Reply to ?Comment on population trends of southern rockhopper penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome) on Isla Pingüino, Santa Cruz, Argentina? by Nina Dehnhard

GANDINI, P., MILLONES, A., MORGETHALER, A. & FRERE, E.

POLAR BIOLOGY

SPRINGER

Lugar: Berlin; Año: 2017

0722-4060

Recently N. Dehnhard has commented on our paper publishedin Polar Biology (Gandini et al. 2016). She noted outseveral points of criticism on the interpretation and conclusionof our results, particularly our hypothesis presented inthe discussion stating that the population increase observedat Isla Pingüino colony (IP) could not be obtained by intrinsicgrowth but was likely driven by immigration?probablyfrom the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas (hereafter FI-M).The objective of this reply is to respond to the most importantcriticisms, but not first thanking for her willingness toimprove our work. The main objective of our study (Gandiniet al. 2016) was to determine whether the populationat IP has continued to grow since its discovery assessingits population trend over a 30-year period. We also estimatedthe breeding success of this species at this site. Thenotion of a potential immigration from FI-M to IP was ahypothesis, and as we clearly affirmed, ?further studies,including genetic comparisons, are needed to confirm theimmigration hypothesis?. To respond to the main pointsdiscussed by Dehnhard, we will follow the same order asher comments.