Monitoring of Nesting Emperor Geese on Kigigak Island, Alaska, … · 2019-04-18 · USFWS, Yukon Delta NWR – Kigigak Emperor Goose Report, 2017 1 Monitoring of Nesting Emperor

USFWS, Yukon Delta NWR – Kigigak Emperor Goose Report, 2017 1

Monitoring of Nesting Emperor Geese on Kigigak Island, Alaska, 2018

BRYAN L. DANIELS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 346, Bethel, AK 99559

SUMMARY: The Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus) is an endemic goose of Alaska. Emperor geese winter along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, and breed primarily in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR). Beginning in the early 1980’s, aerial surveys documented a population decline that led to harvest restrictions and closures implemented in 1985. In 2016, surveys indicated the population reached a threshold allowing the reopening of Emperor goose harvest. With the opening of a hunting season, and an annual population growth rate of 2% over the previous 30 years without hunting, managers and biologists had concerns about the level of harvest the population could sustain, as well as the number of young being produced to sustain the breeding population at current levels. With the Yukon Delta being the primary breeding location for Emperor geese, YDNWR began monitoring clutch size, nest success, nest initiation dates, and adult survival of Emperor geese on Kigigak Island, YDNWR, Alaska. A total of 141 Emperor goose nests were monitored in 2018. Mean clutch size was similar to historic studies at 4.96 eggs in 2018 with a mean clutch size of 5.05 for the 2 years of this study. Apparent nest success was 70% in 2018 and nest predators were the highest cause of nest failure with 18% being depredated. Mean nest initiation date (13 May 2018) was 10 days earlier than recorded on the Yukon Delta from 1982-2016. With limited prior information on Emperor goose nest success on Kigigak Island, the results of this study will provide a baseline for future efforts while tracking individual marked goose survival and nest success.

(Data Submitted to BBL 27 September 2017; Report Completed February 2018)

KEYWORDS Emperor goose, Kigigak Island, nesting, nest success, nest initiation

INTRODUCTION

The Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus) is an endemic goose of Alaska. Emperor geese winter along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, migrate in the spring and fall along the coastal areas of the Alaska Peninsula and Yukon Delta, and breed primarily along the coastal fringe of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Seward Peninsula, and Russia (Peterson 1992, Pacific Flyway Council 2016).

Emperor geese are monogamous and have high nest site fidelity (Shmutz et al. 1997), returning to the same area to nest. Adult females are important for population productivity and adult female survival is the most sensitive demographic to population growth (Shmutz et al. 1997). Studies of waterfowl suggest that individuals’ lifetime reproductive success varies within a population (Raveling 1981, Owen and Black 1989), and although variation between


individuals exists, individual birds often lay similar clutch sizes and initiate laying at the same time each year (MacInnes and Dunn 1988, Gauthier 1989, Peterson 1992). Beginning in the early 1980’s, aerial surveys documented an Emperor goose population decline that led to conservation concerns, resulting in fall/spring harvest closure for sport and subsistence hunting beginning in 1985 (Pacific Flyway Council 2006). With these restrictions, the population grew at 2% per year (Pacific Flyway Council 2016). In 2016, aerial surveys indicated the population reached a threshold that would allow the re-opening of Emperor goose harvest as outlined in the Pacific Flyway Emperor Goose Management Plan (Pacific Flyway Council 2016). Because majority of the Emperor goose population nests on the Yukon Delta (Eisenhauer and Kirkpatrick 1977) a spring subsistence hunting season occurring just prior to nesting on the Yukon Delta would potentially have the greatest effect on population growth. With the opening of the subsistence hunt, managers and biologists had concerns about the populations’ ability to maintain sustainable harvest. To determine if the re-opening of the hunting seasons would reduce adult survival (and potentially decrease population size), the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR) began nest monitoring and capture-mark-recapture program on nesting female Emperor geese on Kigigak Island, YDNWR in 2017. The objectives of this study were to: 1) monitor Emperor goose nests for success and individual variation, 2) gather morphometric data on nesting female Emperor geese to determine if female goose size influences clutch size or

probability of nesting in future years, and 3) band nesting female Emperor geese for future mark-recapture analyses of adult female survival. This is the second year of this study. STUDY AREA

Kigigak Island (KI; 32.5 km2, 6050’N,

16550’W) was chosen as a study site because the island has a high density of nesting Emperor geese near an already established remote field camp. Kigigak Island has a maximal elevation of 1-3 m above sea level, and is situated northwest of Nelson Island and 20.5 km west of the village of Newtok on the Yukon Delta (Solovyeva et al. 2017). Bordered by the Ninglick River and the Bering Sea, the island exhibits diverse habitats in a small area, ranging from tidal sloughs extending into the interior of the island, to grass uplands on the eastern part of the Island, and lowland tundra and pingos in the center of the island. The preferred nest sites for Emperor geese include slough borders, grass meadows, pond shorelines, peninsulas, and ericaceous tundra (Kistchinski 1971, Mickelson 1975, Eisenhauer and Kirkpatrick 1977). The YDNWR designed 1.28 km x 2.98 km plots across the entire island to search for emperor goose nests (Figure 1). Emperor goose nest plots were selected based on densities of Emperor geese found during annual Spectacled Eider (Somateria Fischeri) nest plot surveys and coastal zone aerial surveys from 1985-2016 (Figures 2 and 3, Fischer personal communication). These plots were between 0 and 2.4 km away from camp, making searching and trapping efforts for nesting Emperor geese efficient.


