The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T22697810A84636189
Spheniscus demersus, African Penguin
Assessment by: BirdLife International
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: BirdLife International. 2015. Spheniscus demersus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2015: e.T22697810A84636189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
Copyright: © 2015 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: BirdLife
International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Animalia
Chordata
Aves
Sphenisciformes
Spheniscidae
Taxon Name: Spheniscus demersus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Common Name(s):
• English:
• French:
• Spanish:
African Penguin, Black-footed Penguin, Jackass Penguin
Manchot du Cap
Pingüino del Cabo
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.
Identification Information:
60-70 cm. Medium-sized, black-and-white penguin. Adult black above, white below with variable
amount of black spotting on breast and belly. Broad, black breast-band and black-and-white facial
pattern diagnostic. Whitish bare skin over the eyes becomes bright pinkish-red in very hot conditions.
Male has deeper, more robust bill. Juvenile initially dark slaty-blue above, turning browner and, in
second and third year, shows varying amount of adult facial pattern. Similar spp. Very rarely, some
individuals show a double black breast-band - indicative of Magellanic Penguin S. magellanicus, which
has never been positively recorded in Africa.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Endangered A2ace+3ce+4ace ver 3.1
Year Published:
2015
Date Assessed:
November 3, 2013
Justification:
This species is classified as Endangered because it is undergoing a very rapid population decline,
probably as a result of commercial fisheries and shifts in prey populations. This trend currently shows no
sign of reversing, and immediate conservation action is required to prevent further declines.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2013 – Endangered (EN) – http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22697810A48140293.en
2012 – Endangered (EN)
2010 – Endangered (EN)
2008 – Vulnerable (VU)
2005 – Vulnerable (VU)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
1
2004 – Vulnerable (VU)
2000 – Vulnerable (VU)
1994 – Lower Risk/near threatened (LR/nt)
1988 – Threatened (T)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
Spheniscus demersus breeds at 25 islands and four mainland sites in Namibia and South Africa (Kemper
et al. 2007). It has been recorded as far north as Gabon and Mozambique (del Hoyo et al. 1992).
Breeding on Neglectus Island, Namibia, was confirmed in 2001, following the absence of confirmed
breeding since 1952 at least, and an increase in numbers since 1995 (Roux et al. 2003). In 2003, there
were thought to be 11 breeding pairs on the island (Roux et al. 2003). In the 1980s, the species
colonised Stony Point and Boulders Beach on the South African mainland, and recolonised Robben
Island (Petersen et al. 2006). Immigration to mainland sites in recent years has been attributed to an
eastward shift in the species's prey populations (R. Crawford per Koenig 2007, L. Underhill per Koenig
2007). Just seven islands now support 80% of the global population. The most important sites in South
Africa are Dasssen island: 13,283 pairs, St Croix Island: 8,077 pairs, Robben Island: 3,697 pairs, Bird
Island (Nelson Mandela Bay): 2,822 pairs, Dyer Island: 2,076 pairs and the Boulders: 1,075 pairs (Kemper
et al. 2007). In Namibia, Mercury Island held 1,813 pairs in 2006 (Kemper et al. 2007). Its population at
the beginning of the 21st century had fallen to about 10% of its numbers 100 years before. The total
population was estimated at 141,000 pairs in 1956-1957, 69,000 pairs in 1979-1980, 57,000 pairs in
2004-2005 and 36,000 pairs in 2006-2007 (Kemper et al. 2007). Declines have continued, with the global
population in 2009 estimated at just 25,262 pairs (R. Crawford in litt. 2010, J. Kemper in litt. 2010),
equating to a decline of 60.5% over 28 years (three generations).
Country Occurrence:
Native: Angola (Angola); Mozambique; Namibia; South Africa
Vagrant: Congo; Gabon
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
2
Distribution Map
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
3
Population
The Namibian population was estimated at c.5,000 breeding pairs in 2008, and the South African
population at c.21,000 breeding pairs in 2009 (R. Crawford in litt. 2010), thus, the figure used here is
52,000 mature individuals, roughly equating to 75,000-80,000 individuals in total.
Trend Justification
The population in Namibia has declined from 12,162 pairs in 1978 to an estimated 4,563 pairs in 2008.
