The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T22735250A95106180
Scope: Global
Language: English
Eudyptes chrysocome, Southern Rockhopper Penguin
Assessment by: BirdLife International
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: BirdLife International. 2016. Eudyptes chrysocome. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2016: e.T22735250A95106180. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20163.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
Copyright: © 2016 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Animalia
Chordata
Aves
Sphenisciformes
Spheniscidae
Taxon Name: Eudyptes chrysocome (Forster, 1781)
Common Name(s):
• English:
• Spanish:
Southern Rockhopper Penguin, Rockhopper Penguin
Pingüino de penacho amarillo
Taxonomic Source(s):
del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A. and Fishpool, L.D.C. 2014. HBW and BirdLife
International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Lynx Edicions BirdLife International,
Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.
Identification Information:
Identification. 55 cm. Average weight of 3.35 kg. A robust body with white underparts and slate-grey
upperparts. Distinctive red eyes and a short reddish brown bill. A straight yellow eyebrow ending in
sideways projecting plumes extends above the eye. Similar species. The Southern Rockhopper Penguins
differ from their Northern counterparts in having a narrower supercilium and shorter plumes, which
reach just over the black throat. Immature birds have only a narrow supercilium and a pale mottled grey
chin.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Vulnerable A2abcde+3bcde+4abcde ver 3.1
Year Published:
2016
Date Assessed:
October 1, 2016
Justification:
This species has been classified as Vulnerable owing to rapid population declines, which, although they
have been on-going for perhaps a century, appear to have worsened in recent years.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2012 – Vulnerable (VU) – http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22735250A37849176.en
2010 – Vulnerable (VU)
2008 – Vulnerable (VU)
2004 – Not Recognized (NR)
2000 – Not Recognized (NR)
1994 – Not Recognized (NR)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
1
1988 – Not Recognized (NR)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
Eudyptes chrysocome breeds on islands located in the South Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, ranging
from 46° S in the South Atlantic Ocean and South Indian Oceans to Macquarie Island at 54°S in the
South Pacific Ocean (a total of 319,163 breeding pairs in 2010; Baylis et al. 2013), and a number of
offshore islands in southern Argentina and Chile (Isla de los Estados: 135,000 pairs in 2010, Isla
Pinguino: 1061 pairs in 2014, Isla Ildefonso: 86,400 pairs in 2006, Diego Ramirez: 132,721 pairs in 2002,
Isla Noir: 158,200 pairs in 2005, Isla Barnevelt: 10,800 pairs in 1992, Cape Horn: 600 pairs in 1992, Isla
Terhalten: 3,000 pairs in 2008 and Isla Buenaventura: 500 pairs in 1992 [Schiavini et al. 2005, BirdLife
International 2010, Raya Rey et al. 2014, Raya Rey et al. unpublished, Gandini et al. in press]).
Subspecies E. c. filholi breeds on Prince Edward: 38,000 pairs in 2008/09 (Crawford et al. 2009) and
Marion Islands: 65,000 pairs in 2012/13 (Dyer and Crawford 2015) (South Africa), Crozet Islands:
152,800 pairs in 1982, Kerguelen Islands: 85,500 pairs in 1985 (French Southern Territories), Heard
Island: 10,000 pairs in 2003 (Heard and McDonald Islands [to Australia]), Macquarie Island: 37,500 pairs
in 2007 (Australia) and Campbell: 33,239 pairs in 2012 (Morrison et al. 2012), Auckland (3000 pairs in
1990) and Antipodes Islands (2,700-3,600 pairs in 1990, New Zealand).
Country Occurrence:
Native: Argentina; Australia; Chile; Falkland Islands (Malvinas); French Southern Territories; Heard Island
and McDonald Islands; New Zealand; South Africa
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
2
Distribution Map
Eudyptes chrysocome
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
3
Population
Several populations have experienced major long-term population crashes. Approximately 1.5 million
pairs are estimated to have been lost from Campbell Island (94% of the original total) between 1942 and
1986 (Cunningham and Moors 1994), with further 21.8% decrease between 1986 and 2012 (Morrison et
al. 2015). In the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the population fell by around 1.2 million pairs between
1932 and 2000 (20% of the original total) (Pütz et al. 2003a). At Staten Island, the numbers of
Rockhopper Penguins decreased by 24 % between the censuses of 1998 and 2010 (Raya Rey et al. 2014).