METHODS Data Collection Nest Searching Plots were searched thoroughly by foot by 1-2 people over a 12-hour period. Observers utilized binoculars to aid in detection of nesting Emperor geese, then data was collected at Emperor goose nests.

Nest cards showing data collected at each nest can be found in Appendix A. Eggs were individually marked with a sharpie to detect if new eggs were laid or removed during subsequent visits. For each nest, three eggs were aged via candling and floating methods to predict expected hatch date. All nests were marked with a flag placed three meters north with the nest ID.

Trapping and Banding Nesting female geese were trapped in late stage incubation (last 4 days), to minimize probability of abandonment (Peterson 1992). When nests were nearing the final 4 predicted days of incubation, a minimum of two people returned to the nest to flush the goose and update the nest card to ensure egg age prediction was correct from the previous visit. If the nest was within 4 days of hatch, traps were set and incubated eggs were swapped with 2-3 fake eggs to minimize probability of eggs being broken during trapping. After the goose was captured and removed from the bownet, the bander recorded the band number and affixed the size 7B stainless steel band on the bird’s right leg. The 3-coded, black on turquoise plastic auxiliary band was affixed on the left leg. Using calipers, the total tarsus, total head, and culmen length (cm) were measured and

recorded to the nearest thousandth. The goose’s mass (kg) was obtained by placing the bird in a pillow case attached to a hanging scale. All capture data was recorded on the capture data sheet (Appendix B). After the bird was released, five contour feathers were collected from within the nest bowl for future stable isotope analysis, eggs were replaced, and the nest was covered with down to protect from aerial predators. Nest Fates Between one and 4 days after hatch, observers returned to the nest to determine nest fate. A nest was considered successful if ≥ 1 eggs hatched as evidenced by presence of a membrane. Data Analysis We used simple proportions of successful nests (apparent nest success) for analysis because of the relative synchrony of Emperor goose nesting, the high probability of finding nests, and the nest visitation schedules used (Johnson and Shaffer 1990). Growth of geese is highly correlated with the quality and quantity of forage during brood rearing (Sedinger et al. 1997). Given that growth at a young age may have negative consequences to fecundity (Owen and Black 1989), we used ANOVA to test if difference in size of adult female could predict difference in clutch sizes within a year. All parameters are reported as mean ± 1 SE. Data is stored on YDNWR share drive at: T:\Data\Share\Biology Program 2018\Waterfowl project planning\Kigigak\Data\working_emgo2.csv


And T:\Data\Share\Biology Program 2018\Waterfowl project planning\Kigigak\Data\ 2018 morphometic modelling.csv RESULTS Primary nest searching occurred for five days from 23 - 29 May 2018 and a secondary nest search 1 - 5 June 2018. Trapping females on nests began on 1 June 2018, and ended on 19 June 2018. In 2018, 148 Emperor goose nests were found and monitored in 11 plots. Of the 148 nests, 141 were monitored until hatch or failure (Table 1). Of the 141 nests monitored, apparent nest success was 70% (n = 103), 18% (27 nests) were depredated, and 7% (n = 11) were abandoned. After removing 7 nests that contained obvious eggs laid by other species or individuals based on incubation stage, mean clutch size was 4.96 ± 0.15 eggs in 2018 (n = 139; Figure 4), and a mean clutch size of 5.05 ± 0.11 eggs for the duration of this study. Mean nest initiation date was 13 May 2018 (Figure 5). Peak nesting ended on May 20. Earliest nest initiation date was 24 April, and latest initiation date was likely a re-nesting attempt on 6 June 2017. Of 71 nesting female Emperor geese captured and banded, a subset of morphometric measurements were taken from all individuals. Mean mass (at capture) of nesting female Emperor geese captured during this study in 2017 and 2018 was 1.68 ± 0.01 kg (n = 130), with a mean head length of 9.35 ± 0.02 cm (n = 143), Culmen

length of 3.63 ± 0.02 cm (n = 143), and Tarsus length of 7.79 ± 0.03 cm (n = 147; Table 2). Clutch size could not be predicted by head length (ANOVA F139= 0.004, P = 0.95), culmen length (ANOVA; F139 = 2.254, P = 0.14), Tarsus length (ANOVA; F139 =1.12, P = 0.29, Figure 6), or mass at time of capture (ANOVA; F128 = 0.008, P = 0.93). There is no evidence that head length (GLM; F1 = 0.04, P = 0.51), tarsal length (GLM; F1 = 1.03, P = 0.31), or clutch size (GLM; F1 = 0.005, P = 0.94) has any influence on nesting success. In 2017, 86 female Emperor geese were banded (Daniels and Friendly 2018). In 2018, 29 of the 86 banded Emperor geese were observed alive within our plots (34%). Of the 29 observed, 28 of the bands were read by observers for future survival analyses (Table 3). Head length (ANOVA; F1= 3.604, P = 0.06), tarsus length (ANOVA; F1= 0.322, P = 0.57), 2017 clutch size (ANOVA; F1= 1.15, P = 0.29), and 2017 nest success (ANOVA; F2= 1.10, P = 0.33) were not significantly different between birds that returned and nested in 2018 from the 86 marked individuals from 2017. DISCUSSION Nest success was lower in 2018 than 2017 (70% vs 81%; Daniels and Friendly 2018), and lower than nest success in the 1970’s (82% success; Mickelson 1975), but similar to nest success in the 1980’s (72% - 90%; Peterson 1992). Nest depredation was similar between the 2 years of this study (18% vs 17%). At least 1 fox and 1 pair of


