The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T22697761A93638235
Scope: Global
Language: English
Pygoscelis antarcticus, Chinstrap Penguin
Assessment by: BirdLife International
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: BirdLife International. 2016. Pygoscelis antarcticus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2016: e.T22697761A93638235. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20163.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.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: Pygoscelis antarcticus (Forster, 1781)
Synonym(s):
• Pygoscelis antarctica (Forster, 1781) [orth. error] — Turbott (1990)
• Pygoscelis antarctica (Forster, 1781) [orth. error] — Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993)
• Pygoscelis antarctica (Forster, 1781) [orth. error] — Christidis and Boles (1994)
• Pygoscelis antarctica (Forster, 1781) [orth. error] — BirdLife International (2004)
Common Name(s):
• English:
• Spanish:
Chinstrap Penguin
Pingüino barbijo
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.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published:
2016
Date Assessed:
October 1, 2016
Justification:
This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable
under the range size criterion (extent of occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or
fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or
severe fragmentation). The population trend appears to be increasing, and hence the species does not
approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten
years or three generations). The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the
thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a
continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified
population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2012 – Least Concern (LC) – http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22697761A40176882.en
2010 – Least Concern (LC)
2009 – Least Concern (LC)
2008 – Least Concern (LC)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
1
2004 – Least Concern (LC)
2000 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
1994 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
1988 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
This species has a circumpolar distribution, being found in Antarctica, the South Sandwich Islands (Islas
Sandwich del Sur), the South Orkneys, South Shetland and South Georgia (Georgia del Sur), Bouvet
Island (to Norway) and the Balleny Islands (del Hoyo et al. 1992).
Population information for many sites is unknown or out of date. For example, population surveys at the
South Sandwich Islands, where the majority of the world population breeds (1,500,000 pairs; Convey et
al. 1999; Lynch et al. 2016), are infrequent. Other important breeding populations exist at the South
Orkney Islands (405,000 pairs; Poncet and Poncet 1985), but this is probably an underestimate (P
Trathan In Litt.), especially at the western end of the archipelago. Large populations also occur at the
South Shetland Islands (987,000; Trivelpiece and Trivelpiece 2013) and the west Antarctic Peninsula
(72,000; Trivelpiece and Trivelpiece 2013). Small populations occur at South Georgia (~1,800 pairs),
Bøuvet (<100) and at the Balleny Islands (< 100) (Trivelpiece and Trivelpiece 2013). Population trends
for chinstrap penguins, although complex and somewhat regional in extent and timing, suggest that the
species experienced a dramatic increase in numbers following the harvesting of fur seals and whales
from the early 1800s to mid-1900s and the development and expansion of sub-Antarctic finfish fisheries
that began in the 1960s. Chinstrap populations reached their peak in the late 1970s (Croxall and
Kirkwood 1979) but then have experienced significant declines at some, but not all, breeding sites since
that time (Poncet 1997; Woehler et al. 2001; Forcada et al. 2006; Lynch et al. 2008; Forcada and Trathan
2009; Trivelpiece et al. 2011; Lynch et al. 2016). A recent analysis of published data on chinstraps in the
Antarctic Peninsula region reports an estimated population decline of 1.1 ± 0.8% per annum since 1980
(Lynch et al. 2012).
This trend, however, is not mirrored at all locations; for example, in the Palmer Archipelago at the
extreme southern extent of this species’ range on the Antarctic Peninsula an initial population of
approximately 2000 individuals in 1974 expanded to approximately 10,000 individuals in 2016, including
both an increase in extant colonies and the establishment of new ones (Fraser 2016). Importantly, this
region has experienced a significant decrease in sea ice but no apparent changes in Antarctic krill
abundance (Steinberg et al. 2015). The population also appears stable at the South Sandwich Islands
(Lynch et al. 2016).
