Status of the Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou population (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) in 2000, West Greenland. Technical Report No. 42

1 Technical Report No. 42, 2002 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Status of the KangerlussuaqSisimiut caribou population (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) in 2000, West Greenland 2 Title: Status of the Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou population (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) in 2000, West Greenland Authors: Christine Cuyler, Michael Rosing, John D.C.Linnell, Anne Loison, Torsten Ingerslev & Arild Landa Funding: DANCEA, Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic – Ministry of the Environment, Strandgade 29, Copenhagen K, Denmark Series:Technical Report No. 42, 2002 Publisher: Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Cover photo: Female caribou on late winter range of the Kangerlussuaq area, region North Photographer: Christine Cuyler ISBN: 87-90024-75-3 ISSN: 1397-3657 Layout: Kirsten Rydahl Printing: Oddi Printing Ltd., Reykjavik, Iceland Prints: 150 (Danish & Greenlandic summaries) Reference: Cuyler, C., Rosing, M., Linnell, J.D.C., Loison, A., Ingerlsev, T., & Landa, A. 2002. Status of the Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou population (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) in 2000, West Greenland. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Technical report No. 42. 52 pp. Available from:Greenland Institute of Natural Resources P. O . Box 570 DK-3900 Nuuk Greenland Phone: +299 32 10 95 Fax: +299 32 59 57 www.natur.gl 3 Technical Report No. 42, 2002 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Status of the KangerlussuaqSisimiut caribou population (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) in 2000, West Greenland by Christine Cuyler1, Michael Rosing1, John D.C.Linnell2, Anne Loison3, Torsten Ingerslev4 & Arild Landa1, 2 1 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 2 Norwegian Institute of Nature Research, Tungasletta 2, 7485 Trondheim, Norway 3 UMR – CNRS 5558, Laboratoire de Biometrie et Biologie Evolutive, 69622 Villeurbanne cedex, France 4 Mosevej 15, 3230 Græsted, Denmark 4 Eqikkaaneq Piniarnermik aqutsinermi aalajangiisarnermut tunngavissatut pingaartuupput tuttut uumasut qassiunerannut, ataatsimoortukkaat qanoq katitigaanerannut qassinillu amerliumaarnerannik eqqoriaanerit pillugit paasissutissat. 2000–mi marsiugaa Kangerlussuup Sisimiullu akornanni timmisartumik tuttunik kisitsinerit Pinngortitaleriffimmit ingerlanneqarput, paasiniarneqarluni tuttut qassiunerat ataatsimoortukkuutaallu qanoq katitigaanerat. 100 meterisut portutigaluni timmisartoq ingerlavoq, sukkassuseralugu ≤ 100 km/t. Helikopterip saneraaniit illugiinnit avammut 500 meteri kisitsiffigineqarpoq taamaasilluni kisitsiffigineqartoq 2 x 500 meterisut siammasitsigaluni. Tuttut qanoq katitigaanerat pillugu misissuinerit allat 1998-mi 2000-milu februar-marsimi snescooterit atorlugit ingerlanneqarput. Helikopteri snescooterillu atorlugit kisitsinerit iluaqutigalugit tuttut ukiumut qassinik amerliumaanerannut eqqoriaanerit suliarineqarsinnaalerput. Timmisartukkut kisitsinerni tuttut ataatsimoortut agguaqatigiissillugit 2,7-upput nunamiit kisitsinerni 3,1-iullutik. Siusinnerusukkut kisitsisarnernut nunatsinnilu tuttut amerlassusaannut sanilliullugit kisitsisit pissarsiat naapertuupput. Tuttut amerlasuujullutik katersuuffiini km²-terimut 2,76-usarput amerlanatik katersuuffiini km²-mut 1,19-iusarlutik. Tuttut nerisaat eqqarsaatigissagaanni km²-rimut tuttut 2,76-t amerlavallaarput, nerisaasalu nutaanik taarserneqarnissaannut piffissaqassappat km²-rimut tuttut 1,19-t aamma amerlavallaartut siusinnerusukkut oqaatigineqareerpoq. Uumasoqatigiit ilaat 26,5 procentit piaraapput. Piffissami ukiup naajartornerani ukiullu ingerlanerani kulavaat 100-uugaangata norraat 68-iusarput. Tuttut taama amerleriartigisarnerat pissutigalugu uumasut sukkasuumik amerliartorsinnaapput pingaartumik qaasuttunik eqqaaniittoqannginnera pissutaalluni. Tiggak ataasiugaangat kulavaat 1,2-usarput – Amerikami Avannarlermi naammattuugassanit allaanerunatik. Uumasoqatigiit maannakkut amerlassusiat eqqarsaatigissagaanni allanartumik patsiseqanngitsumik 4 aamma 7 procentit toqusarpata ukiumut 2.000-it 3.600-llu akornanni toqusassapput. Naatsorsuinikkut tagginneqarpoq Kangerlussuup Sisimiullu akornanni tuttut, piaranngortussat eqqarsaatigissanngikkaanni, marts 2000-mi 51.600-uusut + 11.200 (90% C.I.) (11.200-nik ikinnerusinnaallutik amerlanerusinnaallutilluunniit). Taamaammat 2000 august-septemberimi sumiffimmi Avannani piniarneqarsinnaasutut innersuussutigineqartut 7.000-nik amerlineqarput piniartullu kajumissaarneqarput kulavannik amerlanerusunik pisaqaqqullugit. 