crawshay, R. (1907) The Birds of Tierra del Fuego. London, UK: Bernard Quaritch. 403 De la Balze, V. M. and Blanco, D. E. (2002) El cauquén Colorado (Chloephaga rubidiceps): Re una especie amenazada por la caza de avutardas. Pp. 119-122 in: D. E. Blanco, J. 405 Beltrán and V. de la Balze, eds. Primer Taller sobre Caza de Aves Acuáticas; hacia 406 una estrategia para el uso sustentable de los recursos de los humedales, Buenos 407 Aires, Argentina: Wetlands International. ew vi 404 Delacour, J. (1954) The waterfowl of the world. Vol. 1, London, UK: Country Life Ltd. 409 Frankham, R., Briscoe, D. A and Ballou, J. D. (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics, 410 412 413 414 415 Grant, C. H. B. (1911) IX. List of Birds collected in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Southern Brazil, with Field-notes. Ibis 53: 317–350. ly 411 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. On 408 Hedrick, P. W. and Kalinowski, S. T. (2000) Inbreeding depression in conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 139–162. Ibarra, J. T., Fasola, L., Macdonald, D. W., Rozzi, R. and Bonacic, C. (2009) Invasive 416 American mink Mustela vison in wetlands of the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, 417 southern Chile: what are they eating? Oryx 43: 87–90. Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International 418 Imberti, S., Amorós, C. D. and Cadierno, S. A. (2007) Presencia y nidificación del Cauquén 419 Colorado Chloephaga rubidiceps en la provincia de Santa Cruz, Argentina. Hornero 420 22: 17–22. 421 422 423 IUCN (2012) Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Jaksic, F. M. and Yáñez, J. L. (1983) Rabbit and fox introduction in Tierra del Fuego: History and assessment of the attempts at biological control of the rabbit infestation. 425 Biological Conservation 26: 367–74. 426 427 Jaksic, F. M., Iriarte, J. A., Jiménez, J. E. and Martínez, D. R. (2002) Invaders without frontiers: cross-border invasions of exotic mammals. Biological Invasions 4: 157–173. Re 428 r Fo 424 Madsen, J., Matus, R., Blank, O., Benegas, L., Mateazzi, G. and Blanco, D. E. (2003) Populations status of the Ruddy-headed Goose (Chloephaga rubidiceps) in Tierra del 430 Fuego and mainland Patagonia (Chile and Argentina). Ornitología Neotropical 14: 431 15–28. 434 Mallinson, J. J. (1995) Conservation breeding programmes: an important ingredient for species survival. Biodiversity & Conservation 4: 617–635. On 433 ew 432 vi 429 Martin, S. I., Tracanna, N. A. and Summers, R. (1986) Distribution and habitat use by Sheldgeese populations wintering in Buenos Aires province, Argentina. Wildfowl 37: 436 55–62. 437 438 439 440 ly 435 Moritz, C. (1994) Defining ‘evolutionarily significant units’ for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 9: 373-375. Olrog, C. C. (1948) Observaciones sobre la avifauna de Tierra del Fuego y Chile. Acta Zoologica Lilloana 5: 437–531. 441 Pedrana, J., Bernad, L., Maceira, N. O., and Isacch, J. P. (2014) Human–Sheldgeese conflict 442 in agricultural landscapes: Effects of environmental and anthropogenic predictors on Cambridge University Press Page 18 of 36 Page 19 of 36 Bird Conservation International 443 Sheldgeese distribution in the southern Pampa, Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems & 444 Environment 183: 31–39. 445 446 447 Pergolani de Costa, M. (1955) Las avutardas: especies que dañan a los cereales y las pasturas. IDIA 88: 1–9. Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Scorolli, A., Cozzani, N., Blanco, D. et al. (2008) Monitoreo poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga spp.) en las provincias de Buenos 449 Aires y Río Negro: Una actualización sobre su estado crítico de conservación. 450 Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de la 451 Nación. 452 r Fo 448 Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Scorolli, A., Faillá, M., Blanco, D. et al. (2009) Monitoreo Re poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga spp.) en las provincias de Buenos 454 Aires y Río Negro, julio de 2008. Plan Nacional de Conservación y Manejo de 455 Cauquenes. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo 456 Sustentable de la Nación. ew 457 vi 453 Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Baigún, R., Hollmann, F., Mac-Lean, D. et al. (2010) Monitoreo poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga spp.) en las provincias de Buenos 459 Aires y Río Negro, Temporada julio de 2009. Plan Nacional de Conservación y 460 Manejo de Cauquenes. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo 461 Sustentable de la Nación. ly 462 On 458 Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Baigún, R., Hollmann, F., Mac-Lean, D. et al. (2012) Monitoreo 463 poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga sp.) en las provincias de Buenos 464 Aires y Río Negro. Temporada julio de 2011. Plan Nacional de Conservación y 465 Manejo de Cauquenes. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo 466 Sustentable de la Nación. Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International 467 Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Hollmann, F., Sarria, R., Carrizo, M. et al. (2013a) Monitoreo 468 poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga sp.) en las provincias de Buenos 469 Aires y Río Negro. Temporada julio de 2012. Estrategia Nacional para la 470 Conservación y el Manejo del Cauquén colorado, Cabeza gris y Común en la 471 Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable 472 de la Nación. 473 Petracci, P. F., Sarria, R., Gaitán, F. and Fasola, L. (2013b) Estatus poblacional de los cauquenes (Chloephaga sp.) en las áreas reproductivas del extremo sur de la 475 Patagonia Argentina. Estrategia Nacional para la Conservación y el Manejo del 476 Cauquén Colorado, Cabeza Gris y Común en la Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: 477 Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de la Nación. Re 478 r Fo 474 Petracci, P. F., Bravo, M. E., Lizarralde, C. S., Flotron, M. L., Fasola, L. et al. (2014) vi Situación poblacional de los cauquenes (Chloephaga sp.) en las áreas reproductivas 480 del extremo sur de la Patagonia Argentina, Temporada 2013-2014. Estrategia 481 Nacional para la Conservación y el Manejo del Cauquén Colorado, Cabeza Gris y 482 Común en Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo 483 Sustentable de la Nación. On Roesler, I., Imberti, S., Casanas, H., and Volpe, N. (2012) A new threat for the globally ly 484 ew 479 485 Endangered Hooded Grebe Podiceps gallardoi: the American mink Neovison vison. 486 Bird Conservation International 22: 383–388. 487 488 489 490 Rumboll, M. A. E. (1975) El Cauquén de Cabeza Colorada (Chloephaga rubidiceps): Una nota de alarma. Hornero 11: 315–316. Rumboll, M. A. E. (1979) El estado actual de Chloephaga rubidiceps. Acta Zoologica Lilloana 34: 153–154. Cambridge University Press Page 20 of 36 Page 21 of 36 491 492 493 Bird Conservation International Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., and Redford, K. H. (2001) Adaptive management: a tool for conservation practitioners, Washington, D.C., USA: Biodiversity Support Program. Valenzuela, A. E., Anderson, C. B., Fasola, L., and Cabello, J. L. (2014) Linking invasive 494 exotic vertebrates and their ecosystem impacts in Tierra del Fuego to test theory and 495 determine action. Acta Oecologica 54: 110–118. 496 Vuilleumier, F. (1994) Status of the Ruddy-headed Goose Chloephaga rubidiceps (Aves, Anatidae): a species in serious danger of extinction in Fuego-Patagonia. Revista 498 Chilena de Historia Natural 67: 341–349. 