Waterbird Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Colonial Waterbirds.

http://www.jstor.org
Threats to a Mixed-Species Colony of Spheniscus Penguins in Southern Chile
Author(s): Alejandro Simeone and Roberto P. Schlatter
Source: Colonial Waterbirds, Vol. 21, No. 3 (1998), pp. 418-421
Published by: Waterbird Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1521654
Accessed: 11-08-2014 23:36 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Threats to a
Mixed-Species Colony
of
Spheniscus Penguins
in
Southern Chile
ALEJANDRO
SIMEONE1 AND ROBERTO P. SCHLATTER2
Instituto de
Zoologia,
Universidad Austral de Chile. Casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile
lInternet: csimeone@entelchile.net
2Internet: rschlatt@valdivia.uca.uach.cl
Abstract.-The Pufiihuil islands, off the coast of Chiloe, southern Chile, have the
only
known mixed
colony
of
Humboldt
(Spheniscus humboldti) and
Magellanic penguins
(S.
magellanicus).
Since first
reported
in 1985, the
colony
has
experienced heavy
human disturbance, mainly
caused
by non-regulated
tourist activities and the introduction
of domestic
goats.
On the island closest to shore and most
frequently
visited
by tourists, 28% of dirt burrows have
collapsed, mainly by
accidental
trampling
and
goat activity.
In addition, goats
browse the
vegetation
used
by pen-
guins
to build their nests. On the island located farthest offshore, with no
goats
and fewer tourists, only
10% of dirt
burrows have
collapsed. Comparison
with
previous population
estimates
suggests
that the
colony
has declined over
the last decade.
Considering
the
important biological
value as a mixed
colony
of
Spheniscus penguins,
we
propose
that these islands be
officially protected.
Received 23
February 1998, accepted
16
May
1998.
Key
words.-Humboldt
Penguin, Magellanic Penguin, tourism, introduced animals, Chile.
Colonial Waterbirds 21(3): 418421, 1998
In southern South America, the Hum-
boldt
Penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) (IUCN
Vulnerable, CITES
Appendix I)
breeds on
coastal and offshore islands of the Pacific
Ocean from Punta
Aguja
(5?S)
in Peru to the
Pufiihuil islands
(41?S)
in Chile
(Hays 1985;
Araya
et al. 1996), although
in Per6 some
mainland
breeding
also occurs
(Zavalaga
and Paredes
1997). The
Magellanic Penguin
(S. magellanicus) (IUCN Near
Threatened)
breeds on both the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts of South America, from
Cape
Horn to
42?S on the Atlantic side and from Tierra del
Fuego
to 29?S on the Pacific coast, and on
the Falkland Islands
(Williams 1995).
The two
species overlap only
on the Pacif-
ic coast, primarily
between 32?S and 42?S.
On
Pajaro
Nifio and
Cachagua
islands
(32?S),
where two
significant
Humboldt
Penguin
colonies occur, only
ten to 15
pairs
of
Magellanic Penguins
have been seen to
nest
(A. S., pers. obs.).
On
Metalqui
island
(42?S),
where
Magellanic penguins
nest in
large numbers, the Humboldt
Penguin
has
been
recently reported
to occur, but breed-
ing
has not been confirmed (Simeone and
Hucke-Gaete
1997).
The
present paper
describes the
only
known mixed
colony
of
Spheniscus penguins,
at the Pufiihuil Islands, and current
prob-
lems derived from introduced animals and
non-regulated
tourism.
STUDY AREA AND METHODS
The Pufiihuil islands (41?55'S, 74?02'W) are located
on the
exposed
Pacific coast of Chiloe
Island,
in south-
ern Chile. The first and smallest island (Island 1) is
about 400 m offshore. It is covered
by bushy vegetation
including "Quila" (Chusquea sp.), "Chupalla"
(Fascicular-
ia bicolor), "Chup6n" (Greigia sphacelata)
and
grasses
(Holcus lanatus and Anthoxantum odoratum), although
there are extensive bare surfaces. At least six
goats
have
been seen on this island, introduced
approximately
10
years ago.
The second and
biggest
island (Island 2) is lo-
cated about 700 m from the coast. It is
mainly
covered
by Chusquea sp.,
and has a
large
amount of H. lanatus
and A. odoratum. Some E bicolor
patches
also occur.