2001-mi innersuussutigineqartut 10.000-nik amerlineqarput kajumissaarutigineqarluni pisat affaat kulavaasariaqartut, tassa tuttut suli amerliartornissaat pinngitsoorneqassappat. Tuttut amerliartornerat killilersimaarneqarsinnaanngilaq kulavaat pisarineqartartut amerlinngippata. Kangerlussuup Sisimiullu akornanni tuttut sukkasuumik amerliartorsinnaapput. Eqqoriaanerit naapertorlugit 1996-miit 2000-p tungaanut tuttut tallimariaammik amerlisimapput uumasoqatigiit taakku eqqarsaatigissagaanni aatsaat taama amerlatigissallutik. Ilimanarpoq tuttut ingerlaarfitsik annertusitissimagaat, pasitsaanneqarporlu toqusartut amerliartortut tuttullu peqqippallaanngitsut. Uumasoqatigiit amerlavallaalernerat taamatullu nerisaasa innarlerneqarnerat pinngitsoortinneqassappat piniakkat amerlinerat aqqutissaavoq. 5 Oplysninger om rensdyrenes bestandsstørrelse og flokstruktur og estimater af rekruttering er vigtige som grundlag for beslutninger vedrørende forvaltningen. I marts 2000 gennemførte Naturinstituttet en helikoptertælling i området Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut for at få oplysninger om antallet af rensdyr samt flokstrukturen. Flyvehøjden var 100 meter, hastigheden var ≤ 100 km/t og bredden af transekten var 500 meter på hver side af helikopteren. I 1998 og 2000 gennemførte instituttet også tællinger af rensdyrenes flokstruktur fra snescooter i februar-marts måned. Både helikopterog snescootertællingerne gav estimater af den årlige tilvækst. Den gennemsnitlige gruppestørrelse var 2,7 rensdyr fra lufttællingerne og 3,1 fra de to tællinger udført på jorden. Disse gruppestørrelser er sammenlignelige med tidligere opgørelser og typiske for grønlandske rensdyrbestande. Tætheden af rensdyr var 2,76 pr. km² i høj-tæthedsområdet og 1,19 pr. km² i lav-tæthedsområdet. 2,76 rensdyr pr. km² kunne anses for en trussel mod vegetationen og selv 1,19 rensdyr pr. km² er før blevet anset for at være for højt til at vegetationen kan restituere sig. Kalveprocenten for hele bestanden var 26,5 %. Fertilitetsindekset for sen-vinter samt det årlige rekrutteringsindex var ca. 68 kalve pr. 100 simler (hunner). Denne høje rekrutteringsrate vil give mulighed for en hurtig vækst i bestanden, specielt fordi der ingen rovdyr er. Forholdet mellem antallet af tyre og simler var ca. 1 tyr for hver 1,2 simle og det er ikke usædvanlig sammenlignet med nordamerikanske bestande. Hvis den naturlige dødelighed er mellem 4 og 7 % så vil der sandsynligvis dø mellem 2.000 og 3.600 rensdyr af naturlige årsager hvert år med den nuværende bestandsstørrelse. Dette studies beregning af størrelsen på førkælvingsbestanden af rensdyr i området Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut i marts 2000 er ca. 51.600 rensdyr ± 11.200 rensdyr (90% C.I.) Den anbefalede jagt i region Nord blev derfor øget til 7.000 dyr for jagten i august-september 2000, og jægerne blev opfordret til at skyde flere simler. Anbefalingen blev øget til 10.000 rensdyr for jagten i 2001 med den anbefaling at halvdelen af kvoten skulle allokeres til simler hvis yderligere stigning i bestanden skulle undgås. Tilvæksten i bestanden kan ikke standses gennem jagt hvis ikke andelen af nedlagte simler bliver større. Bestanden i området Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut er på nuværende tidspunkt i stand til hurtigt at vokse i antal. Det nuværende estimat for 2000 er ca. fem gange så stort som estimatet for 1996 og større end noget andet estimat har været for denne bestand. Ydermere er der en mulighed for at bestanden har udvidet sit leveområde og der er ting der peger på at den naturlige dødelighed er steget og at dyrene er i dårlig stand. En øget jagt i denne region vil derfor muligvis kunne forhindre en kraftig stigning i bestandsstørrelsen og deraf følgende skade på vegetationen. Sammenfatning 6 Caribou herd size, herd structure, and recruitment estimates are important for management decisions. In March 2000 an aerial survey by helicopter for caribou abundance and herd structure was completed in Kangerlussuaq – Sisimiut. Flight