499 500 502 87: 83–90. Wetlands International (2014) Waterbird Population Estimates. http://wpe.wetlands.org (Acessed on 12 May 2015). vi 503 Weller, M. W. (1975) Habitat selection by waterfowl of Argentine Isla Grande. Wilson Bull. Re 501 r Fo 497 Witzenberger, K. and Hochkirch, A. (2011) Ex situ conservation genetics: a review of ew 504 molecular studies on the genetic consequences of captive breeding programmes for 505 endangered animal species. Biodiversity & Conservation 20: 1843–1861. ly On 506 Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International 507 Figures 508 Figure 1. (A) Distribution of Malvinas/Falklands and continental Ruddy-headed Goose 509 Chloephaga rubidiceps populations and possible migratory route (black arrow) based on 510 BirdLife International 2015 and Petracci et al. 2014. (B) Winter grounds based on Petracci et 511 al. 2014 showing extent of occurrence. (C) Reproductive grounds with locations with Ruddy- 512 headed Goose sightings (black dots) in Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego (Argentina) and 513 census transects (black lines) (present work). White dots indicate location of cities. r Fo ew vi Re ly On 514 515 Cambridge University Press Page 22 of 36 Page 23 of 36 Bird Conservation International Tables 517 Table 1. Maximum numbers of Ruddy-headed Goose reported ordered by periods (decades 518 after 1970). 100s and 1000s indicate hundreds and thousands respectively (used when exact 519 numbers were not reported). ND stands for ‘no data’. Superscripts C, R and C-R indicates 520 counts-census, isolated records and undefined-mixed methodology in that order. Letters ‘g’ 521 and ‘p’ indicates goslings and pairs. SC: Santa Cruz Province, Argentina. MGL: Magallanes 522 Region, Chile. TDFA: Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina. TDFCH: Tierra del Fuego, 523 Chile. 524 * Massive egg destruction campaign in reproductive area in TDFA. **122 individuals is the 525 number informed for both reproductive areas in Chile (MGL + TDFCH). r Fo 516 Reproductive grounds SC Reproductive grounds MGL Reproduction (Blaauw 1916). ew Before Wintering grounds vi Decade / Period Re 526 ND ND ND 1970’s 252C (1976, Rumboll 1979) <20R (1975, 10R (1975, Rumboll 1979) Rumboll 1979) 1980’s 44C (1984, Martin et al. 1986) ND 1990’s 284R-C (1999, Blanco et al. 2003) 27R, 1g (1997/98, Imberti et al. 2007) 329C, 132g (1999/2000, Madsen et al. 2003) 2000’s 156C (Petracci et al. 2009) 34R, 3g (2004/2005, Imberti 2007) **122C (Mattus 2007 in Blanco et al. 2009) 50’s 1950-60’s 1000s (Crawshay 1907), very common (Blaauw 1916) 100s, evidence of reproduction, *egg destruction (Olrog 1948) On 100s (Grant 1911) Reproductive grounds TDFA 0 (Olrog 1948) ND 0 (Olrog 1948) 16C (1973, Rumboll 1975) 14C (1973, Rumboll 1975) ND 6gR (1985, Vuilleumier 1994) ly 5R (1988, Vuilleumier 1994) Reproductive grounds TDFCH 43C, (2000, Madsen et al. 2003) 27C (Blanco et al. 2008) Cambridge University Press 407C, 2g (1999/2000, Madsen et al. 2003) **122C (Mattus 2007 in Blanco et al. 2009) Bird Conservation International 2010’s 386R (2014, P. Petracci ‘pers. comm.) 16C (2015, this work) 49C (2015, this work) ND 527 r Fo ew vi Re ly On Cambridge University Press Page 24 of 36 c.85C (2012, R. Matus & O. Blank ‘pers. comm.) Page 25 of 36 Bird Conservation International 528 Table 2. List of recommended management actions (action) extracted from literature, 529 authors, region (reproductive grounds, wintering grounds and all distribution range) and state 530 (implemented=YES, not implemented=NO, partially implemented=PARTIALLY). BAP 531 2013* Binational Action Plan for Ruddy-headed Goose Conservation in Chile and Argentina. Action Creation of protected areas Wintering grounds All distribution range Petracci et al. 2012, Petracci et al. 2013a Control of invasive species NO Re Enclosures at the breeding areas (by electric fences or flooded areas) Implemented PARTIALLY r Fo Reproductive grounds Canevari 1996, Blanco et al. 2001, Madsen et al. 2003, BAP 2013* Rumboll 1979, Blanco et al. 2001, Madsen et al. 2003, Blanco et al. 2009, Petracci et al. 2013b Blanco et al. 2001, Blanco et al. 2009. Petracci et al. 2013b, BAP 2013* PARTIALLY ew vi De la Balze & Blanco 2002, Blanco et al. 2008, Petracci et al. 2008, Petracci et al. 2009, Petracci et al. 2010, Petracci et al. 2012, Petracci et al. 2013a Pedrana et al. 2014, Petracci et al. 2014 Canevari 1996, Blanco et al. 2008, Blanco et al. 2009, Petracci et al. 2010, Petracci et al. 2012, Petracci et al. 2013a Hunting control PARTIALLY Outreach Habitat restoration (by vegetation restoration, feeding stations and crop timing management) Blanco et al. 2009 Economic compensation Blanco et al. 2009 Promotion of Blanco et al. 2001, Blanco