Furthermore, the South African population has declined from an estimated 56,900 pairs in 1979 to
20,699 pairs in 2009. These figures correspond to an estimated decline of 61% in the past 28 years
(three generations), hence the population decline is placed in the band 50-79%.
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
Behaviour The adults of this species are largely sedentary but some movements occur in response to
prey movements (Hockey et al. 2005). They generally remain within 400 km of their breeding locality,
although they have been recorded up to 900 km away (Hockey et al. 2005). They breed and moult on
land before taking to the sea where they remain for four months before returning to land for the next
breeding season (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Small crèches of up to five juveniles may form at the breeding
site (del Hoyo et al. 1992). On gaining independence, juveniles disperse up to 1,900 km from their natal
colonies (Hockey et al. 2005), with those from the east heading west, and those from the west and
south moving north (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Most birds later return to their natal colony to moult and
breed (del Hoyo et al. 1992), although the growth of some island colonies has been attributed to the
immigration of first-time breeders tracking food availability (Crawford 1998, Hockey et al. 2005). Adults
nest colonially and at sea forages singly, in pairs, or sometimes co-operatively in small groups if up to
150 individuals (del Hoyo et al. 1992, Hockey 2001, Hockey et al. 2005). It breeds year round with peak
months varying locally (del Hoyo et al. 1992). In the north-west part of the range, peak laying occurs
during the months of November to January, in the south-west it occurs between May and July and in the
East Colonial between April and June (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Habitat This species is marine, and is
usually found in seas within 40 km of the shore, coming ashore on inshore islands or isolated areas of
the mainland coast to breed, moult and rest (del Hoyo et al. 1992, Hockey et al. 2005). Breeding
Breeding habitats range from flat, sandy islands with sparse or abundant vegetation, to steep rocky
islands with practically no vegetation, although the former is preferred (Hockey et al. 2005). It is
sometimes found close to the summit of islands and may move over a kilometre inland in search of
breeding sites (Hockey 2001). Non-breeding At sea its distribution is restricted to the area influenced by
the Benguela Current (Williams 1995). It usually feeds within 12 km of the coastline (Kemper et al.
2007). Diet Adults feed on pelagic schooling fish of 50-120mm in length (del Hoyo et al. 1992).
Important prey includes sardines (Sardinops sagax), anchovies (Engraulis capensis), pelagic goby
Sufflogobius bibarbatus, and herring (Etrumeus teres) (Crawford et al. 1985, del Hoyo et al. 1992). In
some localities cephalopods also represent an important food source (Crawford et al. 1985). Juveniles
tend to prey on fish larvae (Hockey 2001). Breeding site The nest is often built in burrows that are dug in
guano or sand (Shelton et al. 1984, Hanes 2006 theithacajournal.com). Nests may also occur in
depressions under large boulders or bushes (Hockey 2001). Nesting in open areas has become
increasingly common owing to the past harvesting of guano (Hanes 2006 theithacajournal.com). At
some sites artificial nest-burrows made from pipes and boxes sunken into the ground have been
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
4
regularly used by the species (Crawford et al. 1994). The average age at first breeding is thought to be 46 years (Whittington et al. 2005).
Systems: Terrestrial, Marine
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
Population declines are largely attributed to food shortages, resulting from large catches of fish by
commercial purse-seine fisheries, and environmental fluctuations. A decrease in foraging effort at the St
Croix Island colony following the establishment of a 20 km no-take zone provides some support for this
theory (Pichegru et al. 2010). An eastward shift in sardine and anchovy populations is also blamed, with
the biomass of these species near the largest breeding islands west of Cape Town falling sharply since
2002 (R. Crawford per Koenig 2007). The abundance of these prey species is known to influence
breeding success, which may often be too low to maintain population equilibrium (Crawford et al.
