Categorization of birds of Argentina, according to their conservation status. 2008
López Lanús, Barnabas. Categorization of the birds of Argentina as its state of conservation: report of Aves Argentinas / AOP and the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development / Bernabé López Lanús, Paul Grilli, Adrian S. Di Giacomo, literary publishing by Bernabé López Lanús, Paul Grilli, Adrian S. Di Giacomo. - 1st ed. -Buenos Aires: Aves Argentinas Aop, 2008.
"Given the dire situation facing our country's natural environment, the updated information on endangered species is vital for management.
is why, at the invitation of the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development de la Nación, impulsamos la recategorización de las aves silvestres de la Argentina.
Nuestro desafío institucional, como representantes de BirdLife International, fue compatibilizar la costumbre de categorizar las aves con el método de la UICN (Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza) con la aplicación de la metodología aplicada por la Secretaría a otros grupos animales.
Para encarar este nuevo desafío, teníamos la experiencia de haber generado un proceso similar para identificar las AICAs / IBAs de nuestro país. Una convocatoria amplia tuvo la siempre desinteresada and positive response from friends ornithologists.
For two days, some forty people shared their field experience and literature to analyze each of the species in our country. And assign values \u200b\u200bthat have allowed accurate results.
addition, we launched an electronic forum on the red list, to refine the initial findings together and invite you to participate in discussions with other people who for various reasons could not attend the meeting. "
Andrés Bosso
Executive Director
Aves Argentinas / Asociación del Plata Ornithology.
"Once the matrix was resolved, we proceeded to preview in a plenary session.
Through this exercise were defined ranges for each of the different categories of conservation agreement as defined in Section II of Decree No. 666/1997 of the Executive National, as follows:
Article 4: The enforcement authority shall classify the species of wildlife in the following order:
a) Species at risk Extinguishing those species that are in immediate danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the factors causing its decline continue operating.
b) Endangered species: those species that excessive hunting, habitat destruction or other factors, are likely to move to the status of endangered species.
c) Vulnerable species: those species due to its population size, distribution geographical or other factors, although not currently endangered or threatened could run the risk of entering into these categories.
d) Concern species: species that do not fall into any category previous and whose risk of extinction or threat is considered low.
e) insufficiently known species: those species due to lack of information on the degree of threat or risk, or on their biological characteristics, no can be assigned any of the categories above.
SUMIN method (sum of rates) was implemented by Reca et al. (1994). This method is based on a series of twelve variables that represent important factors for the survival of the species. Each variable takes numerical values \u200b\u200bwithin a given range, with higher values \u200b\u200bcorresponding to the most adverse situation or more committed
for the species. Thus, the species receiving the largest values \u200b\u200bare those most in need of conservation.
The advantages of this method are that it is practical, we use basic information about the species mostly available in bibliographic work, its application is simple and fast, and is a method plastic and adaptable to different situations and taxonomic groups. The disadvantage does not consider the historical information of the species or population trends and is practically impossible to make comparisons with other countries listed.
Finally, the "non-threatened species" were placed under 15 as the value of SUMIN.
(It has taken only 15 SUMIT valuable species, including the Condor, as comparative data.)
VU Chloephaga melanoptera 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 4 2 15
VU Aptenodytes patagonicus 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 0 0 2 15
VU Phoebetria eyelids 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 15
VU Thalassarche Chrysostom 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 15
VU Thalassarche looking 1 2 1 1 1 1 2? 3 0 1 2 15
VU Macronectes halli 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 15
VU Thalassoica antarctica 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 ? 1 0 2 15
VU Pachyptila desolata 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 0 1 1 15
VU Pachyptila belcheri 3 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 15
VU Puffinus gravis 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 2 2 15
VU Phalacrocorax atriceps 3 3 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 15
VU Tigrisoma fasciatum fasciatum 2 3 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 2 15
VU Jabir Mycterus 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 15
Wu Vultur Gryphon 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 15
Wu Bartram longicauda 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 15
Wu Stercorarius pomarina 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 15
VU Patagioenas speciosa 1 2 3 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 15 44
VU Strix hylophila 4 4 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 15
VU Notharchus swainsoni 4 4 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 15 45
VU Picumnus dorbignyanus 3 3 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 15
VU Geositta antarctica 3 3 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 15
VU Cinclodes comechingonus 4 3 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 15
VU Limnornis curvirostris 3 3 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 15
VU Asthenes steinbachi 4 3 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 15
VU Pygarrhichas albogularis 4 3 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 15
VU Terenura maculata 4 4 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 15
VU Mecocerculus hellmayri 4 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 15
VU Polioptila lactea 4 4 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 15
VU Poospiza ornata 3 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 2 0 15
VU Sporophila hypoxantha 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 3 0 15
VU Sporophila ruficollis 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 3 0 15
VU Icterus croconotus 2 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 15
VU Carduelis crassirostris 3 3 2 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 15
Pages 64