et al. 2003, Petracci et al. 2008 Blanco et al. 2001, De la Balze & Blanco 2002 De la Balze & Cambridge University Press ly On Blanco et al. 2001, Blanco et al. 2009, BAP 2013* Blanco et al. 2001, De la Balze & Blanco 2002, Petracci et al. 2013b, BAP 2013* YES BAP 2013* NO Canevari 1996 NO Canevari 1996, PARTIALLY Bird Conservation International scientific studies Blanco 2002, Blanco et al. 2008 Cooperation policies r Fo Ex situ reproduction 532 Blanco et al. 2001, Blanco & de la Balze 2006, Petracci et al. 2008, Blanco et al. 2009, Petracci et al. 2010, Petracci et al. 2012, Petracci et al. 2013a, BAP 2013* Canevari 1996, Blanco et al. 2001, Blanco & de la Balze 2006, Blanco et al. 2009 BAP 2013* ew vi Re ly On Cambridge University Press Page 26 of 36 PARTIALLY NO Page 27 of 36 Bird Conservation International 1 Ruddy-headed Goose Chloephaga rubidiceps: former plague 2 and present protected species on the edge of extinction 3 4 Natalia A. Cossa1*, Laura Fasola2, Ignacio Roesler1 and Juan Carlos Reboreda1. 5 1 6 Buenos Aires (IEGEBA) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), 7 Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Pabellón II Ciudad 8 Universitaria, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (C1428EGA), Argentina. 9 2 Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución - Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de r Fo Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET); Bernardo Houssay 200, Ushuaia (V9410CAB), Tierra del Fuego. 11 Argentina. 12 *Author for correspondence; e-mail: [email protected] vi 13 ew 14 Running head: Population decline of continental Ruddy-headed Goose 15 17 Author head: N. Cossa et al. ly On 16 Re 10 18 19 Keywords: Chloephaga rubidiceps, population trends, Ruddy-headed Goose 20 Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International 21 Figures 22 Figure 1. (A) Distribution of Malvinas/Falklands and continental Ruddy-headed Goose 23 Chloephaga rubidiceps populations and possible migratory route (black arrow) based on 24 BirdLife International 2015 and Petracci et al. 2014. (B) Winter grounds based on Petracci et 25 al. 2014 showing extent of occurrence. (C) Reproductive grounds with locations with Ruddy- 26 headed Goose sightings (black dots) in Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego (Argentina) and 27 census transects (black lines) (present work). White dots indicate location of cities. r Fo ew vi Re ly On 28 29 Cambridge University Press Page 28 of 36 Page 29 of 36 Bird Conservation International 1 Ruddy-headed Goose Chloephaga rubidiceps: former plague 2 and present protected species on the edge of extinction 3 4 Natalia A. Cossa1*, Laura Fasola2, Ignacio Roesler1 and Juan Carlos Reboreda1. 5 1 6 Buenos Aires (IEGEBA) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), 7 Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Pabellón II Ciudad 8 Universitaria, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (C1428EGA), Argentina. 9 2 Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución - Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de r Fo Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET); Bernardo Houssay 200, Ushuaia (V9410CAB), Tierra del Fuego. 11 Argentina. 12 *Author for correspondence; e-mail: [email protected] vi 13 ew 14 Running head: Population decline of continental Ruddy-headed Goose 15 17 Author head: N. Cossa et al. ly On 16 Re 10 18 19 Keywords: Chloephaga rubidiceps, population trends, Ruddy-headed Goose 20 Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International Page 30 of 36 21 Supplementary Material 22 Publications included in this work. WG: Wintering grounds. TDFA: Tierra del Fuego 23 province, Argentina. TDFCH: Tierra del Fuego, Chile. SC: Santa Cruz province, Argentina. 24 MGL: Magallanes Region, Chile. N: Neuquén province, Argentina. 