PDFs_files/16 Cossa et al 2016.pdf

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