Besides
penguins,
other seabird
species
such as the
Kelp
Gull (Larus dominicanus) and
Red-legged
Cormo-
rant (Phalacrocorax
gaimardi)
breed at the islands. Also
present
but with
breeding
unconfirmed are
Magellan
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax
magellanicus), Blue-eyed
Cor-
morant (Phalacrocorax
atriceps),
Chilean Pelican (Peleca-
nus
thagus), Kelp
Goose
(Chloephaga hybrida)
and
Magellanic Flightless
Steamer Duck
(Tachyeres pteneres).
The islands were visited
during
26-27
February
1997.
Previous
attempts
to access the islands in November
1996
andJanuary
1997 were aborted due to bad weather
conditions. We used a Zodiac boat with a 15
Hp
out-
board motor.
Each nest was
individually
checked and we recorded
the number of adults and chicks at each, as well as the
size of the chicks
(according
to
plumage/down
cover-
age).
Five
penguin
nest
types
were
recognized: a)
scrapes
covered
by
Fascicularia bicolor, b) scrapes
covered
by Greigia sphacelata, c) scrapes
covered
by Chusquea sp.,
d)
dirt burrows and
e)
rock crevices.
Damage
to nests
418
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CHILEAN PENGUIN CONSERVATION
(i.e. trampling)
and
vegetation (i.e. browsing, burning)
attributed to introduced animals or man was recorded.
Penguins roosting
in flocks on intertidal rocks were
counted, using
7 x 50 binoculars and a 60 x
spotting
scope.
RESULTS
During
our visit, we observed a total of
775
penguins
both inside nests
(535)
and
roosting
on rocks
(240).
We counted 561
adult
Magellanic
and 210 adult Humboldt
penguins (ratio 3:1),
of which 55% and 10%
were
molting, respectively. Only
four
juve-
niles were
sighted.
Six nests had chicks, all of
them
belonging
to Humboldt
penguins;
no
active nests with
eggs
were seen.
A total of 814 nests was recorded for the
two islands, with dirt burrows
comprising
72% and
scrapes
covered
by
Chusquea
sp.
18% (Table 1).
The other three nest
types
ac-
counted for the
remaining
10%. The num-
ber of nests under
large
dense
aggregations
of
vegetation (particularly Chusquea sp.
and
G.
sphacelata)
is an underestimate, as
many
of
them were inaccessible.
Nests
activity
and nest
types
We counted a total of 285 nests on island
1
(Table 1).
Both
Magellanic
and Humboldt
penguins
were seen
primarily
in dirt bur-
rows, which
comprised
72% of total nests.
Only
three dirt burrows were active, two con-
taining
one adult Humboldt
Penguin
with
one chick each (30-40 days old)
and the oth-
er one adult Humboldt
Penguin
with two
chicks
(+/-
30
days old).
One nest contained
an abandoned
egg.
A total of 529 nests was recorded on is-
land 2 (Table 1).
Both
species
of
penguins
occurred
mainly
in dirt burrows, which also
comprised
72% of the nest
types.
Three ac-
tive nests
(dirt burrows)
were recorded, each
with one adult Humboldt
Penguin
and one
chick, all estimated to be 40-50
days
of
age.
Two nests contained abandoned
eggs.
In addition, 236 adult birds were seen
roosting
on the shore of the islands, includ-
ing
small
adjacent
rookeries: 131
Magellanic
and 105 Humboldt
penguins,
of which 7%
and 12% were
molting, respectively. Only
4
juveniles
were
sighted.
Damage
to nests and
nesting
areas
Comparatively,
island 1 showed the
high-
est
proportion
of
collapsed
dirt burrows with
28% and island 2 the lowest with 10% (X2 =
28.46,
df
=
1,
P <
0,01).
At island
1, large
ar-
eas of E bicolor and
Chusquea sp.
were
visibly
browsed
by goats
and some areas had evi-
dence of
past burning
and extensive bare
surfaces. Island 2 showed smaller
patches
of
burned
vegetation.
No
goats
were seen on
this island.
Table 1. Nest
types
and nest
activity
of Humboldt and
Magellanic penguins
in Pufiihuil islands.