Between 1987/88 and 2012/13, numbers at Marion Island decreased by about 52%, from 138,000 pairs
to 65,000 pairs, equivalent to 72% in three generations (Dyer and Crawford 2015). The long-term trends
remain unknown for the Kerguelen and Crozet populations (CEBC-CNRS database, C.A. Bost, pers.
comm.). Several other sites appear to have suffered severe declines (of more than 40%) between the
1970s and the 1990s: Auckland Islands and Antipodes Islands(Cooper 1992, Hiscock and Chilvers 2013).
Population modelling, based on those breeding sites that have been accurately surveyed, indicates that
between 1971 and 2007 (three generations) the number of Southern Rockhopper Penguins declined by
34% (BirdLife International 2010). In early 2016 there was a mortality of unknown extent of Rockhopper
penguins in the Southwest Atlantic before and during the moulting period, with dead penguins (mainly
caused by starvation) found along the coasts of Tierra del Fuego (around 300), the Falkland (Malvinas)
Islands (300-400 on Saunders Islands) and near Puerto Deseado (around 200) (Andrea Raya Rey and
Sarah Crofts, pers.com.). However, while the extent of this recent mortality is currently not assessable, it
appears that it may have affected the population at a larger regional scale (Crofts and Stanworth 2016,
A. Raya Rey, pers. comm.).
Trend Justification
A decline of 34% over the last three generations (30 years), as calculated from survey data, has been
driven largely by the declines in the Falklands (where data are most complete), and to a lesser extent,
Marion Island (BirdLife International 2010). The Falklands declines may be even steeper: using the less
uncertain 2000 estimate (instead of 1995) requires greater extrapolation, but this would yield an overall
decline of 55.2%.
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
This species returns to its breeding colonies in October, which range from sea-level sites to cliff-tops,
and sometimes inland. Two eggs are laid and incubated during November and December for 32-34 days.
In February, the chicks fledge and depart the colony (BirdLife International 2010). At most breeding
sites, only one chick is fledged, but there is some evidence that it is not unusual for those in the Falkland
Islands (Malvinas) to raise two chicks (Clausen and Pütz 2002, Poisbleau et al. 2008). On Crozet, the
occurrence of two successfully fledged chicks has also been observed (C. Bost com.pers.). Rockhopper
penguins prey on a variety of fish, crustaceans and cephalopods (Williams 1995), but there is individual
dietary specialization during part of their annual cycle (Dehnhard et al. 2016). At the Falklands
hybridization occurs with Macaroni (White and Clausen 2002) and Northern Rockhopper Penguins
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
4
(Crofts and Robson 2016).
Systems: Marine
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
It is not yet clear what is driving current population declines, although climate changes appear to be a
significant factor. Land-based human threats at breeding sites, such as tourism, research and land
management are considered low, and although they may vary on a site by site basis, are not currently
deemed significant at an overall population level at the Falklands (Crofts 2014). Egg collection was
common at some colonies until the 1950s, such as in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), but is now
prohibited. Historically, penguins were taken as bait for use in crab pots at a number of sites, including
some Chilean islands (Ryan and Cooper 1991, P. G. Ryan in litt. 1999). The disappearance of the colony
on Isla Recalada in Chile indicates that human depredation, in this case the collection of zoological
specimens and as bait for crab pots (Oehler et al. 2007), is still a serious threat to colonies where sites
are accessible and not well protected. The number of birds taken in recent years from other Chilean
colonies is less than 500 individuals per year (BirdLife International 2010). At some sites, introduced
grazing animals have caused significant vegetation loss. At Macquarie Island, overgrazing by rabbits led
to serious landslips; however vegetation is now recovering following the successful Macquarie Island
Pest Eradication Project. The effect of grazing by goats and deer at Isla de los Estados is not known and
should be investigated. There are very few records of disease outbreaks, although few colonies are
visited regularly. Avian cholera has caused deaths of a small number of adults and chicks at Campbell
Island in 1985/86 (de Lisle et al. 1990). Avian Pox has been reported within the Falkland population but
in low numbers and at few sites only (e.g. New Island in 2014-14; P. Quillfeldt unpubl.), and an unknown
disease caused <100 adult mortalities at Steeple Jason (Crofts 2014). The massive mortality event on
the Falklands in 2002/2003 was due to a Harmful Algal Bloom (Uhart et al. 2007). At the Falklands and in
southern Patagonia, adult mortalities of an unknown extent were reported during the moulting period
following the breeding season 2015/16 (Crofts & Stanworth 2016, A. Raya Rey, pers.com.).The number
of Southern Rockhopper Penguins affected by oil pollution is currently not thought to be as great as in
the past, when 40,000 Magellanic Penguins Spheniscus magellanicus were estimated to be
contaminated annually in Argentina (Gandini et al. 1994). In Patagonian coastal waters, hydrocarbon
exploitation is a threat (Ellis et al. 1998), as is the potential development of hydrocarbons at the Falkland
Islands (between 2008-14 <100 oiled individuals were reported in the Falklands with highest occurrence
in Sep-Oct; Crofts 2014). Other important factors include interactions with fisheries (see Crawford et al.,
in prep; A global review of penguin bycatch in fisheries), indirect changes to the food web through
modification of ecosystems by fisheries, and the effects of climate change (Hilton et al. 2006), including
increased frequency of storm events at breeding sites (Wolfaardt et al. 2012). Survival of adult
rockhopper penguins appears to be sensitive to ocean temperatures, with highest survival probabilities
under moderately-cold to long-term average temperature, and reduced survival probabilities under
increasingly cold or warm ocean temperatures (Raya Rey et al. 2007, Dehnhard et al. 2013a).