height was 100 metres, flight speed was ≤ 100 kilometre/ hour and strip width was 500 metres to either side of the helicopter. In 1998 and 2000, snowmobile ground surveys for herd structure were also conducted in FebruaryMarch. Both aerial and ground surveys gave annual recruitment estimates. Mean group size was 2.7 caribou from the aerial herd structure count and averaged 3.1 from the two ground counts. These group sizes are similar to previous findings and typical for Greenland caribou populations. Caribou density was 2.76 per km2 in the high-density stratum and 1.19 per km2 in the low-density stratum. The former could be considered a threat to vegetation, and even the latter has previously been considered too high for range recovery. The calf percentage to the total herd was 26.5%. The late winter fertility index and annual recruitment estimate was c. 68 calves per 100 female caribou. This high recruitment rate will promote rapid increase in the population, specifically since there are no predators. The bull to cow ratio was about one bull to every 1.2 cows, and is not unusual compared with North American herds. If natural mortality is between 4 and 7%, then on the present herd size between 2,000 and 3,600 animals may be expected to die annually. This study’s estimate for the pre-calving population size of the Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd in region North in March 2000 is c. 51,600 caribou ± 11,200 (90% CI). The recommended harvest quota for region North was increased to 7,000 caribou for the August-September hunt 2000, and hunters were asked to shoot more females. The recommendation was increased to 10,000 caribou for the 2001 hunt, with the stipulation that half the quota should be allocated to females only, if further population growth was to be halted. Halting population growth cannot be effectively achieved through hunter harvest unless females make up a large proportion of the harvest. The Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd is presently capable of increasing rapidly in number. The present estimate for 2000 is approximately five times the 1996 estimate and larger than any previous estimate for this herd. In addition, there is the possibility that the herd has expanded its range, and some suggestion of increased natural mortality and animals in poor condition. Increasing the caribou harvest for this region may avert a possible rapid increase in herd size and subsequent range damage. Summary 7 An estimate of population size is often used as the most important foundation for managing caribou populations. When combined with data on herd structure, calf recruitment, and ecology (Thomas 1998) it is possible for managers to attempt to set sustainable hunting quotas. The caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) of region North (Kangerlussuaq – Sisimiut (Figure 1)) are native to west Greenland, and at present are untainted by genetic mixing with introduced semi-domestic reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) as has occurred in some other regions (Jepsen 1999). At present, all caribou within region North are considered one population on the basis of their genetic similarity (Jepsen 1999). Although estimates of population size are among the most important foundations for managing caribou, estimates themselves are plagued by uncertainty as to how well they reflect reality for the population in question. In North America there is scepticism regarding caribou herd size estimates, for although counts have been done often and over several decades the results typically lack public support and too often are later found to have been underestimates (Thomas 1998). Historical perspective on population estimates for region North Caribou have been hunted in region North for c. 4000 years, and archaeological excavation evidence from several large hunting camps shows that hunting pressure has been heavy for the last 800 years, especially in inland areas (Meldgaard 1986). Until recently quantified estimates of caribou population size were not obtainable, however, there are written historical records containing subjective observations of relative abundance. Extreme caribou scarcity and poor hunting success, which resulted in human starvation, was first recorded for the years 1761-1770 (Vibe 1967, Meldgaard 1986). In 1815 an increase in caribou numbers was noticed, and numbers may have remained high for the next 35 years. A peak in caribou number appears to have occurred between 1845 and 1850, when c. 6,000+ caribou were hunted annually in region North (Vibe 1967, Meldgaard 1986). Numbers declined rapidly during the 1850’s and reached a minimum in 1860 (Vibe 1967, Meldgaard 1986). Caribou remained scarce in region North until the 1950’s. Between 1910 and 1920 typically only c. 300 caribou were reported in annual harvest statistics in region North, with even fewer taken up until the 1950’s (Vibe 1967). After the 1950’s, caribou numbers increased steadily as did number harvested (Meldgaard 1986). There were always plenty of caribou for hunting between 1955 and 1976 (Kristian Egede pers. comm.). Well remembered was an infamous “Red” Sunday around Easter-time during the late 1960’s when a large number of caribou swarmed into the coastal town of Sisimiut/Holsteinsborg (Steen Malmquist pers. comm.). Caribou moved about in large groups during the autumns of late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and hunters could take their time to pick out the fattest animals (Bjørn Rosing pers. comm.). The number of caribou around the Kangerlussuaq airport in 1963 was overwhelming, but by the 1970’s a noticeable decrease in number had begun (Steen Malmquist pers. comm.). The highest reported numbers of caribou ever taken in this area (6,000+) occurred in 1974 and 1975, but following years gave somewhat declining hunter harvest (Grønlands Fangstlister, Meldgaard 1986). Since the 1970’s, there have been a series of aerial surveys to count or estimate the size Introduction 8 of the population. These surveys were conducted by various biologists and used a variety of different techniques (Table 1). All methods have a series of intrinsic errors and biases, and there has been public controversy about the accuracy of the 1990s’ estimates. Based on general knowledge of the meFigure 1. Caribou regions of west Greenland. thods used during previous surveys it is highly likely that they all underestimated, by an unknown extent, the true size of the population. In this report we present new surveys of the size and structure of the region North caribou population, using improved methods. 9 Table 1. Caribou population size estimates for region North. Year Number of caribou1 Method Reference 1977 18,350 minimum count Strandgaard et al. 1983 1978 16,000 minimum count Clausen et al. 1980, Roby & Thing 1985 1978 11,400 minimum count Strandgaard et al. 1983 1980 3,000 minimum count Strandgaard et al. 1983 1982 5,300 minimum count Strandgaard et al. 1983 1990 8,874 minimum count Thing & Falk 1990 1993 3,813 transect estimate Ydemann & Pedersen 1999 1994 7,727 transect estimate Ydemann & Pedersen 1999 1995 6,196 transect estimate Ydemann & Pedersen 1999 1996 10,869 transect estimate Ydemann & Pedersen 1999 1 Sum of sub-area estimates within region, hence no confidence intervals. For details see reference. Study area and caribou distribution Region North encompasses approximately 26,000 km2. The region’s boundaries reflect both geographic and to an extent also biological units. It includes all the area between Nordre Strømfjord in the north down to Sukkertoppen Ice Cap in the south, and all land between the coast in the west and the Greenland Ice Cap to the east. All terrain in region North could be described as open or alpine tundra. Today, the largest human settlement within the region is the city of Sisimiut, with 5,127 inhabitants, while a further 244 people live in smaller settlements (Grønlands Statistisk Årbog 2000). The country’s largest international civil airport is located on the far eastern side of the region near the inland Ice Cap. The Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd has been described as having marked seasonal migrations between the inland and coast (Vibe 1967, Strandgaard et al. 1983). However, locals in 1981 told that most caribou kept to the inland all winter with no movement to the coasts, and surveys in March of 1981 and 1982 found that ¾ of the all observed caribou were within 30 kilometres of the inland Ice Cap (Strandgaard et al. 1983). Results from satellite-collared caribou found modest annual movement, with animals staying in the vicinity of the Ice Cap year round (Cuyler & Linnell in prep). Aerial surveys during the 1990’s observed that high caribou densities occurred within inland areas and low densities further west towards, and at the coast (Ydemann & Pedersen 