Country Occurrence:
Native: Antarctica; Argentina; Bouvet Island; Chile; Falkland Islands (Malvinas); French Southern
Territories; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Vagrant: Australia; Heard Island and McDonald Islands; New Zealand; Saint Helena, Ascension and
Tristan da Cunha; South Africa
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
2
Distribution Map
Pygoscelis antarcticus
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
3
Population
Convey et al. (1999) estimate a world population of ~4 million breeding pairs.
Trend Justification
The species expanded its range and its population in the mid-20th century, potentially owing to
increased prey (krill) availability (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Currently decreasing at most sites on the
Antarctic Peninsula, except at the southern extreme of its range where it is increasing. Stable at the
South Sandwich Island (Lynch et al. 2016). Unknown at many other locations.
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
This species is mostly found in zones with light ice pack. Its diet is comprised almost exclusively of
Antarctic krill, but it will also take fish and other species of crustaceans when possible. Prey capture is
apparently by pursuit-diving up to a depth of 70 m, but mostly at depths less than 45 m. It breeds on
irregular rocky coasts in ice free areas, forming large colonies of hundreds and thousands of birds (del
Hoyo et al. 1992). Winter migrations can be extensive and winter habitats are generally pelagic and are
located north of the sea ice edge (Hinke et al. 2015).
Systems: Terrestrial, Marine
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
The recent volcanic activity during the moult period in 2016 at Zavodovski and Bristol in the South
Sandwich Islands could have had severe impacts on populations; surveys of the breeding colonies at the
South Sandwich Islands are therefore important to repeat. More generally, it is important to minimize
human disturbance to breeding colonies; visitor site guidelines already specify minimum approach
distances of 5 meters and off-limit areas.
Human impacts potentially also include disturbance from tourists, scientists, construction of new
science facilities and fisheries, particularly fisheries for Antarctic krill. Harvesting of Antarctic krill could
be a threat, if management does not adequately take into account the needs of species that feed upon
krill. Oil spills may also be important at local scales. Protection of habitat on land and at sea is
important, with the designation of appropriate protection for transit, foraging and rafting areas at sea.
Based largely upon the reported declines in the Atlantic Sector, but also recognizing that recent volcanic
activity during the moult period in 2016 at Zavodovski and Bristol in the South Sandwich Islands where
very large colonies occur, the threat status should be reviewed if large numbers are found to have been
killed.
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
Conservation Actions Underway
Long-term monitoring programmes are in place at several breeding colonies.
Conservation Actions Proposed
Minimize disturbance to breeding colonies. In the Antarctic, visitor site guidelines already specify
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
4
minimum approach distances of 5 meters and off-limit areas. Continue/extend long-term monitoring of
breeding colonies. Monitoring studies of chinstrap populations must include annual censuses, dietary
and foraging studies, reproductive research, and demographic data. Currently this information is
available only from the South Shetland Islands and intermittently from the South Orkney Islands and the
Palmer Archipelago. Establish similar research efforts in the South Sandwich Islands and increase
research efforts in the South Orkney Islands. Gather data from the edge of the species range at South
Georgia and along the Antarctic Peninsula near the southern extent of this species’ distribution. Collect
information from all of these main breeding regions on distribution and diet during the non-breeding
winter period.
Credits
Assessor(s):
BirdLife International
Reviewer(s):
Butchart, S. & Symes, A.
Contributor(s):
Ballard, G., DuBois, L., Fraser, W., Hinke, J., Lynch, H., Makhado, A., Schmidt, A.,
Schneider, T. & Trathan, P.
Facilitators(s) and
Compiler(s):
Butchart, S., Calvert, R., Ekstrom, J., Moreno, R., Trathan, P.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
5
Bibliography
Convey, P., Morton, A. and Poncet, J. 1999. Survey of marine birds and mammals of the South Sandwich
Islands. Polar Record 35(193): 107-124.
Croxall, J.P., Kirkwood, E.D. 1979. The distribution of penguins on the Antarctic Peninsula and islands of
the Scotia Sea. Balogh Scientific Books.
del Hoyo, J.; Elliot, A.; Sargatal, J. 1992. Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Lynx
Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
Forcada, J.; Trathan, P. N. 2009. Penguin responses to climate change in the Southern Ocean. Global
Change Biology 15: 1618-1630.