Rockhopper penguins in the Falklands furthermore delayed breeding under warmer environmental
conditions and layed lighter eggs with potential effects on breeding success (Dehnhard et al. 2015a &
2015b). Finally, wind-patterns, which are also subject to change under global warming scenarios, have
been shown to affect the foraging success of rockhopper penguins: currently dominating southerly and
westerly winds increased foraging success while foraging success was lower under northerly and
easterly wind directions which may become more frequent in the future (Dehnhard et al. 2013b).
Besides these apparent bottom-up effects, climate change may also lead to top-down changes in food
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
5
web structure leading to increased inter-specific competition and secondary predation. For example,
possible ‘top-down’ effects on the eudyptid penguins are competition with and predation by rapidly
increasing pinniped (fur seal and sea lions) populations (Barlow et al. 2002, Raya Rey et al. 2012,
Morrison et al. 2016). Finally, rockhoppers on Staten had elevated mercury levels, despite foraging at a
lower trophic level when compared to conspecifics from other breeding sites (Brasso et al. 2015).
Overwintering conditions are thought to influence the proportions of birds skipping breeding at Marion
Island (Crawford et al. 2006) and potentially elsewhere. The number of Southern Rockhopper penguins
returning to Marion Island to breed decreased by about 20% between 1994/95 and 2007/08 and was
significantly correlated with breeding success (Crawford et al. 2008).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
Conservation Actions Underway
Regular monitoring is undertaken on Staten, Falklands, Marion and Campbell Islands (BirdLife
International 2010, Raya Rey et al. 2014). Several ecological and demographic studies have been
undertaken (Ellis et al. 1998, Guinard et al. 1998, Dehnhard et al. 2013a, 2014). Research has attempted
to determine the cause of historic declines using stable isotope analysis of museum skins (Hilton et al.
2006). An International Species Action Plan and a series of Regional Action Plans have been developed
(BirdLife International 2010). Following this, research has been conducted at many breeding sites
following the recommendations made in the report. A Falkland Island Species Action Plan was
completed in 2014 (Crofts 2014).
Conservation Actions Proposed
Continue or start to monitor all populations, especially in the Indian Ocean, in order to assess trends
(Guinard et al. 1998, BirdLife International 2010, Raya Rey et al. 2014, Baylis et al. 2013) and improve
methodologies for monitoring. Conduct long-term demographic studies to understand the causes of the
current decline (BirdLife International 2010, Dehnhard et al. 2013). Conduct genetic studies to
determine the taxonomic status of the species (chrysocome vs. filholi). Conduct research into spatial and
temporal links between population trends, sea-surface temperature and primary productivity (BirdLife
International 2010). Investigate the possible impact of oil exploitation (Guinard et al. 1998). Conduct
studies to assess interactions with commercial fisheries (Ellis et al. 1998). Assess the threat from
introduced predators. Reduce disturbance from ecotourism through the use of codes of conduct. Assess
the threats of disease and increase biosecurity measures (Crofts 2014).
Credits
Assessor(s):
BirdLife International
Reviewer(s):
Butchart, S. & Symes, A.
Contributor(s):
Bost, C., Crawford, R., Crofts , S., Dehnhard , N., Gales, R., Harris, S., Hilton, G.,
Huin, N., Kirkwood, R., Makhado, A., Moore, P., Morrison , K., Pütz, K., Quillfeldt ,
P., Raya-Rey, A., Schiavini, A. & Whitehead , O.