1999). Methods 16 Caribou population size estimate The final March 2000 population estimate was c. 51,600 caribou ± 11,200 (90% CI). This is best considered a conservative estimate, because although present methodology was improved a negative bias of caribou missed remains. The estimate of 51,600 caribou exceeds the previous 1996 survey estimate by a factor of five (Table 1) and is greater than any previous estimate from the 20th century. An interpretation of this result is difficult since methods differed. Regardless, it is likely that caribou abundance has been increasing since the 1996 estimate. It does not necessarily follow that region North is at a caribou population maximum, only that the present survey reflects animal abundance in 2000. Caribou distribution The distribution of caribou within region North appears to have expanded in recent years. The present study’s stratification of the region into one area for low and one for high caribou density was based on caribou distributions observed during the 1990’s surveys. Present results suggest changed distribution since the area of high caribou density appears to have expanded, specifically in Angujaartorfiup Nunaa and also to some extent further west of the stratification line used. An enlarged distribution is supported by local knowledge. In recent years, increasing numbers of caribou have been seen in areas previously uninhabited by caribou (Ammunnguaq Jonathansen & Lars Inusugtoq pers. comm.). At the coast where caribou were once few in late summer, they are now numerous and come earlier (Ammunnguaq Jonathansen & Arkalunnguaq Mikaelsen pers. comm.). Caribou have expanded their summer range distribution also in the northern portion of region North during the past 6 years (Mogens Marker, Villiam Henriksen, Svend Jerimiassen pers. comm.). During geological studies in 1994, along a west to east gradient created by the south shore of Nordre Strømfjord, Marker seldom met caribou until nearly adjacent to the Greenland Ice Cap in the east. Subsequently, caribou number and frequency of caribou increased noticeably. During summer 2000, about 10 caribou could be observed in one’s field-of-view from any position along the entire length of Nordre Strømfjord’s south shore (Mogens Marker pers. comm.), and during the autumn there were caribou observed on Qeqertaussaq Island, which lies in the middle of Nordre Strømfjord (Hans Henrik Skott pers. comm.). 20 years ago local hunters knew that caribou behaviour changed with the size of the herd and that animals moved into coastal areas during population maximums (Grønnow et al. 1983, Meldgaard 1986). Locals now observe animals near the coast, but perceive no increase in caribou number. This leads to speculation. With a herd size around 52,000 animals, where on the population growth curve is this population today, and what herd sizes or densities are first necessary for locals to discern “too” many caribou in region North? Caribou density Reindeer move when food is in short supply, the greater the lack of food the more the movement (Baskin 1990). Densities of 2 caribou/km2 in the Yukon and Alaska are considered high and result in dispersal thought due to competition for food (Haber & Walters 1980). Region North had a density of 2.76 caribou/km2 in the high-density stratum. The area used in the calculation of density included all elevations. However, Discussion 17 elevations over 700 metres contain minimal vegetation (Feilberg 1980) and may be of little importance as caribou food sources. Density dependent affects can be acting within a population long before drastic effects are apparent. These may manifest themselves through winter food limitation, and severe weather could affect recruitment through decreased juvenile survival (Skogland 1985). Effects might include die-offs or animals in poor body condition. Thin caribou were observed along the shores of Søndre Strømfjord/Kangerlussuaq fjord in November 2000 (Hans Kreutzmann pers. comm.). During august 2001 an increased number of dead caribou relative to previous years were observed along the coasts, mainly on the south shores of Nordre Strømfjord, which is the northern border of region North (Ammunnguaq Jonathansen, Arkalunnguaq Mikaelsen, Hans Mølgaard, Jørgen Inuusuttoq, Svend Jerimiassen & Villiam Henriksen pers. comm.). All carcasses were within 1 km of the fjord shoreline with starvation as the likely cause of death (Hans Mølgaard