pomarine jaegers were known to be on the island during 2017 season, and 1 red fox (Vulpes vulpes), 2 arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus), 2 pairs of Pomarine jaegers (Stercorarius pomarinus) were seen regularly in the study area in 2018, which are known to depredate unattended nests. Alternate prey (Microtus spp.) were more abundant in 2018 than 2017, which may have been an initial attractant of more jaegers to the island. No fox kits were seen during the study period, so it is assumed adults were unsuccessful at breeding, and had more time to search for and cache eggs. Nest abandonment was greater in 2018 than 2017 (7% vs 2%; Daniels and Friendly 2018), which may be attributed to increased researcher disturbance across the study area in 2018. Only one nest was abandoned after initial nest checks during egg laying, and 10 nests were abandoned after trapping or attempting to trap the female at late stage incubation (>20 days of incubation). We attempt capture near end of incubation to limit probability of abandonment, but abandonment was higher than expected in 2018. Some of the nests were also partially depredated, perhaps due to a combination of trapping efforts and females being absent from the nest for too long, allowing predators to get to the nest that ultimately led to abandonment. Increased disturbance, and associated probability of depredation (Esler and Grand 1993) in 2018 likely occurred because researchers were visiting the plots daily for goose capture attempts due to high nesting densities, as well as conducting a secondary study on nesting bird behavior in relation to Unmanned Aerial Systems (drones).

Mean clutch size on Kigigak Island in 2017 and 2018 was similar to birds nesting on the Yukon Delta in the early 1980s (5 eggs; Peterson 1992, Thompson and Raveling 1987), but larger than in the late 1970’s (4 eggs; Mickelson 1975). Exhibiting a similar clutch size lends us to believe individual health of geese has not changed, and wintering and spring staging food resources are sufficient to provide energetic resources required for nesting, being that Emperor geese rely heavily on body reserves acquired during winter and spring for clutch formation and incubation (Ankney and Maclnnes 1978). Timing of waterfowl nest initiation is correlated with timing of spring breakup (Raveling 1978, Dau and Mickelson 1979), which has been earlier each year on the Yukon Delta. Mean nest initiation date for Emperor geese in 2018 was 11 days earlier (13 May 2018 ) than mean initiation date between 1985 and 2016 (24 May; Fischer et al 2017). Geese typically have arrived as snow melted and initiated as nesting sites became available (Peterson 1992), but with warmer springs and less snow cover, birds are arriving to the breeding grounds sooner, and initiating nests when conditions are favorable. Emperor geese were seen on the island on 2 May by another research team, and they found the first Emperor goose nest on May 9 with eggs. It is unknown which environmental cues prompt emperor geese nest initiation. Individual goose size was not a predictor of clutch size in 2017 or 2018. Nesting probability for many arctic nesting geese is linked to individual quality and body condition (Sedinger et al 2008, Williams 1966; Charnov & Krebs 1974). In Barnacle geese (Branta leucopsis), larger individuals


had a higher probability of breeding successfully in any year and produced more goslings than did smaller birds (Choudhury et. al 1996). However, there was so little variability in head and tarsal sizes between individuals marked in 2017, we were unable to detect a significant difference in morphological measurements between marked geese detected in 2018 and those that were not re-detected, which leads us to believe goose size in Emperor geese does not explain probability to nest in a given year. Similarly, goose size (head length and tarsal length) and clutch size had no explanatory power for nest success. We interpret this to mean that larger Emperor geese do not lay larger clutches, and are not more successful within a given year. Other factors such as age (Finney and Cooke 1978, Raveling 1981) or climate (Dickey et al. 2008) may be a better explanatory variably for nest success. Although field crew arrived in the field after mean nest initiation, nest searching was not constrained. Field crew were able to locate 148 Emperor goose nests, and monitor 141 until hatch. Although we cannot account for nests that were lost or abandoned in early stages of incubation when most nests are depredated (Peterson 1992) prior to our arrival into the field, we do not think our success rate is biased high (Mayfield 1961) due to the conspicuous nature of Emperor goose nest located on pond and slough edges in short vegetation, they could be readily located, even if destroyed. Researchers detected 29 of 86 (33%) returning banded Emperor geese within searched plots. This is lower, yet consistent with findings from Peterson 1992, where 38% -52% of marked geese returned every

year to nest, but varied among individuals in regards to frequency of returns. Because birds may have nested outside of our study area and not detected, our detection rate may be biased low. Similarly, Emperor geese are known to forego nesting in some years, but still be alive and elsewhere, so true survival estimates cannot be calculated for our marked population yet, nor can probability of returning be calculated. In 2018, one red fox and 2 arctic foxes were known to be present on the island. Both the red fox and arctic foxes were seen regularly in the study area, and were observed attempting to depredate nests during capture attempts. When foxes were seen during trapping, trap attempts were stopped, and foxes were watched until they were out of the trap area. As global climate change continues, warmer winters, earlier springs, and longer summers may create a mismatch in timing of nesting and vegetation growth for brood rearing. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS With limited prior information on Emperor goose nest success for Kigigak Island, the results from this study will be used as a baseline moving into the future while tracking individual marked goose survival, nesting frequency, and nest success. ONGOING RESEARCH OBJECTIVES We hope to determine if adult body size, previous clutch size, previous nesting status, and previous nesting success explains some frequent non-nesting in Emperor geese in future years.