100s and 1000s indicate 25 hundreds and thousands respectively. C. rubidiceps Census/Sighting Year Area adults (goslings or Publication report 1909 r Fo 1904 nests) Sighting report 1000s Crawshay 1907 WG Sighting report 100s Grant 1911 Very common Blaauw 1916 TDFA & 1911 Re TDFA Sighting report TDFCH vi 100s (evidence of TDFA Sighting report ew 1948 Olrog 1948 reproduction) TDFA Sighting report 11 Weller 1975 1973 TDFCH Census 54 (1 nest) Rumboll 1975 1973 TDFA Census 16 Rumboll 1975 1975 WG Census 136 Rumboll 1979 1975 MGL Sighting report <20 1976 WG Census 252 Rumboll 1979 1983 WG Census 12 Martin et al. 1986 1984 WG Census 44 Martin et al. 1986 1985 TDFCH Sighting report 6 goslings Vuilleumier 1994 1987 MGL Sighting report 2 Vuilleumier 1994 1988 MGL Sighting report 5 Vuilleumier 1994 Cambridge University Press ly On 1972 Rumboll 1979 Page 31 of 36 Bird Conservation International 1988 MGL Sighting report 1 Vuilleumier 1994 1992 N Sighting report 2 Vuilleumier 1994 1993 TDFCH Sighting report 16 Vuilleumier 1994 1993 TDFCH Sighting report 6 Vuilleumier 1994 1993 TDFA Sighting report 2 Vuilleumier 1994 Sighting report 27 (1 gosling) Imberti et al. 2007 Sighting report 284 Blanco et al. 2003 Census 634 (134 goslings) Madsen et al. 2003 SC Ea. 1997/1998 Cóndor r Fo 1999 WG TDFA, TDFCH, SC & MGL vi SC Ea. Sighting report 29 (7 goslings) Census 779 (14 goslings) Sighting report 33 (3 goslings) Imberti et al. 2007 Sighting report 7 (5 goslings) Imberti et al. 2007 Sighting report 21 (8 goslings) Imberti et al. 2007 Census 378 (67 goslings) Matus & Blank ew 1999/2000 Re 1999 Cóndor TDFA, SC & SC Ea. 2000/2001 Madsen et al. 2003 ly MGL On TDFCH, 2000 Imberti et al. 2007 Cóndor SC Cabo 2001/2002 Vírgenes SC Ea. 2001/2002 Cóndor 2002/2003 TDFCH & Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International MGL Page 32 of 36 2003, in Blanco et al. 2009 SC Ea. 2002/2003 Sighting report 27 (5 goslings) Imberti et al. 2007 Sighting report 8 (6 goslings) Imberti et al. 2007 Sighting report 6 (4 goslings) Imberti et al. 2007 34 (3 goslings) Imberti et al. 2007 28 Imberti et al. 2007 Cóndor SC Cabo 2002/2003 Vírgenes SC Cabo 2004/2005 r Fo Vírgenes SC Ea. 2004/2005 Sighting report Cóndor Re SC Ea. 2005/2006 Sighting report Cóndor Census &MGL Census 2008 WG Census 2008 TDFA Census 2006, in Blanco et al. 2009 65 Petracci et al. 2008 46 Petracci et al. 2009 27 Blanco et al. 2009 ly WG 245 (122 goslings) On 2007 Matus & Blank ew 2006/2007 vi TDFCH Matus & Blank TDFCH & 2008/2009 Census 233 (89 goslings) 2009, in Blanco et MGL al. 2009 2009 WG Census 156 Petracci et al. 2010 2011 WG Census 60 Pedrana et al. 2014 2011 WG Census 138 Petracci et al. 2012 2012 WG Census 133 Pedrana et al. 2014 Cambridge University Press Page 33 of 36 Bird Conservation International 2012 WG Census 11 Petracci et al. 2013a 2012 TDFA Census 31 Barreto 2012 Census 33 Petracci et al. 2013b TDFA & 2012 SC R. Matus & O. 2012 TDFCH Census c.85 Blank pers. comm. P. Petracci pers. 26 WG Sighting report 386 comm. Re 27 r Fo 2014 References 29 Barreto, T. (2012) Campaña Relevamiento de Cauquén Colorado. Tierra del Fuego, 31 32 Blaauw, F. B. (1916) Field notes on some of the Waterfowl of the Argentine Republic, Chile and Tierra del Fuego. Ibis 58: 478–492. On 33 Argentina: Dirección de Áreas Protegidas y Biodiversidad. ew 30 vi 28 Blanco, D. E., Zalba, S. M., Belenguer, C. J., Pugnali, G. and Rodríguez Goñi, H. (2003) Status and conservation of the Ruddy-headed Goose Chloephaga rubidiceps Sclater 35 (Aves, Anatidae) in its wintering ground (Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina). 36 Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 76: 47–55. 37 ly 34 Blanco, D. E., Matus, R., de la Balze, V. M., Blank, O., Mac-Lean, D. et al. (2009) El 38 Cauquén colorado (Chloephaga rubidiceps) en peligro de extinción: Estatus 39 poblacional y acciones de conservación en Argentina y Chile. Buenos Aires, 40 Argentina: Wetlands International. 41 Crawshay, R. (1907) The Birds of Tierra del Fuego. London, UK: Bernard Quaritch. Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International 42 43 Grant, C. H. B. (1911) IX. List of Birds collected in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Southern Brazil, with Field-notes. Ibis 53: 317–350. 44 Imberti, S., Amorós, C. D. and Cadierno, S. A. (2007) Presencia y nidificación del Cauquén 45 Colorado Chloephaga rubidiceps en la provincia de Santa Cruz, Argentina. Hornero 46 22: 17–22. 