9 thoughts on “Southern Rockhopper Penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome)”
In view of the separation of the Eastern and Southern Rockhopper Penguin and the observed population developments I fully support the new classification as vulnerable.
I support the listing of the Southern Rockhopper Penguin as Vulnerable based on the observed and suspected rates of decline of this newly recognised species.
I fully support the listings of both Eastern Rockhopper Penguins and Southern Rockhopper Penguin’s as being vulnerable, especially in light of species reclassification.
I am not sure whether this is the appropriate place or moment to raise this point, but I believe that a substantial amount of relevant literature is missing. Here, I suggest several papers and an updated data from our research group working at the small colony of Isla Pingüino, Argentina (2174 bp in 2024, unpublished data). However, it is also evident that many references from other sites are lacking.
If needed, I would be happy to help review the section and complement it with additional published literature. Please feel free to contact me.
– Barrionuevo M., Lisovski, S., Morgenthaler, A., Millones, A., & Frere, E. (2025). Different migration strategies under warming ocean anomalies in penguins: a study of spatial, oceanographic, and isotopic niche segregation. Journal of Ornithology, 1-13.
(describes the wintering range and environmental niche during 3 seasons; a more dispersed distribution in years with a positive SST anomaly was found)
– Lera, M. D., Barrionuevo, M., Morgenthaler, A., Millones, A., & Frere, E. (2023). Phenology and reproductive biology of the southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome) at Isla Pingüino (Santa Cruz province, Argentina). Polar Biology, 46(8), 749-758.
(air temperature heatwaves induced chick mortality events)
– Morgenthaler, A., Frere, E., Rey, A. R., Torlaschi, C., Cedrola, P., Tiberi, E., … & Millones, A. (2018). Unusual number of Southern Rockhopper Penguins, Eudyptes chrysocome, molting and dying along the Southern Patagonian coast of Argentina: pre-molting dispersion event related to adverse oceanographic conditions?. Polar Biology, 41(5), 1041-1047.
(mortality event associated with negative SST anomaly during el Niño previous to molting period)
Best regards,
Annick Morgenthaler
Southern Patagonia Seabird Research and Conservation Group / Grupo de Investigación y Conservación de Aves Marinas de Patagonia Austral, Centro de Investigaciones de Puerto Deseado, Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral, Santa Cruz, Argentina
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 2 February 2026. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 2 February 2026, when discussions will re-open.
We received the following comments from Amanda Kuepfer from Falklands Conservation (Incorporating the New Island Conservation Trust):
A key point for us, as noted in the information provided, is that the FISMP data suggests a fluctuating but overall stable population over the past three generations in the Falklands. Based on this, we would have reservations about placing emphasis on the current declining phase to support inference of a wider population decline over three generations at colonies for which no data are available and which occur in a different ocean. As the current text draws attention to the declining phase on a number of occasions, it could be interpreted as supporting such an inference and it would be helpful to clarify this in the assessment.
As we have found with the Falklands dataset, identifying these fluctuations has required long-term annual monitoring, and similar dynamics may be occurring elsewhere. Where monitoring is less frequent, long-term underlying trends may be less apparent, and temporary fluctuations may take on misleading significance.
We make these comments only in regards to helping formulate a robust assessment. We are not opposing the VU under A4b, if it remains appropriate under the assessment process with these points considered.
One additional minor point for clarification in the text – the Falklands 2024 estimate of 250,000 is currently referred to as an island-wide census in the first line of the Annex 1. This is misleading, as the figure was inferred from the annual population index generated through the FISMP, so we recommend rewording.
We thank Klemens Puetz, Gemma Clucas, Theresa Cole, Annick Morgenthaler and Amanda Kuepfer for the comments on this proposal. In conjunction with the IUCN Species Survival Commission Penguin Specialist Group, we will follow up on the literature to be included in the final Red List assessment. We will also revise the population information to clarify that the most recent value for the Falklands is based on the population index, not a full census. The concern that the population around Chile and in the Pacific is undergoing a rapid reduction is based on the observed declines from Isla de los Estados and expert opinion supplied by the Penguin Specialist Group (A. Raya Rey in litt. 2025). The impact of the recent reduction in the Falklands population since 2015 is included in the uncertainty in the overall rate: it is not used to infer the trend in other parts of the population.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later in 2026, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 16 February 2026.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Southern Rockhopper Penguin is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion A4b.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
In view of the separation of the Eastern and Southern Rockhopper Penguin and the observed population developments I fully support the new classification as vulnerable.
I support the listing of the Southern Rockhopper Penguin as Vulnerable based on the observed and suspected rates of decline of this newly recognised species.
I fully support the listings of both Eastern Rockhopper Penguins and Southern Rockhopper Penguin’s as being vulnerable, especially in light of species reclassification.
I agree with the proposed category.
I am not sure whether this is the appropriate place or moment to raise this point, but I believe that a substantial amount of relevant literature is missing. Here, I suggest several papers and an updated data from our research group working at the small colony of Isla Pingüino, Argentina (2174 bp in 2024, unpublished data). However, it is also evident that many references from other sites are lacking.
If needed, I would be happy to help review the section and complement it with additional published literature. Please feel free to contact me.
– Barrionuevo M., Lisovski, S., Morgenthaler, A., Millones, A., & Frere, E. (2025). Different migration strategies under warming ocean anomalies in penguins: a study of spatial, oceanographic, and isotopic niche segregation. Journal of Ornithology, 1-13.
(describes the wintering range and environmental niche during 3 seasons; a more dispersed distribution in years with a positive SST anomaly was found)
– Lera, M. D., Barrionuevo, M., Morgenthaler, A., Millones, A., & Frere, E. (2023). Phenology and reproductive biology of the southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome) at Isla Pingüino (Santa Cruz province, Argentina). Polar Biology, 46(8), 749-758.
(air temperature heatwaves induced chick mortality events)
– Morgenthaler, A., Frere, E., Rey, A. R., Torlaschi, C., Cedrola, P., Tiberi, E., … & Millones, A. (2018). Unusual number of Southern Rockhopper Penguins, Eudyptes chrysocome, molting and dying along the Southern Patagonian coast of Argentina: pre-molting dispersion event related to adverse oceanographic conditions?. Polar Biology, 41(5), 1041-1047.
(mortality event associated with negative SST anomaly during el Niño previous to molting period)
Best regards,
Annick Morgenthaler
Southern Patagonia Seabird Research and Conservation Group / Grupo de Investigación y Conservación de Aves Marinas de Patagonia Austral, Centro de Investigaciones de Puerto Deseado, Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral, Santa Cruz, Argentina
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 2 February 2026. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 2 February 2026, when discussions will re-open.
We received the following comments from Amanda Kuepfer from Falklands Conservation (Incorporating the New Island Conservation Trust):
A key point for us, as noted in the information provided, is that the FISMP data suggests a fluctuating but overall stable population over the past three generations in the Falklands. Based on this, we would have reservations about placing emphasis on the current declining phase to support inference of a wider population decline over three generations at colonies for which no data are available and which occur in a different ocean. As the current text draws attention to the declining phase on a number of occasions, it could be interpreted as supporting such an inference and it would be helpful to clarify this in the assessment.
As we have found with the Falklands dataset, identifying these fluctuations has required long-term annual monitoring, and similar dynamics may be occurring elsewhere. Where monitoring is less frequent, long-term underlying trends may be less apparent, and temporary fluctuations may take on misleading significance.
We make these comments only in regards to helping formulate a robust assessment. We are not opposing the VU under A4b, if it remains appropriate under the assessment process with these points considered.
One additional minor point for clarification in the text – the Falklands 2024 estimate of 250,000 is currently referred to as an island-wide census in the first line of the Annex 1. This is misleading, as the figure was inferred from the annual population index generated through the FISMP, so we recommend rewording.
Preliminary proposal
We thank Klemens Puetz, Gemma Clucas, Theresa Cole, Annick Morgenthaler and Amanda Kuepfer for the comments on this proposal. In conjunction with the IUCN Species Survival Commission Penguin Specialist Group, we will follow up on the literature to be included in the final Red List assessment. We will also revise the population information to clarify that the most recent value for the Falklands is based on the population index, not a full census. The concern that the population around Chile and in the Pacific is undergoing a rapid reduction is based on the observed declines from Isla de los Estados and expert opinion supplied by the Penguin Specialist Group (A. Raya Rey in litt. 2025). The impact of the recent reduction in the Falklands population since 2015 is included in the uncertainty in the overall rate: it is not used to infer the trend in other parts of the population.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later in 2026, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 16 February 2026.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Southern Rockhopper Penguin is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion A4b.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.