ACKNOWLDGEMENTS The success of this project would not have been possible without the hard work, patience and willingness to walk many miles of the waterfowl crew members, Heather Johnson, Mikaela Aroff, Jordan Thompson, and Christian Bartell. Thank you to YDNWR staff and USFWS aviation department for providing exceptional logistic support, especially pilots Mike Wade, Nate Olson, and Robert Sundown for exceptional aviation support. Thank you to Lewis Coggins and Gary Decossas for statistical help, and Lewis Coggins for reviewing reports. Finally, thanks to Joel Schmutz with USGS and Julian Fischer for guidance and recommendations during the planning of this project.


Table 1: Number of Emperor goose nests per plot monitored in 2018 on Kigigak Island, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.

Plot Number of

nests

Number Females Trapped

Number of Re-sighted

Females

Number Nests

Successful Number

Nests Failed Unknown Nest Fate

C6a 2 0 0 1 1 0

D5 19 12 0 11 6 2

D6 12 8 2 8 2 2

E4 18 11 1 12 5 1

E5 20 9 6 14 6 0

E6 31 14 8 21 9 1

E7 2 1 0 2 0 0

F4 7 2 1 7 0 0

F5 8 2 3 8 0 0

F6 28 12 8 19 8 1

G5a 1 1 0 0 1 0

Total 148 72 29 103 38 7 a

These nests were found on edge of plots and entire plots were not searched. Density of nests should not be implied for these plots.

Table 2: Mean morphometric measurements of female Emperor geese caught during 2017 and 2018 nesting seasons on Kigigak Island, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.

Mass (kg)

(n=130)

Head Length

(cm) (n=143)

Culmen Length

(cm) (n=143)

Tarsus Length

(cm) (n = 147)

Mean 1.68 9.35 3.63 7.79

SE 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03


Table 3: List of 29 of 86 Emperor geese marked in 2017 that were re-sighted as nesting in 2018.

Band Number Tarsal Code

2017-15204 A00

2017-15208 A07

2017-15209 A08

2017-15223 A12

2017-15224 A13

2017-15226 A15

2017-15227 A16

2017-15232 A22

2017-15234 A25

2017-15235 A26

2017-15237 A28

2017-15211 A30

2017-15212 A31

2017-15213 A32

2017-15214 A33

2017-15216 A35

2017-15241 A40

2017-15250 A49

2017-15261 A50

2017-15262 A51

2017-15264 A53

2017-15268 A58

2017-15239 A60

2017-15270 A70

2017-15275 A75

2017-15256 A81

2017-15282 A95

2017-15285 A98


Figure 1: Emperor goose plots overlaid on Kigigak Island, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.


Figure 2: Emperor Goose concentrations based on nest plot surveys on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta between 1995 and 2016.

Figure 3: Emperor Goose concentrations based on aerial observations during coastal zone survey of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta between 1985 and 2016.

Kigigak Island

Kigigak Island


Figure 4: Number of eggs per clutch in 139 monitored Emperor goose nests in 2018 on Kigigak Island, YDNWR.


Figure 5: Initiation date frequency of Emperor goose nests in 2018 on Kigigak island, YDNWR. Mean nest initiation date of 134 (13 May 2018).


Figure 6: Median tarsal length (cm) of adult female Emperor geese with associated clutch size on Kigigak Island, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge in 2017 and 2018.


Literature Cited Ankney, C.D., and C.D. MacInnes. 1978. Nutrient reserves and reproductive performance of

female Lesser Snow Geese. Auk 97: 459-471. Charnov, E.L., and J.R. Krebs. 1974. On clutch size and fitness. Ibis 119: 217-219. Choudhury, S., Black, J. M. and M. Owen. 1996. Body size, fitness and compatibility in Barnacle

Geese Branta leucopsis. Ibis 138: 700–709. Dau, C. P., and P G. Mickelson. 1979. Relation of weather to spring migration and nesting of

Cackling Geese on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. In R. L. Jarvis and J. C. Bartonek, Management and biology of Pacific Flyway Geese. p. 94-104.

Dickey, M.H., G. Gauthier, and M.C. Cadieux. 2008. Climatic effects on the breeding phenology

and reproductive success of an artic-nesting goose species. Global Change Biology 14(9): 1973-1985.

Eisenhauer, D.I., and C.M. Kirkpatrick. 1977. Ecology of the emperor goose in Alaska. Wildlife

Monograms (57). 62pp Esler, D., and J.B. Grand. 1993. Factors Influencing Depredation of Artificial Duck Nests. Journal

of Wildlife management 57(2): 244-248. Fischer, J.B., Williams, A.R., and R.A. Stehn. 2017. Nest Population size and Potential production

of Geese and Spectacled Eiders on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska, 1985-2016. USFWS report.

