Mastozoología Neotropical ISSN: 0327-9383 [email protected] Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos Argentina

Vila, Alejandro R.; López, Rodrigo; Pastore, Hernán; Faúndez, Ricardo; Serret, Alejandro Current distribution and conservation of the huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in Argentina and Chile Mastozoología Neotropical, vol. 13, núm. 2, julio-diciembre, 2006, pp. 263-269 Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos Tucumán, Argentina

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=45713212

How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Mastozoología Neotropical, 13(2):263-269, Mendoza, 2006 ISSN 0327-9383 ©SAREM, 2006 Versión on-line ISSN 1666-0536 www.cricyt.edu.ar/mn.htm CURRENT DISTRIBUTION AND CONSERVATION OF THE HUEMUL (HIPPOCAMELUS BISULCUS) IN ARGENTINA AND CHILE

Alejandro R. Vila1, Rodrigo López2, Hernán Pastore3, Ricardo Faúndez2, and Alejandro Serret4

1 Wildlife Conservation Society, CC 794 (8400) Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina. 2 Comité Nacional Pro Defensa de la Fauna y Flora, Aníbal Pinto 215, Of. 2 B Piso 1º, Concepción, Chile. 3 Dto. de Ecología del CRUB, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Quintral 1250 (8400) Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina. 4 Corrientes 531, Piso 7 (1043) Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Key words. Conservation. Current distribution. Hippocamelus bisulcus. Protected areas.

The huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) is an fact that huemul are legally protected in both endemic deer of the Andean-Patagonian for- countries and that there have been efforts to ests of Argentina and Chile. Originally its conserve them since the 1930s, actions aiming distribution extended from 34 to 54º S in Chile at defining its distribution are recent (Serret, and occupied areas of Andean forests and 1992; López et al., 1998; Díaz, 2000). We have ecotonal steppes of Argentina between 36 and studied the current distribution of huemul and 52º S (Díaz, 2000). From the beginning of the identified the location of clusters of occur- European colonization the distribution and rence in the context of existing protected ar- abundance of this species began to decline eas and administrative unit boundaries in both due to hunting pressure, destruction of habi- Chile and Argentina. tat and predation by dogs, and probably also The study area includes the coastal lands due to susceptibility to diseases of livestock, and the Andean foothills and highlands within competition with domestic animals and intro- the historical distribution of the species duced exotic species (Povilitis, 1998; Díaz and (Povilitis, 1998; Díaz, 2000). This area com- Smith-Flueck, 2000; Serret, 2001). prises the provinces of Neuquén, Río Negro, The huemul has become extinct in the Chil- Chubut and Santa Cruz in Argentina and the ean VI and VII administrative regions (34º-36º VIII, IX, X, XI and XII regions in Chile. S). There are no current records of its pres- Records of current presence of huemul were ence between 38 and 41º S in Chile or in based on the data set of López et al. (1998), Mendoza and most of Neuquén provinces in the revision and analysis of “gray” literature, Argentina (López et al., 1998). At present, the and interviews with park rangers, park war- species is classified as endangered (Glade, dens and wildlife biologists from 1988; Díaz and Ojeda, 2000; IUCN, 2000). Administración de Parques Nacionales of The evaluation of thresholds of occurrence Argentina (APN), Direcciones Provinciales de and trends in distribution range is an impor- Fauna in Argentina, Fundación Vida Silvestre tant tool for the assessment of conservation Argentina, Corporación Nacional Forestal of status of species (IUCN, 2001). In spite of the Chile (CONAF), and Comité Nacional Pro

Recibido 26 mayo 2005. Aceptación final 17 abril 2006. 264 Mastozoología Neotropical, 13(2):263-269, Mendoza, 2006 A R Vila et al. www.cricyt.edu.ar/mn.htm

Defensa de la Fauna y Flora (CODEFF) of National Parks, National Reserves, Provincial Chile. Occurrences of confirmed presence of Reserves, Forest Reserves, Natural Monu- huemul corresponding to the period of 1992- ments and Private Reserves located on the 2002 were included. These records were spa- Andean-Patagonian forest region (Laclau, 1997; tially located on maps of Instituto Geográfico Ardura et al., 1998; Martín and Chehébar, 2001; Militar (IGM) of both countries. Pauchard and Villaroel, 2002). A grid of geo-referenced cells of 6400 hect- The northernmost occurrence of the current ares was produced with ArcView® 3.3 on the distribution of the species in Chile was lo- base map of the Patagonian region using the cated at Río Cato in the VIII Region, Fundo El UTM projection zone 18. A cell of occurrence Sauce and Hacienda Alico (36º 40' S, 71º 28' was assigned when at least one record of W), while the southernmost reached Cape huemul presence was reported in that cell. Froward of the XII Region, in the Strait of Drafts of the obtained map were validated by Magellan (53º 50' S, 71º 7' W). The record of the participants of two huemul workshops, the westernmost presence was located in the which took place in Cochrane and Torres del southeast of Wellington Island (49º 41' S, 74º Paine in 2003. For the purposes of spatial 57' W). The easternmost occurrence of Argen- analysis of the distribution of the species, a tina was reported in Río Negro Province, cluster was defined as a group of cells with Veranada de las Lagunitas (41º 35' 3" S, 71º 11' confirmed presence that maintained contact 49" W). The extreme northern and southern among themselves through any of the four limits of distribution in this country were lo- sides or points. We also considered the maxi- cated in Paso Folil (40º 9' S, 71º 49' W) and mum movement distances reported (6.7 to Glaciar Frías area (50º 73' S, 73º 17') in Neuquén 9.0 km) for huemul in this approach (Rau, 1980; (Parque Nacional Lanin) and Santa Cruz prov- Saucedo and Gill, 2004). We assumed that, inces respectively. from the central point of each cell, a longer- A total of 101 clusters and 317 cells with distance movement would be almost improb- huemul presence were registered within the able. However, the probability of a 6.7 to 9.0 historical range of the species (Fig. 1), occu- km movement within the range of the same pying a minimum of 1 964 394 hectares of the cell or neighboring cells would be high. The Patagonian-Andean forests. Fifty-two percent available information on estimates of abun- of the distribution area was found in Chile and dance, minimum numbers, counts or number 48% in Argentina. of sightings was included in each cell. The identified aggregations of occurrence We defined the “minimum count” of huemul occupied an average of 3.1 cells (sd=6.8, for their entire distribution range by adding range=1–61). The mean extent of the clusters up the confirmed presence of reported indi- was 1.43 cells (range=1–2, n=7) in Argentina, viduals in all of the cells. In cases where no 2.04 (range=1–20, n=74) in Chile and 7.8 (range estimates were available, the number of huemul 1–61, n=20) in aggregations shared by both was defined as one individual per cell. The countries. extent of huemul clusters or aggregations of According to the observed spatial distribu- occurrence records was calculated by the tion, the greatest number of clusters was lo- number of cells per cluster. Both cells and cated in Chile (Table 1) although those of clusters were classified within protected areas binational range showed a greater degree of (entire cell or area of cells in clusters are cov- occupation within Argentine territory (Fig. 1). ered by a protected area), partially protected In contrast, the distribution of cells with areas (cells are covered by < 100% protected huemul presence showed a more balanced area) and unprotected areas. The area covered distribution (Table 1). This asymmetry sug- by protected and unprotected areas was also gested a greater degree of fragmentation in measured using ArcView® 3.3. The protected the Chilean portion of the distribution of the area categories used in this analysis included species. CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF HIPPOCAMELUS BISULCUS 265

Fig. 1. Map of huemul distribution range in Argentina and Chile, 1992-2002. The black cells (6400 hectares) show records of huemul occurrence and the light-gray areas show protected areas.

Table 1 Río Azul-Lago Escondido, Cerro Currumahuida, Distribution of cells (6400 hectares) with huemul Epuyén, Río Turbio, and Lago Baggilt provin- presence (n=317) and clusters (n=101) in Argen- cial reserves, Lago Puelo and Los Alerces tina and Chile. National Parks and Reserva Nacional Futaleufú Argentina Chile Binational as well. The clusters of the area of Nevados de Chillán (36º-37º S), VIII Region in Chile, had % of cells 37.5 48.6 13.9 the greatest degree of isolation. They were % of clusters 6.9 73.3 19.8 found at 316 km from the nearest southern cluster which was located in Paso Folil (Ar- gentina). The largest identified cluster, which extends Twenty-eight percent of the clusters and from Lago Azul (42º S) in Chile to Cerro Greda 34.4% of the identified cells were found within (43º 21´ S) in Argentina, included 61 cells. the existing protected areas of both countries. This binational aggregation involved 390 400 Thirty-six aggregations (35.6%) and 111 cells hectares and the following protected areas: (35%) were located outside protected areas, 266 Mastozoología Neotropical, 13(2):263-269, Mendoza, 2006 A R Vila et al. www.cricyt.edu.ar/mn.htm while the remaining ones were found within species (Díaz, 1993, 2000), the greatest decline partially protected areas. Seventy four percent occurred in the northern and eastern portions of the 101 reported clusters were found in of their range. small areas of only 1 or 2 cells (Fig. 2). Sixty The species seems to be extinct in the VI, seven percent of these small clusters were VII and IX regions in Chile. It has not been entirely located outside the existing protected confirmed for the northern portion of the X areas. The extent of huemul occurrence in- Region, whereas its historical southern limit of cluded 31 protected areas, covering 930 179 distribution mentioned by Osgood (1943) has hectares of the observed range (47%). Argen- been confirmed. No presence of the species tina showed a higher percentage of huemul was found in the steppe areas and only a few range under protection than Chile (Table 2). records were registered in ecotonal sites with Region XI in Chile had the greatest number Andean forest in Argentina, in spite of the of both clusters and cells with huemul occur- fact that these environments were part of its rence. Nevertheless it showed the least amount original range of distribution (Díaz, 1993, 2000). of huemul protection (Fig. 1 and Table 2). A high number (74%) of identified clusters Region VIII had the lowest level of huemul were small (areas of 64-124 km2), thus the presence, while the species was not found in huemul may be expected to have a high vul- Region IX at all. Most of the cells (88%) re- nerability to extinction within them. It is im- corded in X Region corresponded to bina- portant to note the situation of the population tional cells in which sightings had been only of Nevados del Chillán within this context, recorded in Argentina. Huemul range under where the greatest degree of isolation was protection ranged from 51 200 to 600 796 hect- observed. ares in regions VIII and XI respectively, More than 30% (15 700 000 hectares) of the while X and XI regions showed less than Andean-Patagonian forest region is under 25% of huemul distribution under protec- protection (Laclau, 1997). In addition, the tion (Table 2). southernmost portion of this region has the Chubut Province (Argentina) showed the lowest degree of human activities with a low greatest number of clusters and cells with density of human population and roads (López huemul presence, despite having the lowest et al., 1998; Sanderson et al., 2002). However, percentage of cells falling under protection part of the coverage of these protected areas (Fig. 1 and Table 2). The least number of cells is concentrated outside the historical huemul and aggregations were registered in the fed- range (Díaz, 2000). It is important to emphasize eral lands of Lanin and Nahuel Huapi National that the degree of effective implementation of Parks (Neuquén Province). The percentage of some of these parks and reserves is not fully huemul range under protection was greater satisfactory (Laclau, 1997; Pauchard y Villaroel, than 45% in all of the involved provinces. The 2002; Rush, 2002) and therefore may not guar- huemul area under protection ranged from antee the long term conservation of this spe- 89678 to 432004 hectares in Neuquén and cies. Additionally, the size of some protected Chubut provinces respectively (Table 2). The areas might be insufficient to maintain viable “minimum count” of huemul for the whole area huemul populations (Simonetti, 1995). Never- of distribution was roughly estimated in 1048 theless 47% of current huemul range observed individuals, with 58% of the animals in the in the present study was concentrated in 31 identified cells in Chile, 32% in Argentina, and protected areas, which implies that 100 000 km2 10% in binational areas. of potential huemul habitat are protected. As was observed by López et al. (1998), the A high percentage of the records of pres- confirmed current distribution for huemul ex- ence occurred in National Parks and Reserves. tended along the Patagonian Andes and the Yet, these areas had the largest number of southern coastal areas of the Pacific Ocean. surveys as well. The number of positive cells Considering the historical distribution of the outside protected areas may have been under- CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF HIPPOCAMELUS BISULCUS 267

Fig. 2. Extent of huemul clusters classified by number of cells.

Table 2 Distribution of huemul cells (6400 hectares) and area of occurrence within each administrative unit boundary of Argentina and Chile. The cells shared by 2 units are counted once for each unit.

Area of occurrence

Argentina Region/Province Number of cells Total (has) Under protection (%)

Chile VIII 8 51 200 25 IX 0 0 0 X 25 67 566 20 XI 106 600 796 17 XII 61 296 385 75 TOTAL 1 015 947 35

Argentina Neuquén 16 89 678 99 Río Negro 22 130 398 78 Chubut 76 432 004 49 Santa Cruz 49 296 367 59 TOTAL 948 447 61 268 Mastozoología Neotropical, 13(2):263-269, Mendoza, 2006 A R Vila et al. www.cricyt.edu.ar/mn.htm estimated due to fewer survey efforts. As an The results presented here provide a first important number of clusters was found out- step to identify huemul populations, give di- side protected areas, efforts should be made rection to field survey effort allocation and to guarantee their conservation, evaluate un- offer a base-line for assessing the species’ surveyed sites and take management measures conservation status based on trends in range to ensure corridors of suitable habitat. distribution as proposed by IUCN (2001). The range outlined is a “coarse-scale” rep- resentation of a distribution, but is adequate This study was possible thanks to the support of the for analysis at a regional scale. However it Wildlife Conservation Society, Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Comité Nacional Pro Defensa should no be used for “fine grain” or “local” de la Fauna y Flora de Chile and the Turner Foun- evaluations because of the weakness of reso- dation. Delegación Regional Patagonia of APN in lution. Such hierarchical scale approach should Argentina and Proyecto Ordenamiento Territorial have to use a smaller cell size or other map- de la Zona Costera, VIII Región del Bío Bío, of the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) in Chile co- ping methods based on dots of recorded operated with the GIS layers development. This sightings. project would not have been possible without the The “minimum count” of huemul estimated information provided by park rangers of APN and in the present study was higher than the CONAF and anonymous informants as well. We wish to express our thanks to Andy Taber, Guillermo number calculated by López et al. (1998). They Harris, Anthony Povilitis and Victoria Maldonado estimated a minimum number of 781 huemul San José for motivating the execution of this study. using the same approach. The observed in- We also appreciate the helpful comments provided crease could be related to the increase in by three reviewers to improve this paper. survey effort and quality of the available in- formation. Thus the species would be within LITERATURE CITED the range of abundance cited previously, 1000 ARDURA F, R BURKART, JG FERNÁNDEZ, and A to 2000 huemul (Povilitis, 1983; Burton and TARAK. 1998. Las áreas naturales protegidas de la Argentina. APN, UICN y RLCTPN, Buenos Pearson, 1987). Nevertheless, these values may Aires, 44 pp. not reflect the real abundance of the species BURTON JA and B PEARSON. 1987. Rare mam- since huemul numbers have not been esti- mals of the world. William Collins Sons & Co. mated for most of the cells (86%). Therefore, Ltd., Glasgow, UK, 240 pp. DÍAZ GB and RA OJEDA (eds.). 2000. Libro rojo it is necessary to continue efforts to survey de los mamíferos amenazados de la Argentina. populations in Argentina and Chile. SAREM (Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de Some priority actions based on our work los Mamíferos), Mendoza, 106 pp. are: a) efforts to obtain information about dis- DÍAZ NI and J SMITH FLUECK. 2000. El huemul Patagónico. Un misterioso cérvido al borde de la tribution –including absence data–, abundance extinción. L.O.L.A. (Literature of Latin and threats should be increased; b) potential America), Buenos Aires, 156 pp. huemul habitat should be mapped in order to DÍAZ NI. 1993. Changes in the range distribution of analyze its representation in the reserve net- Hippocamelus bisulcus in Patagonia. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 58:344-351. work, exclude unsuitable habitat areas and DÍAZ NI. 2000. El huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus identify populations on biological bases; c) Molina, 1782): Una perspectiva histórica. Pp. effective protection of the identified popula- 1-32. En: El huemul Patagónico, un misterioso tions should be encouraged, emphasizing on cérvido al borde de la extinción (Díaz NI and J Smith-Flueck, eds.). L.O.L.A. (Literature of Latin increasing the degree of protection in the VIII, America), Buenos Aires, 156 pp. X and XI regions of Chile and Chubut Prov- GLADE A (ed.). 1988. Libro rojo de los vertebrados ince in Argentina; d) creation of private pro- terrestres de Chile. Corporación Nacional For- tected areas with presence or potential habitat estal, Santiago, 65 pp. IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of of the species should be promoted in such a Nature). 2000. IUCN Red List of Threatened way as to permit the linking of populations Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 368 pp. and to maintain a matrix of connectivity. IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF HIPPOCAMELUS BISULCUS 269

Criteria. Version 3.1. Species Survival Commis- RAU J. 1980. Movimiento, hábitat y velocidad del sion. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, huemul del sur (Hippocamelus bisulcus) (Artio- UK. dactyla, Cervidae). Noticiario Mensual del Museo LACLAU P. 1997. Los ecosistemas forestales y el Nacional de Historia Natural, Santiago, Chile hombre en el sur de Chile y Argentina. Boletín (281-282):7-9. Técnico 34, Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, RUSH V. 2002. Estado de situación de las áreas Buenos Aires, 147 pp. protegidas de la porción Argentina de la Ecoregión LÓPEZ R, A SERRET, R FÁUNDEZ, and G PALÉ. Valdiviana. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina 1998. Estado del conocimiento actual de la (FVSA) y World Wildlife Fund (WWF), San distribución del huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus, Carlos de Bariloche, 98 pp. Cervidae) en Argentina y Chile. Fundación Vida SANDERSON EW, M JAITEH, MA LEVY, KH Silvestre Argentina (FVSA), World Wildlife Fund REDFORD, AV WANNEBO, and G WOOLMER. (WWF) y Comité Nacional pro Defensa de la 2002. The Human Footprint and the Last of the Fauna y Flora (CODEFF), Concepción, 32 pp. Wild. BioScience 52(10):891-904. MARTÍN C and C CHEHÉBAR. 2001. The national SAUCEDO C and R GILL. 2004. Huemul parks of Argentinian Patagonia – management (Hippocamelus bisulcus) ecology research: con- policies for conservation, public use, rural settle- servation planning in Chilean Patagonia. Deer ments, and indigenous communities. Journal of Specialist Group Newsletter 19:13-15. The Royal Society of New Zealand 31:845-864. SERRET A. 1992. Proyecto Huemul: Distribución OSGOOD WH. 1943. The mammals of Chile. Field actual del huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) en la Museum of Natural History. Zoological Series República Argentina. Boletín Técnico 1, 30:1-268. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires, PAUCHARD A and P VILLAROEL. 2002. Pro- 20 pp. tected Areas in Chile: History, Current Status, SERRET A. 2001. El Huemul: Fantasma de la and Challenges. Natural Areas Journal 22(4):318- Patagonia. Zagier & Urruty Publication, Buenos 330. Aires, 129 pp. POVILITIS A. 1983. The huemul in Chile: National SIMONETTI JA. 1995. Wildlife conservation out- symbol in jeopardy? Oryx 17:34-40. side parks is a disease-mediated task. Conserva- POVILITIS A. 1998. Characteristics and conserva- tion Biology 9:454-456. tion of a fragmented population of huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in central Chile. Bio- logical Conservation 86:97-104.