Facilitators(s) and
Compiler(s):
Allinson, T, Benstead, P., Calvert, R., Ekstrom, J., Mahood, S., McClellan, R.,
Moreno, R., Pütz, K., Shutes, S., Stattersfield, A., Taylor, J.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
6
Bibliography
Barlow, K. E., Boyd, I. L., Croxall, J. P., Reid, K., Staniland, I. J. and Brierley, A. S. 2002. Are penguins and
seals in competition for Antarctic krill at South Georgia? Marine Biology 140: 205-213.
Baylis, A. M. M.; Wolfaardt, A. C.; Crofts, S.; Pistorius, P. A.; Ratcliffe, N. 2013. Increasing trend in the
number of southern rockhopper penguins (Eudyptes c. chrysocome) breeding at the Falkland Islands.
Polar Biology 36: 1007-1018.
BirdLife International. 2010. Rockhopper Penguins: a plan for research and conservation action to
investigate and address population changes. Proceedings of an International Workshop, Edinburgh, 3-5
June 2008.
Brasso, L.B., Chiaradia, A., Polito, M.J., Raya Rey, A., Emslie, S.D. 2015. A comprehensive assessment of
mercury exposure in penguin populations throughout the Southern Hemisphere: Using trophic
calculations to identify sources of population-level variation. Marine Pollution Bulletin 97: 408-418.
Clausen, A. and K. Pütz. 2002. Recent trends in diet composition and productivity of gentoo, Magellanic
and rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 12: 51-61.
Cooper, W. 1992. Rockhopper penguins at the Auckland Islands. Notornis 39: 66-67.
Crawford, R.J.M.; Dyer, B.M.; Cooper, J.; Underhill, L.G. 2006. Breeding numbers and success of Eudyptes
penguins at Marion Island, and the influence of mass and time of arrival of adults. CCAMLR Science 13:
175–190.
Crawford, R.J.M;, Makhado, A.B.; Upfold, L.; Dyer, B.M. 2008. Mass on arrival of Rockhopper Penguins at
Marion Island correlated with breeding success. African Journal of Marine Science 30.
Crawford, R. J. M.; Whittington, P. A.; Upfold, L.; Ryan, P. G.; Petersen, S. L.; Dyer, B. M.; Cooper, J. 2009.
Recent trends in numbers of four species of penguins at the Prince Edward Islands. African Journal of
Marine Science 31(3): 419-426.
Crofts, S. 2014. Action Plan for the southern rockhopper penguin Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome at
the Falkland Islands: Review of potential threats, progress of work and prioritised action for 2014 –
2020. A report to Falklands Islands Government. Falklands Conservation, Stanley.
Crofts, S. & Robson, B. 2016. First record of hybridisation between Northern Eudyptes moseleyi and
Southern Rockhopper Penguins E. c. chrysocome. Seabird 28: 37-42.
Crofts, S. & Stanworth, A. 2016. Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme Annual Report
2015/2016 (SMP23). Falklands Conservation.
Cunningham, D. M.; Moors, P. J. 1994. The decline of Rockhopper Penguins Eudyptes chrysocome at
Campbell Island, Southern Ocean and the influence of rising sea temperatures. Emu 94: 27-36.
Dehnhard, N., Eens, M., Demongin, L., Quillfeldt, P., Poisbleau, M. 2015. Individual consistency and
phenotypic plasticity in rockhopper penguins: female but not male body mass links environmental
conditions to reproductive investment. PLoS ONE 10: e0128776.
Dehnhard, N., Eens, M., Demongin, L., Quillfeldt, P., Suri, D., Poisbleau, M. 2015. Limited individual
phenotypic plasticity in the timing of and investment into egg laying in southern rockhopper penguins
under climate change. Marine Ecology Progress Series 524: 269-281.
Dehnhard, N., Eens, M., Sturaro, N., Lepoint, G., Demongin, L., Quillfeldt, P., Poisbleau, M. 2016. Is
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
7
individual consistency in body mass and reproductive decisions linked to individual specialisation in
foraging behaviour in a long-lived seabird? . Ecology & Evolution DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2213.
Dehnhard, N., Ludynia, K., Poisbleau, M., Demongin, L., Quillfeldt, P. 2013. Good days, bad days: wind as
a driver of foraging success in a flightless seabird, the southern rockhopper penguin. PLoS ONE 8:
e79487.
Dehnhard, N., Poisbleau, M., Demongin, L., Ludynia, K., Lecoq, M., Masello J. F., Quillfeldt, P. 2013.