Finney, G., and F. Cooke. 1978. Reproductive Habits in the Snow Goose: The Influence of

Female Age. The Condor 80(2): 147-158. Gauthier, G. 1989. The effect of experience and timing on reproductive performance in

Buffleheads. Auk 106:568-576. Johnson, D. H., and T. L. Shaffer. 1990. Estimating nest success: when Mayfield wins. Auk

107:595- 600. Kistchinski, A. A. 1971. Biological notes on the Emperor Goose in north-east Siberia. Wildfowl

22: 29-34. Koskimies, J. 1957. Variations in size and shape of eggs of the Velvet Scoter, Melanitta fusca.

Archivum 12:58-69. MacInnes, C. D., and E. H. Dunn. 1988. Components of clutch size variation in arctic-nesting


Canada Geese. Condor 90:83-89. Mayfield, H. F. 1961. Nest success calculated from exposure. Wilson Bulletin 73:255. Mickelson, P. G. 1975. Breeding biology of Cackling Geese and associated species on the Yukon-

Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Wildlife Monograph 45. Owen, M. and J.M. Black. 1989. Factors affecting the survival of barnacle geese on migration

from the breeding grounds. Journal of Animal Ecology 58: 603-617. Pacific Flyway Council. 2006. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Emperor Goose. Pacific

Flyway Council, care of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Vancouver, Washington. 24pp

Pacific Flyway Council. 2016. Management plan for the Emperor goose. Pacific Flyway Council,

care of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Vancouver, Washington. 36 pp.

Petersen, M.R. 1992. Reproductive Ecology of Emperor Geese: Annual and Individual Variation

in Nesting. The Condor 94:383-397. Raveling, D. G. 1978. The timing of egg laying by northern geese. Auk 95:294-303. Raveling, D. G. 1981. Survival, experience, and age in relation to breeding success of Canada

Geese. Journal of Wildlife management 45:817-829. Sedinger, J.S., Lindberg, M.S., Eichholz, M., and N. Chelgren. 1997. Influence of Hatch Date

versus Maternal and Genetic Effects on Growth of Black Brant Goslings. The Auk 114: 129-132.

Sedinger, J. S., Chelgren, N. D., Ward, D. H. and M.S. Lindberg. 2008. Fidelity and breeding

probability related to population density and individual quality in black brent geese Branta bernicla nigricans. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77: 702–712.

Solovyeva, D.V., Kokhanova, V.Y., Gabrielson, M., and K. S. Christie. 2017. Testing for

Geographic Variation in Survival of Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri) Populations in Chukotka, Russia and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Arctic 70(3): 287–294.

Thompson, S.C. and D.G. Raveling. 1987. Incubation Behavior of Emperor Geese Compared with

Other Geese: Interactions of Predation, Body Size, and Energetics. The Auk (4): 707-716. Schmutz. J.A., Rockwell, R.F., and M.R. Petersen. 1997. Relative Effects of Survival and

Reproduction on the Population Dynamics of Emperor Geese. The Journal of Wildlife Management(61): 191-201


Williams, C.G. 1966. Natural selection, the cost of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack's

principle. American Naturalist 100: 687-690.


Appendix A: Emperor goose nest check data card.

Key for front of nest searching data card

Year 201x Plot # Which plot is nest in? Nest # Code each nest individually Typically use first initial of First, Middle, and Last name followed by a number Ex. MLG001 Species EMGO- Emperor Goose Easting & Northing Taken from GPS Collected in UTM Nest Site Description of nest location Sloughbank Pondshore Island Displaced Island Peninsula Pingo Grassflat Other – give description Is nest ON or OFF plot. Circle one Resight Was the bird marked? Were you able to read marker if so, How? Visual – binoculars, scope Camera Band # - will look it up Nasal – do not use this space Tarsal – what was code if read Feathers Were feathers collected Yes or No Circle one How many feathers were collected?

Obs Your initials When trapping also include partners initials Date Date of nest visit Time Start of nest visit End of nest visit Egg Status New Eggs – how many new eggs in nest/ number of eggs first visit Missing Eggs – How many eggs are missing from previous check Inv Eggs – Inviable eggs Broken Eggs – Please note whether it was from handling or from Flushed Female Aband – Abandoned eggs. Usually cold Unk – Unknown status. This will be important at the end of the field season during final checks. But if you are unsure of an eggs status mark it as unknown F Floating angle Float 2-3 eggs in the nest C Candling angle Candle 2-3 eggs in the nest Hen Status (F) Flushed (P) Present (A) Absent Nest Status

(I)Incubating (A) Abandoned (H) Hatched (U) Unknown (L) Laying

YEAR: PLOT #: NEST#: SPECIES:

EASTING: NORTHING:

NEST SITE:

RESIGHT: Resight? Y N Method: Visual/ Camera

BAND # NASAL: TARSAL:

FEATHERS: Collected: Y N # Collected:

NEST VISIT:

OBS DATE TIME

NEW

EGGS

MISSING

EGGS

INV

EGGS

BROKEN

EGGS

ABAND

EGGS

UNK

EGGS F C

HEN

STATUS

NEST

STATUS COMMENTS

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

Slougbank, Pondshore, Island, Displaced Island, Peninsula Pingo, Grassflat, Other

On or Off


Appendix B: Emperor Goose capture data card.

Key for back of nest searching data card

Year 201x Plot # Which plot is nest in? Nest # Code each nest individually Typically use first initial of First, Middle, and Last name followed by a number Ex. MLG001 Species EMGO- Emperor Goose Easting & Northing Taken from GPS Collected in UTM Trap mehthod Circle one Resight Was the bird previously marked? Band # - write metal band numbers Nasal – Record total head length in cm Tarsal – what was tarsal code if read Weight: record mass in grams Tarsus: record total tarsus length in cm Culmen: record culmen length in cm Feathers Were feathers collected Yes or No Circle one How many feathers were collected?

Obs Your initials When trapping also include partners initials Date Date of nest visit Egg Status Total eggs: number of eggs total in nest New Eggs – how many new eggs in nest/ number of eggs first visit Missing Eggs – How many eggs are missing from previous check Inv Eggs – Inviable eggs F Floating angle Float 2-3 eggs in the nest C Candling angle Candle 2-3 eggs in the nest Hen Status (F) Flushed (P) Present (A) Absent Nest Status

(I)Incubating (A) Abandoned (H) Hatched (U) Unknown (L) Laying

BANDING/TRAPPING INFO

YEAR: PLOT #: NEST#: SPECIES:

EASTING: NORTHING:

TIME: Start of Trapping: End of Trapping:

TRAP METHOD:Bownet Mistnet

BANDING: Recapture/Resight? Y N

BAND # NASAL: TARSAL:

WEIGHT: TARSUS: CULMEN:

FEATHERS: Collected: Y N # Collected:

NEST CHECK:

OBS DATE

TOTAL

EGGS

NEW

EGGS

MISSING

EGGS

INVBL

EGGS F1 C1

HEN

STATUS

NEST

STATUS COMMENTS

1)


Appendix C: Raw morphometric data from nesting female Emperor geese on Kigigak Island, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, 201 and 2018.

Band number

Tarsal Code

Nest # Catch date Mass (KG) Head

length (cm)

Culmen length (cm)

Tarsus length (cm)

2017-15204 A00 JMK003 6/5/2017 1.79 9.55 3.76 7.68

2017-15205 A02 BLD027 6/5/2017 1.77 9.06 3.84 7.58

2017-15206 A04 BLD033 6/5/2017 1.69 9.27 3.73 7.39

2017-15207 A06 BLD032 6/5/2017 1.84 9.20 3.73 7.61

2017-15208 A07 BLD010 6/6/2017

8.07

2017-15209 A08 BLD017 6/6/2017

9.01 3.83 7.48

2017-15210 A09 GT019 6/6/2017 1.69 9.44 3.88 7.82

2017-15221 A10 GT023 6/5/2017 1.89 9.87 3.60 7.95

2017-15222 A11 RF031 6/5/2017 1.68 9.44 3.72 7.74

2017-15223 A12 RF035 6/6/2017 1.92 9.59 3.63 7.80

2017-15224 A13 GT037 6/6/2017 2.11 9.99 4.08 8.22

2017-15225 A14 RF024 6/7/2017 1.89 7.84 3.38 7.79

2017-15226 A15 JMK011 6/7/2017 1.52 9.28 3.54 7.67

2017-15227 A16 RF017 6/7/2017 1.73 9.51 3.67 7.89

2017-15228 A17 RF016 6/7/2017 1.71 9.27 3.78 8.02

2017-15229 A19 GT027 6/8/2017 1.64 9.44 3.77 7.74

2017-15230 A20 BLD012 6/8/2017 1.81 9.29 3.33 7.79

2017-15231 A21 BLD009 6/8/2017 1.65 9.35 3.59 7.58

2017-15232 A22 GT016 6/10/2017 1.67 9.15 3.36 7.75

2017-15233 A24 GT013 6/10/2017 1.73 9.65 3.41 8.26

2017-15234 A25 GT014 6/10/2017 1.69 9.17 3.35 7.86

2017-15235 A26 GT012 6/11/2017 1.73 9.49 3.50 8.36

2017-15236 A27 BLD008 6/11/2017 1.74 9.52 3.76 8.36

2017-15237 A28 BLD015 6/12/2017 1.67 9.49 3.66 7.59

2017-15238 A29 BLD018 6/12/2017 1.80 9.34 3.68 7.63

2017-15211 A30 BLD042 6/6/2017 1.59 9.63 3.69 7.60

2017-15212 A31 RF008 6/6/2017 1.82 9.21 3.55 7.96

2017-15213 A32 BLD037 6/6/2017 1.60 9.48 3.82 7.44

2017-15215 A34 GT020 6/7/2017 1.27 9.11 3.40 7.64

2017-15216 A35 GT018 6/7/2017 1.68 9.51 4.00 9.65

2017-15217 A36 BLD003 6/7/2017 1.63 9.27 3.82 7.77

2017-15218 A37 RF019 6/8/2017 1.88 10.15 4.01 8.02

2017-15219 A38 RF018 6/8/2017 1.75 9.48 4.13 9.40

2017-15220 A39 BLD028 6/8/2017 1.53 9.17 3.55 7.63

2017-15241 A40 RF004 6/8/2017 1.79 9.34 3.98 7.84

2017-15242 A41 GT046 6/8/2017 1.58 8.85 3.69 7.76

2017-15243 A42 GT045 6/8/2016 1.64 9.33 3.51 7.90

2017-15244 A43 GT041 6/8/2017 1.69 9.18 3.59 7.75

2017-15245 A44 BLD047 6/8/2017 1.80 9.37 4.10 8.02


Band number

Tarsal Code


length (cm)

Culmen length (cm)

Tarsus length (cm)