2006). Human disturbance and egg-collecting appear to have been additional factors in the species's
declines (Ellis et al. 1998). Tourists may cause nest-burrows to collapse, and their presence in large
numbers may deter young birds from breeding. Mortality from oil spills is serious and may increase if
proposed development of harbours close to colonies proceeds. In addition, most of the population is
confined to just two areas, both near to major shipping ports (Nel and Whittington 2003). There has
been a dramatic increase in the number of birds oiled since 1990: two individual oil spills (in 1994 and
2000) have killed 30,000 individuals, despite successful rehabilitation programmes (Nel and Whittington
2003). In addition, breeding success on Robben island fell to 0.23 chicks per pair in 2000, compared with
an average of 0.62 ±0.19 over the other 15 years from 1989 to 2004 (Crawford et al. 2006). Without
continuing rehabilitation, the population is set to decrease 17-51% over the next 20 years (Nel and
Whittington 2003). However, rehabilitation does not necessarily prevent problems in the years after a
spill. During 2001-2005, pairs involving at least one bird rehabilitated from the oil spill in 2000 achieved
lower fledging success (43%), mostly owing to higher mortality in older chicks, compared to unaffected
pairs (61%) and those involving at least one bird affected by a previous oil spill (71%) (Barham et al.
2007). This may indicate physiological or behavioural problems that reduce the parents' ability to meet
the food requirements of older chicks, perhaps owing to the toxicity of the heavy oil in the 2000 spill, or
the effects of prolonged captivity and time between oiling and washing (Barham et al. 2007). Guano
collection has historically been a major cause of disturbance at many colonies and its removal has
deprived penguins of nest-burrowing sites, causing birds to nest on open ground where they are more
vulnerable to heat stress resulting in the abandonment of nests, flooding of nests by rain and increased
predation (Hockey et al. 2005). The cape fur seal Arctocephalus pusillus competes with penguins for
food, displaces them from breeding sites and is a periodic predator. Limited mortality in fishing nets may
increase if gill-nets are set near colonies (Ellis et al. 1998). Recently the potentially major effects of
individual storms on breeding colonies at certain sites has been highlighted (de Villiers 2002). Sharks
take birds at sea and Kelp Gulls Larus dominicanus and feral cats prey on eggs and chicks at colonies
(Crawford 1998).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
Conservation Actions Underway
CITES Appendix II. CMS Appendix II. In South Africa, all breeding localities are national parks, nature
reserves or otherwise protected. Collection of guano and eggs is prohibited within penguin colonies
(Harrison et al. 1997). Oiled birds are rehabilitated with great success (Nel and Whittington 2003). More
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
5
than 80% of birds admitted for rehabilitation are returned successfully to the wild (Nel and Whittington
2003). In one study it was found that the age at first breeding of five oiled and rehabilitated birds did not
differ significantly from populations on Robben and Dassen Islands (Whittington et al. 2005). Since 1995
there has been a captive breeding programme at an aquarium in Cape Town, where around six birds are
bred annually, and a total of 14 have been released nearby (Lahana 2003). This programme has
contributed to public awareness and education (Lahana 2003). Research into feeding behaviour
involving the use of satellite-tracking and transponders is ongoing (Koenig 2007). On Dyer Island, the
effects of guano collection in the past are being mitigated by the installation of small fiberglass igloos as
nest-sites, with 200 put in place by 2006 and an eventual target of 2,000, roughly one for every pair in
the colony (Hanes 2006). These artificial nest-sites are used by pairs very soon after installation, and if
the programme is successful it will be expanded to other colonies in South Africa (Hanes 2006
theithacajournal.com). A research project into the potential positive impacts of small marine no-take
zones surrounding breeding colonies is underway, with results in the first year showing a decrease in
adult foraging effort (Pichegru et al. 2010, L. Pichegru in litt. 2010). Conservation Actions Proposed
Monitor population trends at all colonies (Ellis et al. 1998). Continue and maintain the SANCCOB oil spill
rehabilitation centre. Initiate research into the impacts of fishing and predation (Ellis et al. 1998).
Protect Namibian breeding localities (Ellis et al. 1998). Develop plans to conserve pelagic fish resources
(Harrison et al. 1997), namely through management of the purse-seine fishery (Crawford et al. 2006).