47 Madsen, J., Matus, R., Blank, O., Benegas, L., Mateazzi, G. and Blanco, D. E. (2003) Populations status of the Ruddy-headed Goose (Chloephaga rubidiceps) in Tierra del 49 Fuego and mainland Patagonia (Chile and Argentina). Ornitología Neotropical 14: 50 15–28. 51 r Fo 48 Martin, S. I., Tracanna, N. A. and Summers, R. (1986) Distribution and habitat use by Re 52 Sheldgeese populations wintering in Buenos Aires province, Argentina. Wildfowl 37: 53 55–62. Olrog, C. C. (1948) Observaciones sobre la avifauna de Tierra del Fuego y Chile. Acta Zoologica Lilloana 5: 437–531. ew 55 vi 54 Pedrana, J., Bernad, L., Maceira, N. O., and Isacch, J. P. (2014) Human–Sheldgeese conflict 57 in agricultural landscapes: Effects of environmental and anthropogenic predictors on 58 Sheldgeese distribution in the southern Pampa, Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems & 59 Environment 183: 31–39. ly 60 On 56 Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Scorolli, A., Cozzani, N., Blanco, D. et al. (2008) Monitoreo 61 poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga spp.) en las provincias de Buenos 62 Aires y Río Negro: Una actualización sobre su estado crítico de conservación. 63 Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de la 64 Nación. 65 66 Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Scorolli, A., Faillá, M., Blanco, D. et al. (2009) Monitoreo poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga spp.) en las provincias de Buenos Cambridge University Press Page 34 of 36 Page 35 of 36 Bird Conservation International 67 Aires y Río Negro, julio de 2008. Plan Nacional de Conservación y Manejo de 68 Cauquenes. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo 69 Sustentable de la Nación. 70 Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Baigún, R., Hollmann, F., Mac-Lean, D. et al. (2010) Monitoreo poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga spp.) en las provincias de Buenos 72 Aires y Río Negro, Temporada julio de 2009. Plan Nacional de Conservación y 73 Manejo de Cauquenes. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo 74 Sustentable de la Nación. 75 r Fo 71 Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Baigún, R., Hollmann, F., Mac-Lean, D. et al. (2012) Monitoreo poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga sp.) en las provincias de Buenos 77 Aires y Río Negro. Temporada julio de 2011. Plan Nacional de Conservación y 78 Manejo de Cauquenes. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo 79 Sustentable de la Nación. ew vi 80 Re 76 Petracci, P. F., Ibáñez, H., Hollmann, F., Sarria, R., Carrizo, M. et al. (2013a) Monitoreo poblacional de cauquenes migratorios (Chloephaga sp.) en las provincias de Buenos 82 Aires y Río Negro. Temporada julio de 2012. Estrategia Nacional para la 83 Conservación y el Manejo del Cauquén colorado, Cabeza gris y Común en la 84 Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable 85 de la Nación. ly 86 On 81 Petracci, P. F., Sarria, R., Gaitán, F. and Fasola, L. (2013b) Estatus poblacional de los 87 cauquenes (Chloephaga sp.) en las áreas reproductivas del extremo sur de la 88 Patagonia Argentina. Estrategia Nacional para la Conservación y el Manejo del 89 Cauquén Colorado, Cabeza Gris y Común en la Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: 90 Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de la Nación. Cambridge University Press Bird Conservation International 91 92 93 94 95 Rumboll, M. A. E. (1975) El Cauquén de Cabeza Colorada (Chloephaga rubidiceps): Una nota de alarma. Hornero 11: 315–316. Rumboll, M. A. E. (1979) El estado actual de Chloephaga rubidiceps. Acta Zoologica Lilloana 34: 153–154. Vuilleumier, F. (1994) Status of the Ruddy-headed Goose Chloephaga rubidiceps (Aves, 96 Anatidae): a species in serious danger of extinction in Fuego-Patagonia. Revista 97 Chilena de Historia Natural 67: 341–349. 99 Weller, M. W. (1975) Habitat selection by waterfowl of Argentine Isla Grande. Wilson Bull. r Fo 98 87: 83–90. ew vi Re ly On Cambridge University Press Page 36 of 36