2017-15247 A46 RF043 6/10/2017 1.72 9.49 3.41 7.86

2017-15248 A47 BLD001 6/10/2017 1.61 9.26 3.62 7.72

2017-15249 A48 BLD040 6/10/2017 1.46 9.16 3.65 7.40

2017-15250 A49 RF033 6/10/2017 1.74 9.71 3.86 7.87

2017-15261 A50 RF032 6/10/2017 1.69 9.50 3.75 8.04

2017-15262 A51 RF030 6/10/2017 1.65 9.44 3.80 7.53

2017-15263 A52 RF010 6/11/2017 1.74 9.83 3.77 7.65

2017-15264 A53 BLD038 6/11/2017 1.63 9.31 3.38 7.75

2017-15265 A54 GT008 6/11/2017 1.87 9.81 3.56 7.79

2017-15266 A55 GT006 6/11/2017

8.07

2017-15267 A56 BLD034 6/12/2017 1.61 8.95 3.67 7.69

2017-15268 A58 BLD021 6/12/2017 1.64 8.85 3.63 7.45

2017-15269 A59 BLD022 6/12/2017 1.97 9.32 3.96 8.00

2017-15239 A60 RF022 6/12/2017 1.62 9.62 3.49 7.56

2017-15240 A63 GT001 6/12/2017 1.54 9.00 3.41 9.85

2017-15251 A64 RF029 6/13/2017 1.45 8.92 3.81 7.14

2017-15252 A67 RF028 6/13/2017 1.64 9.16 3.32 7.75

2017-15253 A68 GT033 6/13/2017 1.57 9.65 4.06 7.70

2017-15254 A69 GT032 6/13/2017 1.59 9.25 3.55 7.95

2017-15270 A70 BLD025 6/12/2017 1.97 9.42 3.60 7.88

2017-15271 A71 BLD030 6/12/2017 1.80 9.32 3.84 7.99

2017-15272 A72 GT003 6/12/2017 1.65 9.23 3.75 7.90

2017-15273 A73 JMK004 6/13/2017 1.82 9.31 3.44 8.05

2017-15274 A74 JMK010 6/13/2017 1.57 9.23 3.78 7.63

2017-15275 A75 GT044 6/13/2017 1.61 9.11 3.79 7.27

2017-15276 A76 RF005 6/13/2017 1.61 9.25 3.71 7.82

2017-15277 A79 GT002 6/13/2017 1.86 9.67 3.93 7.98

2017-15255 A80 GT031 6/13/2017 1.75 9.48 3.72 8.00

2017-15256 A81 GT022 6/14/2017 1.89 9.44 3.48 7.73

2017-15257 A82 RF047 6/14/2017 1.83 9.74 3.63 7.77

2017-15258 A83 GT028 6/14/2017 1.62 9.12 3.40 7.79

2017-15259 A84 RF048 6/14/2017 1.41 9.22 3.74 7.84

2017-15260 A86 GT034 6/15/2017 1.81 8.90 3.20 7.67

2017-15291 A87 BLD007 6/15/2017 1.79 9.31 3.70 7.58

2017-15292 A88 GT042 6/16/2017 1.64 9.56 3.63 7.87

2017-15293 A89 RF027 6/17/2017 1.52 9.38 3.92 7.98

2017-15278 A90 RF045 6/14/2017 1.76 9.38 3.54 7.68

2017-15279 A92 GT015 6/14/2017 1.69 9.25 3.72 8.07

2017-15280 A93 BLD016 6/14/2017 1.73 9.56 3.49 8.16

2017-15281 A94 JMK002 6/14/2017 1.80 9.66 3.75 8.24

2017-15282 A95 BLD048 6/15/2017 1.73 9.52 3.88 7.56


Band number

Tarsal Code


length (cm)

Culmen length (cm)

Tarsus length (cm)

