Population status, ecology and conservation of the southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus) in Argentina

El Petrel Gigante del Sur (Macronectes giganteus) es un ave marina pelágica con distribución circumpolar en el Hemisferio Sur y está considerado como especie Vulnerable. Es el único procellariiforme que nidifica en la costa argentina (a excepción de las Islas Malvinas). En Argentina, sus sitios de nidificación están restringidos a dos colonias en la provincia de Chubut (Isla Arce e Isla Gran Robredo) y dos colonias en Isla de los Estados (Isla Observatorio y Península López). La población reproductiva se estima en 2600 parejas, el 90% de las cuales pertenece a las colonias de Chubut. La puesta de un único huevo se inicia durante la última semana de octubre y la eclosión durante la última semana de diciembre. La independencia de los pichones ocurre hacia la segunda semana de marzo y principios de abril. La dieta está compuesta principalmente por pingüinos y cefalópodos (principalmente calamar) y por restos de mamíferos marinos, peces y decápodos. La basura constituye un componente importante de su dieta. Las áreas de alimentación durante el período reproductivo se localizan al borde del talud, en la plataforma media y en áreas costeras, con una marcada segregación sexual en el uso del espacio. Dichas áreas tienen una marcada superposición espacio-temporal con las pesquerías de langostino, calamar y merluza. El monitoreo de las poblaciones, el registro de parámetros reproductivos básicos, el conocimiento del comportamiento en el mar y la determinación de las áreas de alimentación del Petrel Gigante del Sur constituyen información prioritaria para desarrollar pautas de manejo y conservación de sus poblaciones.The Southern Giant Petrel (Macronectes giganteus) is a pelagic seabird considered Vulnerable with a circumpolar distribution restricted to the Southern Hemisphere. It is the only representative of procellariiforms breeding at the Argentine coast (with the exception of the Malvinas Islands). In Argentina, its nesting sites are confined to two colonies in the Chubut Province (Arce Island and Gran Robredo Island) and two colonies in the Staten Island (Observatorio Island and Península López). The breeding population size is estimated in 2600 pairs, 90% belonging to the colonies in Chubut . The laying period (clutch size: one) starts in late October and the first eggs hatch during the last week of December. The fledgling period goes from late March to late April. Southern Giant Petrel’s diet is composed principally by penguins and cephalopods (mainly squid), and rests of marine mammals, fish and decapods. Marine debris is also an important component of the diet. During the breeding period, feeding areas are located at the break shelf, middle shelf and coastal areas, with a clear spatial segregation between sexes. Foraging areas also overlap with fisheries targeting on shrimp, squid and hake. The survey of population numbers and basic breeding parameters, together with the knowledge of behaviour-at-sea and the determination of the foraging areas of the Southern Giant Petrel, constitute a primary tool to develop management and conservation plans for their populations

Human–wildlife conflicts in Patagonia: ranchers’ perceptions of guanaco Lama guanicoe abundance

Conflicts between people and wildlife have become widespread as people move to areas previously home to wildlife and as wild populations recover. In Patagonia, one of the main threats to guanaco Lama guanicoe conservation is the animosity of sheep ranchers towards the species. As key stakeholders in guanaco conservation we assessed ranchers’ perceptions regarding guanaco abundance in Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. We contrasted these perceptions with estimated guanaco abundance and explored the socio-ecological factors influencing perceptions and how perceptions of overabundance are rooted in contextual factors rather than actual abundance. We performed semi-structured interviews with ranchers from Isla Grande and estimated guanaco abundance independently using density surface modelling. Ranchers were divided into three categories depending on their perception of guanaco abundance: ‘too many’, ‘many’ and ‘normal’. Those in the ‘many’ and ‘normal’ categories perceived guanaco abundance as being similar to actual abundance, whereas those in the category ‘too many' overestimated guanaco abundance. The perceived issues affecting livestock production varied between categories, although feral dogs emerged as the main problem. Negative perceptions of the guanaco stemmed from ranchers' beliefs that the species reduces forage availability for livestock, and from their disappointment about the government's handling of concerns regarding livestock production. Greater understanding and integration of the human dimension in conservation are needed to design more inclusive and resilient management plans

Spatial Models of Abundance and Habitat Preferences of Commerson’s and Peale’s Dolphin in Southern Patagonian Waters

Funding: This research was possible with the support of the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). Funding for travel to and accommodation for NAD in Aberdeen, Scotland was provided by CONICET and Cetacean Society International. The work of NAD was part of a postdoctoral fellowship funded by CONICET. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Rae Natalie Prosser de Goodall 1935-2015

An obituary on Rae Natalie P. Goodall is presented with highlights to her scientific life

Rae Natalie Prosser de Goodall 1935-2015

An obituary on Rae Natalie P. Goodall is presented with highlights to her scientific life

Free-roaming dogs in Ushuaia City, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina: How many and why

Free-roaming dogs (FRD) in cities represent an increasing problem. Authorities need numbers of FRD to evaluate policies implemented and to monitor the dog population. We estimated the number of FRD in Ushuaia city, Argentina, using a photographic capture-recapture methodology. We estimated an abundance index, the power to detect changes in the index, and modeled factors that may explain the spatial distribution of FRD and their welfare status. We also infer whether if they are represented by partially supervised or unsupervised dogs, using a health and welfare index based on body fat coverage and skin condition, as well as on the presence of collars or accessories as a proxy of evidence for tenure. During three surveys, covering 72 transects along streets (9.9% of the street layout of Ushuaia), we recorded 539 different FRD. A model with individual heterogeneity in capture-recapture probability gave 12,797 FRD (95% CI 10,979—15,323), reflecting a dog:human relation of 1:6, higher than the relation recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). The abundance index was similar between surveys (8.13 ± 1.36, 8.38 ± 1.46 and 9.55 ± 1.28 dogs/km). The difference needed to detect changes in the index is about twice the standard error of estimates. The best model explaining dogs’ abundance included only geographical location, although two neighbourhoods with 9 transects stand out with 181 different FRD identified. Together with the good overall dogs’ welfare status, modeling suggests that the behavior of owners is the main driver for the presence of FRD. We recommend the use of photographic capture-recapture methodologies instead of simple index estimation, due to the small additional effort required and the improved accuracy and precision obtained. We also recommend a permanent systematic design for future surveys, increase the number of survey occasions, and improve the survey process.Fil: Arona Ferreira, Emiliano Adrián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur. Instituto de Ciencias Polares, Ambientales y Recursos Naturales; ArgentinaFil: Schiavini, Adrian Carlos Miguel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur. Instituto de Ciencias Polares, Ambientales y Recursos Naturales; Argentina. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unido