Forcada, J.; Trathan, P. N.; Reid, K.; Murphy, E. J.; Croxall, J. P. 2006. Contrasting population changes in
sympatric penguin species in association with climate warming. Global Change Biology 12: 411-423.
Fraser, W.R. 2016. A new survey of the Rosenthal Islands. Report submitted to the U.S. National Science
Foundation, Division of Polar Programs, Arlington, VA, USA: 6 pp.
Hinke JT, MJ Polito, ME Goebel, S Jarvis, CS Reiss, SR Thorrold, WZ Trivelpiece, GM Watters. 2015. Spatial
and isotopic niche partitioning during winter in chinstrap and Adélie penguins from the South Shetland
Islands. Ecosphere 6(7): 1-32.
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 07 December 2016).
Lynch, H.J., Naveen, R. and Fagan, W.F. 2008. Censuses of penguin, blue-eyed shag Phalacrocorax
atriceps and southern giant petrel Macronectes giganteus populations on the Antarctic Peninsula,
2001–2007. Marine Ornithology 36: 83-97.
Lynch, H.J.; Naveen, R.; Trathan, P.N.; Fagan, W.F. 2012. Spatially integrated assessment reveals
widespread changes in penguin populations on the Antarctic Peninsula. Ecology 93: 1367-1377.
Lynch, H.J., White, R., Naveen, R., Black, A., Meixler, M.S., Fagan W.F. 2016. In stark contrast to
widespread declines along the Scotia Arc, a survey of the South Sandwich Islands finds a robust seabird
community. Polar Biology 39: 1615–1625.
Poncet, J., Island, B., Islands, F. and Atlantic, S. 1997. Distribution and Abundance Survey.
Poncet, S. and Poncet, J. 1985. A survey of penguin breeding populations at the South Orkney Islands.
British Antarctic Survey Bulletin 68: 71-81.
Steinberg, D.K.; Ruck, K.E.; Gleiber, M.R.; Garzio, L.M.; Cope, J.S.; Bernard, K.S.; Stammerjohn, S.E.;
Schofield, O.M.E.; Quetin, L.B.; Ross, R.M. 2015. Long-term (1993–2013) changes in macrozooplankton
off the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Deep Sea Research I 101: 54-70.
Trivelpiece, W., Trivelpiece, S. 2013. The chinstrap penguin. In: Biology and Conservation of the World’s
Penguins (eds. P.D. Boersma and P.G. Borboroglu), University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Trivelpiece, W.Z., Hinke, J.T., Miller, A.K., Reiss, C.S., Trivelpiece, S.G. and Watters, G.M. 2011. Variability
in krill biomass links harvesting and climate warming to penguin population changes in Antarctica.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(18): 7625-7628.
Woehler, E. J.; Cooper, J.; Croxall, J. P.; Fraser, W. R.; Kooyman, G. L.; Miller, G. D.; Nel, D. C.; Patterson, D.
L.; Peter, H.-U.; Ribic, S. A.; Salwicka, K.; Trivelpiece, W. Z.; Weimerskirch, H. 2001. A statistical
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
6
assessment of the status and trends of antarctic and subantarctic seabirds.
Citation
BirdLife International. 2016. Pygoscelis antarcticus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
e.T22697761A93638235. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.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: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
7
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
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
Yes
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat
Timing
Scope
Severity
Impact Score
10. Geological events -> 10.1. Volcanoes
Ongoing
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
8
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.3.
Temperature extremes
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.3. Work &
other activities
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Unknown
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Ongoing
Unknown
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
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: No
Systematic monitoring scheme: No
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: No
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
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
9
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
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): 13000000
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
Population
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations: No
Population severely fragmented: No
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): 9.9
Movement patterns: Full Migrant
Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pygoscelis antarcticus – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697761A93638235.en
10
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™