2017-15284 A97 JMK007 6/17/2017 1.50 8.80 3.45 7.34

2017-15285 A98 GT040 6/19/2017 1.88 9.46 3.92 7.79

2017-15294 C00 RF039 6/17/2017 1.86 9.44 3.21 7.64

2017-15286 C01 MJA031 6/6/2018 1.65 9.56 3.85 7.64

2017-15287 C02 MJA019 6/6/2018 1.64 9.26 3.51 8.30

2017-15288 C03 MJA027 6/6/2018 1.68 9.05 3.64 7.84

2017-15289 C04 MJA029 6/6/2018 1.82 9.72 3.54 7.60

2017-15290 C05 BLD119 6/6/2018 1.64 9.25 3.62 7.06

2017-15295 C06 HMJ056 6/6/2018 1.68 9.36 3.61 7.75

2017-15296 C07 CPB063 6/6/2018 1.62 9.36 3.66 8.17

2017-15297 C08 MJA032 6/6/2018

9.05 3.41 8.12

2017-15298 C09 MJA016 6/7/2018 1.63 9.09 3.42 7.41

2017-15301 C10 MJA018 6/1/2018

9.50 3.55 7.64

2017-15302 C12 MJA003 6/1/2018

9.80 3.89 7.85

2017-15303 C13 JMT005 6/5/2018 1.66 9.03 3.48 7.97

2017-15304 C14 BLD112 6/6/2018

9.89 3.46 7.75

2017-15305 C15 BLD104 6/6/2018 1.82 9.25 3.62 7.45

2017-15306 C16 HMJ015 6/6/2018

9.28 3.67 7.45

2017-15307 C17 CPB037 6/6/2018 1.79 9.20 3.44 7.45

2017-15308 C18 HMJ022 6/6/2018

9.50 3.24 8.35

2017-15309 C19 MJA002 6/7/2018

9.25 3.66 7.46

2017-15311 C20 JMT117 6/8/2018 1.74 9.06 3.54 7.76

2017-15312 C21 JMT118 6/8/2018 1.60 9.16 3.59 7.84

2017-15310 C22 CPB002 6/7/2018 1.82 9.54 3.66 8.13

2017-15313 C23 JMT108 6/8/2018 1.88 9.65 3.74 7.98

2017-15314 C24 MJA203 6/9/2018

9.41 3.69 7.51

2017-15316 C25 JMT001 6/9/2018 1.65 9.12 3.53 7.24

2017-15315 C26 CPB072 6/9/2018 1.55 9.57 3.66 7.74

2017-15317 C27 HMJ024 6/9/2018 1.56 9.16 3.60 7.55

2017-15318 C28 MJA020 6/10/2018 1.76 9.56 3.80 7.85

2017-15343 C29 BLD118 6/10/2018 1.66 9.26 3.59 7.73

2017-15299 C30 MJA014 6/7/2018

9.51 3.78 8.06

2017-15300 C31 MJA009 6/8/2018 1.69 9.30 3.38 7.81

2017-15321 C32 BLD107 6/8/2018 1.76 9.56 3.74 7.86

2017-15322 C33 CPB023 6/8/2018 1.48 9.74 3.61 7.24

2017-15323 C34 CPB075 6/8/2018 1.63 9.64 3.79 7.93

2017-15324 C35 BLD111 6/9/2018 1.70 9.26 3.53 7.62

2017-15325 C36 BLD109 6/9/2018 1.54 9.29 3.93 7.82

2017-15326 C37 BLD108 6/9/2018 1.64 9.29 3.54 7.57

2017-15327 C38 MJA011 6/9/2018 1.82 9.09 3.54 7.91

2017-15328 C39 CPB036 6/9/2018 1.72 9.44 3.69 8.25


Band number

Tarsal Code


length (cm)

Culmen length (cm)

Tarsus length (cm)

2017-15319 C41 CPB026 6/11/2018 1.58 9.12 3.43 7.25

2017-15320 C42 CPB024 6/11/2018 1.44 9.19 3.75 7.54

2017-15341 C43 JMT012 6/11/2018 1.69 9.37 3.72 7.62

2017-15344 C44 MJA035 6/12/2018 1.77 9.54 3.62 7.87

2017-15345 C45 JMT105 6/13/2018 1.56 9.44 3.54 7.98

2017-15346 C46 CPB069 6/13/2018 1.94 9.68 3.88 7.91

2017-15347 C47 MJA038 6/13/2018 1.52 9.29 3.36 7.51

2017-15348 C48 CPB080 6/13/2018 1.68 9.56 3.80 7.53

2017-15349 C49 JMT107 6/13/2018 1.57 9.44 3.93 7.77

2017-15329 C50 BLD114 6/9/2018 1.77 8.97 3.54 8.15

2017-15330 C51 MJA055 6/10/2018 1.57 9.39 3.92 7.02

2017-15331 C52 BLD106 6/10/2018 1.56 9.30 3.42 8.00

2017-15332 C53 HMJ060 6/10/2018 1.75 9.00 3.49 7.94

2017-15333 C54 JMT019 6/11/2018 1.45 9.05 3.52 7.62

2017-15334 C55 BLD115 6/11/2018 1.61 9.65 3.48 7.41

2017-15335 C56 JMT018 6/11/2018

9.18 3.58 7.40

2017-15336 C57 CPB008 6/12/2018 1.70 9.74 3.61 7.57

2017-15337 C58 CPB004 6/12/2018

9.04 3.45 7.73

2017-15338 C59 CPB003 6/12/2018 1.71 9.06 3.55 7.92

2017-15339 C60 MJA024 6/13/2018 1.73 9.62 3.80 7.92

2017-15340 C61 CPB048 6/13/2018

7.81

2017-15351 C62 MJA034 6/14/2018 1.75 9.74 3.89 7.82

2017-15352 C63 HMJ034 6/14/2018 1.76 9.46 3.85 7.75

2017-15353 C64 MJA037 6/14/2018 1.50 9.33 3.68 8.05

2017-15354 C65 CPB082 6/15/2018 1.68 9.83 3.66 7.90

2017-15355 C66 CPB065 6/15/2018 1.62 9.40 3.42 7.90

2017-15356 C67 HMJ061 6/19/2018

9.07 3.58 8.06

2017-15350 C70 CPB073 6/14/2018

9.16 3.16 7.40

2017-15361 C71 BLD113 6/14/2018 1.56 9.46 3.57 7.96

2017-15362 C72 CPB052 6/14/2018 1.53 9.15 3.34 7.66

2017-15363 C73 JMT131 6/14/2018 1.84 9.33 3.71 8.15

2017-15364 C74 MJA056 6/15/2018 1.57 9.24 3.70 7.22

Documents

Monitoring of Nesting Emperor Geese on Kigigak Island, Alaska, … · 2019-04-18 · USFWS, Yukon Delta NWR – Kigigak Emperor Goose Report, 2017 1 Monitoring of Nesting Emperor