Dirt Rock
Scrapes Scrapes Scrapes
Total
Nest
types
burrows crevices E bilocor G.
sphacelata
Chusquea
sp.
nests
Island 1 adults* 76
(18) (3)
8
(1)
15
(2)
5 104
(24)
adults + chicks*
(3) (3)
empty
51 4 27 9 5 96
collapsed
58 58
Total 206 7 36 26 10 285
Island 2 adults* 125 (35) 61 (11) 186 (46)
adults + chicks* (3) (3)
empty
178 9 67 254
collapsed
40 40
Total 381 9 139 529
Two islands combined 587 7 45 26 149 814
*Numbers indicate
Magellanic Penguins
and numbers in
parenthesis
indicate Humboldt
Penguins.
419
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COLONIAL WATERBIRDS
DISCUSSION
The
presence
of a
mixed-species colony
of
Spheniscus penguins
on the Pufnihuil is-
lands was first recorded in 1985
(Duffy 1987;
Wilson et al.
1995)
and to date is the
only
known
colony
where the two
species
occur in
significant
numbers.
During early February 1987, at least 731
penguins
were
reported
to occur on both is-
lands, including
Humboldt and
Magellanic
penguins
with
eggs
and chicks
(P. Pietz, pers.
comm. to R.
S.). During
late
February 1991,
Soria-Galvarro
(1991)
estimated that there
were ca. 4,500 Magellanic penguins
and ca.
450 Humboldt
penguins
on the islands.
These numbers are
considerably higher
than ours
despite having being
recorded
during
the same month of the
year,
which
suggests
a
possible
decline in
population
number
during
the last
years.
Located near the Pufiihuil islands is a
fishermen's cove which has been
increasing-
ly
utilized over the last two decades with the
growth
of the
gastropod
"loco"
(Concholepas
concholepas) fishery.
In the
early
1980s
only
five boats were located at the cove. Over 24
boats were seen
during
our visit, and about
16 houses have been erected at the cove,
where several fishermen and their families
stay
most of the
year.
Fishermen visit the is-
lands to collect "locos" and there have been
reports
of
illegal poaching
of adult
pen-
guins, mainly
for bait use in local crab fisher-
ies
(C.
Cabello
pers. comm.).
The
penguin colony
at the Pufnihuil is-
lands has become a
popular
tourist attrac-
tion in Chilo6. It is described in some tourist
guides
as a
place
that can be visited without
any special precautions
or
permits.
The Chil-
ean Forest Service
(CONAF)
has
placed
signs
on the islands and at Pufiihuil cove in-
dicating
that
they
are
protected areas;
howev-
er, unregulated
tourism occurs
throughout
the
year.
Tourism is
especially
active
during
the
spring
and summer seasons
(November
to
February),
when
penguins
are
breeding
and thus more sensitive to human distur-
bance.
Island 1, closest to shore,
is the most acces-
sible and thus the most
frequently
visited
by
tourists. It was here that we observed the
high-
est
proportion
of
collapsed
nests. We also ob-
served
vegetation
browsed
by goats
and
large
areas of bare soil. Tourist visitation and
goat
activity
are
probably responsible
in
large part
for the
trampled
burrows. The denuded soil is
of
special
concern because Chilo6 has
high
rainfall
(mean
=
2,410 mm/year;
di Castri and
Hajek 1976)
and erosion from rain is worse
when
vegetation
is absent. Island 2, which has
the
highest
number of nests, seems to be the
least disturbed
by
humans and is free of
goats
or other introduced animals.
Non-regulated
tourism has been
report-
ed to disturb
incubating penguins
and cause
nest
trampling (Scolaro 1986; Gandini et al.
1996)
but visitation
may
be
compatible
with
penguin reproduction
if visits are controlled
(Yorio
and Boersma 1992).
Disturbance
by
domestic animals
may
also cause
mortality
of
birds and lowered
reproductive
success.
Such disturbance includes
trampling
of bur-
rows
by
domestic
sheeps,
horses and cattle
(Pisano 1971; Scolaro 1985; Gandini et al.
1996), killing
of adults and chicks
by dogs
(Gandini
et al.
1996)
and habitat
degrada-
tion
by
rabbits
(Pisano 1971; Scolaro
1986).
