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.