Survival of rockhopper penguins in times of global climate change. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 23 : 777–789.
Dehnhard, N., Poisbleau, M., Demongin, L., Ludynia, K., Quillfeldt, P. 2014. High juvenile annual survival
probabilities in southern rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome are independent of individual
fledging traits. Ibis 156: 548–560.
de Lisle, G. W., Stanislawek, W. L. and Moors, P. J. 1990. Pasteurella multocida infections in rockhopper
penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome) from Campbell Island, New Zealand. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 26:
283-285.
Dyer, B.M., Crawford,R.J.M. 2015. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg: 152–154.
Ellis, S., Croxall, J.P. and Cooper, J. 1998. Penguin conservation assessment and management plan: report
from the workshop held 8-9 September 1996, Cape Town, South Africa. IUCN/SSC, Apple Valley, USA.
Gandini, P.; Boersma, P. D.; Frere, E.; Gandini, M.; Holik, T.; Lichtschein, V. 1994. Magellanic penguins
(Spheniscus magellanicus) affected by chronic petroleum pollution along coast of Chubut, Argentina.
The Auk 111: 20-27.
Guinard, E.; Weimerskirch, H.; Jouventin, P. 1998. Population changes and demography of the northern
Rockhopper Penguin on Amsterdam and Saint Paul Islands. Colonial Waterbirds 21: 222-228.
Hilton, G. M., Thompson, D. R., Sagar, P. M., Cuthbert, R. J., Cherel, Y. and Bury, S. J. 2006. A stable
isotopic investigation into the causes of decline in a sub-Antarctic predator, the rockhopper penguin
Eudyptes chrysocome. Global Change Biology 12(4): 611-625.
Hiscock, J.A. & Chilvers, B.L. 2013. Declining eastern rockhopper (Eudyptes filholi) and erect-crested (E.
sclateri) penguins on the Antipodes Islands, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 38.
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 07 December 2016).
Morrison, K., Amstrong, D.P., Battley, P.F., Jamieson, S.E. & Thompson, D.R. 2016. Predation by New
Zealand sea lions and Brown Skuas is causing the continued decline of an Eastern Rockhopper Penguin
colony on Campbell Island. Polar Biology DOI 10.1007/s00300-016-1996-9.
Morrison, K. W.; Battley, P. F.; Sagar, P. M.; Thompson, D. R. 2015. Population dynamics of Eastern
Rockhopper Penguins on Campbell Island in relation to sea surface temperature 1942–2012: current
warming hiatus pauses a long-term decline. Polar Biology 38: 163-177.
Oehler, D. A.; Fry, W. R.; Weakley Jr, L. A.; Marin, M. 2007. Rockhopper and Macaroni Penguin colonies
absent from Isla Recalada, Chile. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119(3): 502-506.
Oehler, D. A.; Pelikan, S.; Fry, W. R.; Weakley, L., Jr.; Kusch, A.; Marin, M. 2008. Status of Crested Penguin
(Eudyptes spp.) populations on three islands in southern Chile. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120(3):
575-581.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
8
Poisbleau, M.; Demongin, L.; Strange, I. J.; Otley, H.; Quillfeldt, P. 2008. Aspects of the breeding biology
of the southern rockhopper penguin Eudyptes c. chrysocome and new consideration on the intrinsic
capacity of the A-egg. Polar Biology 31: 925-932.
Pütz, K.; Clausen, A. P.; Huin, N.; Croxall, J. P. 2003a. Re-evaluation of historical Rockhopper Penguin
population data in the Falkland Islands. Waterbirds 26: 169-175.
Pütz, K., Raya Rey, A. & Otley, H. 2013. Southern Rockhopper Penguin. In: García Borboroglu, P.G. & P.D.
Boersma (eds.) Penguins – Natural History and Conservation University of Washington Press, Seattle
U.S.A. ISBN 978-0-295-99284-6: 113-129.
Pütz, K., Raya Rey, A., Schiavini, A., Clausen, A.P. & Lüthi, B.H. 2006. Winter migration of Rockhopper
Penguins (Eudyptes c. chrysocome) breeding in the Southwest Atlantic: Is utilisation of different foraging
areas reflected in opposing population trends? . Polar Biology 29: 735-744.
Pütz, K., Smith, J.G., Ingham, R.J. & Lüthi, B.H. 2002. Winter dispersal of Rockhopper Penguins Eudyptes
chrysocome from the Falkland Islands and its implications for conservation. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 240: 273-284.