pers. comm.). This local information combined with the aerial survey’s observed high caribou density suggests the possibililty of overgrazing on the range. In the early 1980’s even the present low-density stratum’s 1.2 caribou/km2 was considered too high for range recovery in region North (Thing 1981). Herd structure The two snowmobile ground survey results appear comparable (Table 4). Any differences may be due to the inclusion of coastal areas during the 2000 survey, e.g., group sizes are known to be greater in coastal areas (Roby & Thing 1985). The doubling of maximum group size observed during the Table 4. Overview of herd structure parameters during late winter for the Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd, region North. *Cows over 1 year old. 1 Thing 1982 2 Ydemann & Pedersen 1999 unpublished 3 Thing & Falk 1990 4 present study 2000 aerial 2000 ground 1998 ground 1996 1995 1994 1993 1990 1979 1978 1977 Density (high) 2.76 0.96 0.51 0.8 0.38 0.61 Density (low) 1.19 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.06 Group size 2.8 4 2.3 2.5 2.6 3.2 2 2.6 c. 2.2 c. 2.2 c. 2.2 Bull% (> 1 yr) 34.3 38.1 36.8 13 28 32 Cow% (> 1 yr) 39.2 41.1 42.7 55 52 45 Calf % 26.6 20.8 20.5 17.3 13.2 16.0 23.7 28 17 22 Calf/100 cows 68* 51 48 c. 24 c. 24 c. 24 n1,130 1,006 438 2,337 1,131 837 484 7,223 2,851 6,153 Reference 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 18 2000 ground survey relative to the 1998 survey was also mirrored in the aerial survey 2000. The higher values for calf% and calf/ 100 cows from the aerial survey may reflect better the actual situation for the population, since more of the herd’s range was covered during aerial survey than could be covered by ground survey. There is a significant difference between the herd structures found by air and by both snowmobile counts (p < 0.05), but no significant difference between the snowmobile structure counts done in 1998 and in 2000 (p > 0.8). The bull to cow ratio was about one bull to every 1.2 cows, and is not unusual compared with studies on barren-ground and woodland caribou in North American (Parker 1972). Recruitment Recruitment in the Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut herd (average 56 calves/100 cows in late winter) is high compared to other herds. Studies from North America and Scandinavia report late winter 41 calves/100 cows (Fancy et al. 1994), 20 calves/100 cows (Dzus 1999) and 22 calves/100 cows (Parker 1972). However, some of these populations typically have predators. Still a comparison to the Southampton Island herd, which like Greenland has no predators shows late winter recruitments varying between 22 and 77 calves/100 cows (Heard & Ouellet 1994). The Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd late winter recruitment of between 51 and 68 calves/100 cows in 2000 suggests a population capable of increasing rapidly in number. Expected natural mortality Natural adult mortality for caribou in 5 North American herds without natural predators has been estimated at 4-6% annually (Bergerud 1967, 1971, Skoog 1968, Kelsall 1968). Thing (1982) estimated 7% died annually in region North. With the 2000 population estimate of c. 51,600 ± 11,200 caribou in region North, and using both 4% and 7%, this would equate to a potential natural mortality of between 2,000 and 3,600 caribou each year in region North. Implication for caribou harvest Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou population Caribou harvest was either prohibited or quotas given were small (Table 5) following the low population size estimates of the 1990’s aerial surveys (Table 1). At present the Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd may be increasing in number, given the large 2000 herd size estimate, high calf recruitment rate, almost a decade of low harvesting, and local knowledge on range expansion. The harvest recommendation for region North in 2000 was 7,000 and for 2001 it is 10,000 caribou. Hunter reports are still essential to the data foundation on which harvest recommendations are made and therefore continued hunter reporting is necessary regardless of the size of future quotas. The harvest quota recommendation for 2001 has again been increased due to acknowledged large herd size, substantial calf recruitment, high caribou density on range and the present concern for probable range degradation. Calf production appears to be approximately 910,000 calves at present. A harvest quota of this magnitude for region North may prevent further growth in population size. Since 1995 the harvests have been severely (90%) sex-biased towards males (Loison et al. 2000). Highly male-biased sex ratios in harvesting can potentially lead to reduced Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Harvest quota X1X1X100705 856 1,120 1,350 1,920 Table 5. 