Prevent oilspills from illegal cleaning of ship tanks (Harrison et al. 1997). Eliminate feral cats from Bird,
Dassen and Robben Islands and implement measures to preclude the introduction of rats to any
colonies (Ellis et al. 1998, Crawford et al. 2006). Investigate reintroduction techniques (Ellis et al. 1998)
and establish captive breeding populations to assist with future reintroduction or supplementation
efforts. Assess whether climate change is a factor in the shifting of prey populations (Koenig 2007).
Consider the idea of establishing no-fishing zones around breeding islands (Koenig 2007, L. Underhill per
Koenig 2007). Consider translocating birds in reaction to shifts in food availability (L. Underhill per
Koenig 2007). Maintain suitable breeding habitat (Crawford et al. 2006). Control the spread of disease
(Crawford et al. 2006). Establish and then monitor 'trial colonies' close to current concentrations of food
resources (R. Wanless in litt. 2010).
Credits
Assessor(s):
BirdLife International
Reviewer(s):
Butchart, S.
Contributor(s):
Crawford, R., Kemper, J., Pichegru, L., Simmons, R., Underhill, L. & Wanless, R.
Facilitators(s) and
Compiler(s):
Calvert, R., Ekstrom, J., Pilgrim, J., Shutes, S., Taylor, J., Allinson, T, Symes, A. &
Ashpole, J
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
6
Bibliography
Barham, P. J. ; Underhill, L. G.; Crawford, R. J. M.; Leshoro, T. M. 2007. Differences in breeding success
between African Penguins (Spheniscus demersus) that were and were not oiled in the MV Treasure oilspill in 2000. Emu 107: 7-13.
Barnes, K. N. 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife
South Africa, Johannesburg.
Collar, N. J.; Butchart, S. H. M. 2013. Conservation breeding and avian diversity: chances and challenges.
International Zoo Yearbook.
Crawford, R. 1998. Revised Red Data Book. Bird Numbers 7(2): 8-9.
Crawford, R.J.M.; Barham, P.J.; Underhill, L. G.; Shannon, L.J.; Coetzee, J.C.; Dyer, B.M.; Leshoro, T.M.;
Upfold, L. 2006. The influence of food availability on breeding success of African Penguins Spheniscus
demersus at Robben Island, South Africa. Biological Conservation 132(1): 119-125.
Crawford, R.J.M., Dyer, B.M. and Brooke, R.K. 1994. Breeding nomadism in southern African seabirds:
constraints, causes and conservation. Ostrich 65(2): 231-246.
del Hoyo, J.; Elliot, A.; Sargatal, J. 1992. Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Lynx
Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
de Villiers, M. 2002. Effect of a storm on breeding African Penguins Spheniscus demersus at Foxy Beach,
Boulders Penguin Colony, Simon's Town. Bird Numbers 11: 7-9.
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.
Hanes, S. 2006. Penguins get a helping home from fiberglass 'igloos'. Available at:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-10-22-penguinsafrica_x.htm#http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-10-22-penguins-africa_x.htm#.
Harrison, J. A.; Allan, D. G.; Underhill, L. G.; Herremans, M.; Tree, A. J.; Parker, V.; Brown, C. J. 1997. The
atlas of southern African birds. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
Hockey, P. 2001. Struik Winchester, Cape Town, South Africa.
Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J. and Ryan, P.G. 2005. Roberts birds of southern Africa. Trustees of the John
Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town, South Africa.
IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 19 November 2015).
Kemper, J.; Underhill, L. G.; Crawford, R. J. M.; Kirkman, S. P. 2007. Revision of the conservation status of
seabirds and seals breeding in the Benguela Ecosystem. In: Kirkman, S. P. (ed.), Final Report of the
BCLME (Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem), pp. 325-342.
Koenig, R. 2007. African Penguin populations reported in a puzzling decline. Science 315(5816): 120.
Nel, D. C.; Whittington, P. A. 2003. Rehabilitation of oiled African Penguins: a conservation success story.
Petersen, S. L.; Ryan, P. G.; Gremillet, D. 2006. Is food availability limiting African Penguins Spheniscus
demersus at Boulders? A comparison of foraging effort at mainland and island colonies. Ibis 148: 14-26.
Pichegru, L.; Grémillet, D.; Crawford, R. M. J.; Ryan, P. G. 2010. Marine no-take zone rapidly benefits
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
7
Endangered penguin. Biology Letters http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0913.
Roux, J.-P.; Kemper, J.; Bartlett, P. A.; Dyer, B. M.; Dundee, B. L. 2003. African penguins Spheniscus
demersus recolonise a fomerly abandoned nesting locality in Namibia. Marine Ornithology 31: 203-205.
Shelton, P.A., Crawford, R.J.M., Cooper, J., Brooke, R.K. 1984. Distribution, population size and
conservation of the Jackass Penguin Spheniscus demersus. South African Journal of Marine Science 2:
217-257.
Whittington, P., Klages, N., Crawford, R., Wolfaardt, A. and Kemper, J. 2005. Age at first breeding of the
African Penguin. Ostrich 76(1&2): 14-20.
Williams, T. D. 1995. The penguins Spheniscidae. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Citation
BirdLife International. 2015. Spheniscus demersus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:
e.T22697810A84636189. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
8
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat
Season
Suitability
Major
Importance?
3. Shrubland -> 3.4. Shrubland - Temperate
Breeding
Suitable
No
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.1. Marine Neritic - Pelagic
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.2. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.2. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.3. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.3. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.4. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.4. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.5. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy-Mud
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.5. Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy-Mud
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.7. Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.7. Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.9. Marine Neritic - Seagrass (Submerged)
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
9. Marine Neritic -> 9.9. Marine Neritic - Seagrass (Submerged)
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
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.2. Marine Oceanic - Mesopelagic (200-1000m)
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
10. Marine Oceanic -> 10.2. Marine Oceanic - Mesopelagic (200-1000m)
Nonbreeding
Suitable
Yes
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.1. Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline
Breeding
Suitable
No
12. Marine Intertidal -> 12.3. Marine Intertidal - Shingle and/or Pebble
Shoreline and/or Beaches
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
13. Marine Coastal/Supratidal -> 13.1. Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea Cliffs
and Rocky Offshore Islands
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
9
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat
Timing
Scope
Severity
Impact Score
3. Energy production & mining -> 3.2. Mining &
quarrying
Past,
unlikely to
return
Majority (5090%)
Slow, significant
declines
Past impact
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Past,
unlikely to
return
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Past,
unlikely to
return
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Past, likely
to return
Majority (5090%)
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
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is
the target)
5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting
aquatic resources -> 5.4.4. Unintentional effects:
(large scale)
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.3. Work &
other activities
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.2.
Named species (Felis catus)
9. Pollution -> 9.2. Industrial & military effluents ->
9.2.1. Oil spills
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.1. Habitat
shifting & alteration
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.4. Storms
& flooding
Slow, significant
declines
Rapid declines
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Rapid declines
Slow, significant
declines
Causing/could
cause fluctuations
Past impact
Medium
impact: 7
Past impact
Low impact: 5
Past impact
Medium
impact: 6
Low impact: 5
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
Action Recovery plan: Yes
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
10
Conservation Actions in Place
Systematic monitoring scheme: No
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
Invasive species control or prevention: No
In-Place Species Management
Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: No
Subject to ex-situ conservation: Yes
In-Place Education
Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: No
Included in international legislation: Yes
Subject to any international management/trade controls: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
2. Land/water management -> 2.2. Invasive/problematic species control
3. Species management -> 3.2. Species recovery
3. Species management -> 3.3. Species re-introduction -> 3.3.1. Reintroduction
3. Species management -> 3.3. Species re-introduction -> 3.3.2. Benign introduction
3. Species management -> 3.4. Ex-situ conservation -> 3.4.1. Captive breeding/artificial propagation
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.1. International level
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
2. Conservation Planning -> 2.3. Harvest & Trade Management Plan
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
11
Research Needed
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 9400
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Number of Locations: 27
Continuing decline in number of locations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
Population
Number of mature individuals: 52000
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: No
Population severely fragmented: No
No. of subpopulations: 1
Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No
All individuals in one subpopulation: Yes
No. of individuals in largest subpopulation: 100
Habitats and Ecology
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes
Generation Length (years): 9.3
Movement patterns: Full Migrant
Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Spheniscus demersus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015.RLTS.T22697810A84636189.en
12
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: BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International;
Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of
Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™