These islands deserve formal
protection
because of their value as a mixed
penguin spe-
cies'
colony
where studies on
hybridization
of
congeneric species,
resource
partitioning,
and behavioral interactions can be conducted
and because of their
importance
as a breed-
ing
site for the
endangered
Humboldt Pen-
guin.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research was done within the
joint project
"Okolo-
gie
von
Seev6geln
in Chile" of P. H. Becker, Institut fur
Vogelforschung, "Vogelvarte Helgoland", Germany,
and
R. Schlatter, Instituto de
Zoologia,
Universidad Austral
de Chile, Chile, and was
supported by
the
Volkswagen-
Stiftung, Germany.
R. Wilson, D. C.
Duffy,
P. H. Becker,
R. Wallace and two
anonymous
reviewers
provided
valu-
able criticism of the
manuscript.
C. Cabello
provided
in-
formation about the recent
history
of the Pufnihuil
islands. We thank Daniela
Guicking,
Ellen Kalmbach
and
Stephen Ramsay
for their
help
in the field.
LITERATURE CITED
Araya, B., G. Millie and M. Bernal. 1996. Gufa de
Campo
de las Aves de Chile.
Septima
edici6n.
Santiago,
Ed-
itorial Universitaria, Santiago,
Chile.
420
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CHILEAN PENGUIN CONSERVATION
di Castri, F. and E. R.
Hajek.
1976.
Bioclimatologia
de
Chile. Editorial Universidad Cat6olica de Chile. San-
tiago,
Chile.
Duffy,
D. C. 1987. Three thousand kilometers of Chil-
ean
penguins. Explorers
Journal 65: 106-109.
Gandini, P, E. Frere and P. D. Boersma. 1996. Status and
conservation of
Magellanic Penguins Spheniscus
ma-
gellanicus
in
Patagonia, Argentina.
Bird Conserva-
tion International 6: 307-316.
Hays,
C. 1985. Informe
preliminar
sobre la situaci6n
qel
pingfiino
de Humboldt en Peru.
Pages
61-68 in (F.
G. Stiles and P. G.
Aguilar, Eds.). Primer
Symposio
de
Ornitologia Neotropical.
Pisano, E. 1971. Estudio
ecolo6gico preliminar
del
Parque
Nacional "Los
Pingfiinos" (Estrecho de Ma-
gallanes).
Anales del Instituto de la
Patagonia
2: 76-
92.
Scolaro, J.
A. 1985. Vertebrate
species
associated to
breeding
sites in a
colony
of
Magellanic penguins
(Spheniscus magellanicus) (AVES: SPHENISCIDAE).
Historia Natural 5: 23-4.
Scolaro,J. A. 1986. La conservaci6n del
pinguino
de Ma-
gallanes:
un
problema
de conflicto e intereses
que
requiere
de
argumentos
cientificos. Anales del Mu-
seo de Historia Natural de
Valparaiso:
17: 113-19.
Simeone, A. and R. Hucke-Gaete. 1997. Presencia de
pinguiino
de Humboldt
(Spheniscus humboldti) en isla
Metalqui, Parque
Nacional Chiloe, sur de Chile. Bo-
letin Chileno de
Ornitologia
4: 34-36
Soria-Galvarro, Y. 1991.
Pingfiineras
de Ahuenco
y
Pufii-
huil
(Parque
Nacional Chiloe), un
ejemplo
sobre la
importancia
de crear reservas marinas en Chile.
Resumenes I
Congreso
Chileno de
Ornitologia:
21
Williams, T. D. 1995. The
Penguins.
New York, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Wilson, R. P., D. C.
Duffy,
M.-P. Wilson and B.
Araya.
1995.
Aspects
of the
ecology
of
species replacement
in Humboldt and
Magellanic penguins
in Chile. Le
Gerfaut 85: 49-61.
Yorio, P. and P. D. Boersma. 1992. The effects of human
disturbance on
Magellanic Penguin Spheniscus magel-
lanicus behaviour and
breeding
success. Bird Con-
servation International 2: 161-73.
Zavalaga,
C. and R. Paredes. 1997. Humboldt
Penguins
at Punta San
Juan,
Peru.
Penguin
Conservation 10:
6-8.
421
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions