Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 652, Issue 1, pp 389–394 | Cite as

Defining conservation status using limited information: the case of Patagonian otters Lontra provocax in Argentina

  • Marcelo H. CassiniEmail author
  • Laura Fasola
  • Claudio Chehébar
  • David W. Macdonald
Short research note

Abstract

The Southern river otter or huillín Lontra provocax has been classified as ‘endangered’, with the loss of riparian forest identified as the main threat to its survival. We used new information on distribution from Argentina to define their status. There are no data on the huillin’s population structure and dynamics, and no estimate of its abundance or population trends at a relevant scale. Our survey teams covered 435 locations in lakes, rivers and coastal sites using a standard and repeatable methodology of 600 m survey transects as adopted for otter surveys across Europe. We found that its present geographic range in Argentina is slightly larger than is characteristic of a species at risk of extinction at the national level, although its contemporary distribution is still radically contracted in comparison to its historical distribution.

Keywords

Aquatic mammals Geographical distribution Forage specialization Habitat requirements 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are deeply grateful to Gerardo Porro, Marcelo Bello and Leonardo R. Leggieri for their collaboration with the fieldwork. GIS analysis was supervised by Leonardo Di Franco and PRODITEL-UNLu provided GIS software. The study was financed by the Darwin Initiative (United Kingdom) and the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Técnica (Argentina, PICT 14173). MHC is a researcher in the CONICET. We are grateful to Hans Kruuk and Lauren Harrington for helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Aued, M. B., C. Chéhebar, G. Porro, D. W. Macdonald & M. H. Cassini, 2003. Environmental correlates of distribution of Southern river otters (Lontra provocax) at different ecological scales. Oryx 37: 413–421.Google Scholar
  2. Bonesi, L. & D. W. Macdonald, 2004. Evaluation of sign surveys as a way to estimate the relative abundance of American mink (Mustela vison). Journal of Zoology (London) 262: 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabrera, A. L., 1971. Fitogeografía de la República Argentina. Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica 14: 1–42.Google Scholar
  4. Carmanchahi, P., M. C. Funes, M. B. Bongiorno & O. B. Monsalvo, 2006. Actualización de la distribución del huillín en la provincia del Neuquén. In Cassini, M. H. & M. Sepúlveda (eds), El Huillín Lontra provocax: Investigaciones sobre una nutria patagónica en peligro de extinción, Serie Fauna Neotropical 1. Publicación de la Organización PROFAUNA, Buenos Aires: 105–111.Google Scholar
  5. Cassini, M. H., L. Fasola, C. Chehébar & D. W. Macdonald, 2009. Scale-dependent analysis of an otter-crustacean system in Argentinean Patagonia. Naturwissenschaften 96: 593–599.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Centrón, D., B. Ramirez, L. Fasola, D. Macdonald, C. Chehébar, A. Schiavini & M. H. Cassini, 2008. Genetic diversity in Southern river otter (Lontra provocax) in Argentinean Patagonia. Journal of Heredity. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esm117.
  7. Chebez, J. C., 1999. Los que se van, especies Argentinas en peligro. Albatros, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  8. Chehébar, C., 1985. A survey of the Southern River Otter Lutra provocax Thomas in Nahuel Huapi National Park, Argentina. Biological Conservation 32: 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chehébar, C. & G. Porro, 1998. Distribución y estatus del Huillín (Lutra provocax) en el Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi, Argentina. Vida Silvestre Neotropical 7: 99–106.Google Scholar
  10. Chehébar, C., A. Gallur, G. Giannico, M. Gottelli & P. Yorio, 1986. A survey of the southern river otter Lutra provocax in Lanín Puelo and Los Alerces National Parks, Argentina and evaluation of its conservation status. Biological Conservation 38: 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciancio, J. E., M. A. Pascual & D. A. Beauchamp, 2007. Energy density of Patagonian aquatic organisms and empirical predictions based on water content. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 1415–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gomez, J. J. & M. H. Cassini, 2010. Uso de pelos guardianes para la identificación de especies de carnívoros costeros en la Patagonia. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía (Chile).Google Scholar
  13. Hayward, M. W., 2009. The need to rationalize and prioritize threatening processes used to determine threat status in the IUCN red list. Conservation Biology 23: 1568–1576.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. IUCN, 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  15. IUCN, 2003. Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels: version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Jenness, J., 2004. Convex hulls around points (conv_hulls_pts.avx) extension for Arc View 3.x, v.1.2 Jenness Enterprises. http://www.jennessent.com/arcview/, http://www.jennessent.com/arcview/convex_hulls.htm.
  17. Macdonald, S. M., 1983. The status of the otter (Lutra lutra) in the British Isles. Mammal Review 13: 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mason, C. F. & S. M. Macdonald, 1987. The use of spraints for surveying otter Lutra lutra populations: an evaluation. Biological Conservation 41: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Medina-Vogel, G., V. R. Kaufman, R. Monsalve & V. Gomez, 2003. The influence of riparian vegetation, woody debris, stream morphology and human activity on the use of rivers by southern river otters in Lontra provocax in Chile. Oryx 37: 422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parera, A., A. Schiavini & E. Frere, 1997. Relevamiento ecológico de la Isla de los Estados: Observaciones sobre su estado de conservación y sugerencias de manejo. Boletín Técnico No. 38 de la Fundación Vida Silvestre, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  21. Sepulveda, M., J. L. Bartheld, R. Monsalve, V. Gómez & G. Medina-Vogel, 2007. Habitat use and spatial behaviour of the endangered Southern river otter (Lontra provocax) in riparian habitats of Chile: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 140: 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sepulveda, M., M. Franco, G. Medina, L. Fasola & R. Alvarez, 2008. Lontra provocax. In IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on 30 November 2009.
  23. Sepulveda, M. A., J. L. Bartheld, C. Meynard, M. Benavides, C. Astorga, D. Parra & G. Medina-Vogel, 2009. Landscape features and crustacean prey as predictors of the Southern river otter distribution in Chile. Animal Conservation 12(6): 522–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcelo H. Cassini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura Fasola
    • 2
  • Claudio Chehébar
    • 3
  • David W. Macdonald
    • 2
  1. 1.Grupo de Estudios en Ecología de Mamíferos (DCB, CONICET, PROFAUNA)Universidad Nacional de LujánLujánArgentina
  2. 2.Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Zoology DepartmentUniversity of OxfordTubneyUK
  3. 3.Delegación Regional Patagonia, Administración de Parques NacionalesRío NegroArgentina

Personalised recommendations