Pütz, K., Smith, J.G., Ingham, R.J. & Lüthi, B.H. 2003. Satellite tracking of male Rockhopper Penguins
Eudyptes chrysocome during the incubation period at the Falkland Islands. Journal of Avian Biology 34:
139-144.
Raya Rey A, Rosciano N, Liljestrhöm M, Saenz Samaniego R, Schiavini A. 2014. Species-specific
population trends detected for penguins, gulls and cormorants over 20 years in sub-Antarctic Fuegian
Archipelago . Polar Biology 37(9): 1343-1360 DOI 10.1007/s00300-014-1526-6.
Raya Rey, A., Sáenz Samaniergo, R., Petracci P.F. 2012. New records of South American sea lion Otaria
flavescens predation on southern rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome at Staten Island,
Argentina. Polar Biology 35: 319-322.
Raya Rey, A., Trathan, P., Pütz, K. & Schiavini, A. 2007. Effect of oceanographic conditions on the winter
movements of rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome from Staten Island, Argentina.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 330: 285-295.
Ryan, P. G.; Cooper, J. 1991. Rockhopper Penguins and other marine life threatened by driftnet fisheries
at Tristan da Cunha. Oryx 25: 76-79.
Shiavini, A.; Yorio, P.; Gandini, P.; Rey, A. R.; Boersma, P. D. 2005. Los Pinguinos de las costas argentinas:
estado poblacional y conservacion. Hornero 20: 5-23.
Uhart, M., C. Marull, W. Karesh, R. Cook, R. Quintana, R. Frere, P. Gandini, R. Wilson and N. Huin. 2007.
Exposure to infectious diseases in Magellanic penguins from Patagonia and the Falklands: A summary
for the last decade. . 6th International Penguin Conference, Australia.
White, R.W. and Clausen, A. P. 2002. Rockhopper Eudyptes chrysocome x Macaroni E. chrysolophus
Penguin Hybrids apparently breeding in the Falkland Islands. Marine Ornithology 30: 40 – 42.
Williams, T. D. 1995. The penguins Spheniscidae. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wolfaardt, A.C., Crofts, S. & Baylis, A.M.M. 2012. Effects of a storm on colonies of seabirds breeding at
the Falkland Islands. Marine Ornithology 40: 129–133.
Citation
BirdLife International. 2016. Eudyptes chrysocome. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
9
e.T22735250A95106180. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
10
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat
Season
Suitability
Major
Importance?
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.1. Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.1. Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.1. Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
13. Marine Coastal/Supratidal -> 13.1. Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea
Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat
Timing
Scope
Severity
Impact Score
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.3.
Temperature extremes
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Rapid declines
Medium
impact: 7
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Future
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Past,
unlikely to
return
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
3. Energy production & mining -> 3.1. Oil & gas
drilling
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is
the target)
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.2. Unintentional effects
(species is not the target)
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1.
Recreational activities
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.3. Other
ecosystem modifications
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
Unknown
Rapid declines
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Unknown
Past impact
Medium
impact: 6
Medium
impact: 6
Medium
impact: 6
11
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Rattus
norvegicus)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species
(Pasteurella multocida)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Capra
hircus)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species
(Oryctolagus cuniculus)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Felis catus)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.2. Problematic native species/diseases
-> 8.2.2. Named species
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Past, likely
to return
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.2. Competition
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Slow, significant
declines
Negligible declines
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slow, significant
declines
Very rapid
declines
Low impact: 5
Past impact
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Low impact: 5
High impact: 8
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
12
Conservation Actions in Place
Action Recovery plan: Yes
Systematic monitoring scheme: Yes
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over part of range
Occur in at least one PA: No
Invasive species control or prevention: No
In-Place Species Management
Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: No
Subject to ex-situ conservation: No
In-Place Education
Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: Yes
Included in international legislation: No
Subject to any international management/trade controls: No
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
2. Land/water management -> 2.2. Invasive/problematic species control
4. Education & awareness -> 4.2. Training
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.1. International level
5. Law & policy -> 5.2. Policies and regulations
5. Law & policy -> 5.3. Private sector standards & codes
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
13
Research Needed
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²): 3640
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 13100000
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Continuing decline in number of locations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No
Upper elevation limit (m): 60
Population
Number of mature individuals: 2500000
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: No
Population severely fragmented: No
No. of subpopulations: 2-100
Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No
All individuals in one subpopulation: No
Habitats and Ecology
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Unknown
Generation Length (years): 11.5
Movement patterns: Full Migrant
Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Eudyptes chrysocome – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22735250A95106180.en
14
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™