10-year overview of harvest quotas for region North Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd. 1 harvest regulated by bag-limits for each hunter rather than an overall population specific quota. 19 female fertility and population collapse in extreme cases (Ginsberg & Milner-Gulland 1994). Sex-skewed harvesting may even endanger the genetic variability of a population (Ryman et al. 1981). However, in the context of west Greenland caribou, the most likely short-term negative consequence of a skewed sex ratio lies in the creation of a female dominated population with a high growth rate relative to population size. Such a population with high growth rate can rapidly become too large for the range to support, potentially resulting in a population crash and/or long term degradation of the range. Therefore the recommendation for 2001 harvest in region North included the stipulation that half the harvest quota must be female, which would assist halting population growth. 20 This project was financed by DANCEA, Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic – Ministry of Environment, Strandgade 29, Copenhagen K, Denmark. Grateful thanks to Mike Ferguson and Michael Kingsley for valuable input and brainstorming on alternate survey designs and methodologies. GreenlandAir and helicopter pilot Hans Henrik Skott provided hours of safe flying. A warm thank you to KNAPK hunters Franz Petersen & Hanseraq Olsen, and Maniitsoq wildlife officer, Jakob Heilman. Hanseraq Olsen assisted the snowmobile ground survey in 2000. Franz Petersen & Jakob Heilman were observers for the helicopter survey in 2000. Joseph Patrick McCullough assisted, on short notice, the snowmobile ground survey in 1998, and Acknowledgements gave valuable support throughout the project. Bent Brodersen & KISS center in Kangerlussuaq, Preben, with StatOil in Kangerlussuaq, Henrik Sakse & Kevin Hansen, mechanics at Kangerlussuaq, Svend Christiansen, Lufthavnschef Kangerlussuaq all provided technical assistance. A warm thanks is also due to local-knowledge sources, which included Søren Stach Nielsen (Nuuk), Mogens Marker (Geologist), Hans Kreutzmann (Kangaamiut), Jørgen Inuusuttoq (Attu), Hans Mølgaard (Sisimiut), Ammunnguaq Jonathansen (Sisimiut), Arkalunnguaq Mikaelsen (Sisimiut), Lars Inusugtoq (Sisimiut), Villiam Henriksen (Kangaatsiaq), Svend Jerimiassen (Kangaatsiaq), Kristian Egede (Nuuk), Bjørn Rosing (Nuuk), and Hans Henrik Skott (pilot). 21 Baskin, L.M. 1990. Population dynamics of reindeer. Rangifer, Special Issue No. 3: 151-156. Bergerud, A.T. 1967. Management of Labrador caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management. 31: 621-642. Bergerud, A.T. 1971. The population dynamics of Newfoundland caribou. Wildlife Monographs. 25. 55 pp. Clausen, B., Dam, A., Elvestad, K., Krogh, H.V. & Thing, H. 1980. Summer mortality among caribou calves in west Greenland. Nord. Vet. Med. 32: 291-300. Cuyler, C. & Linnell, J. D.C. in prep. Årligt vandringsmønster hos satellitmærkede rensdyr i Vestgrønland. Kapitel 6 –In: P. Aastrup (ed.). Undersøgelser af vestgrønlandske rensdyrs aktivitetsområder og vandringer samt effekter af menneskelige forstyrrelser. Grønlands Naturinsstitut, Teknisk rapport nr. 49. Cuyler, C., Rosing, M., Linnell, J.D.C., Lund, P.M., Jordhøy, P., Loison, A., & Landa, A. 2002. Status of 3 West Greenland caribou populations 2001; 1) Akia-Maniitsoq, 2) Ameralik, 3) Qeqertarsuatsiaat. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Technical report No. 46. Cuyler, C., Rosing, M., Linnell, J.D.C., Lund, P.M., Loison, A., & Landa, A. unpublished. Reconnaissance for caribou abundance, herd structure and recruitment, Neria & Qassit caribou herds (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus), in 2000, Paamiut, West Greenland. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Technical report No. 48. Dzus, E. 1999. Population dynamics: How are the caribou doing? In: Boreal Caribou Research Program (BCRP) progress report 1999. Boreal Research Committee 15810-114 Ave., Edmonton, Alberta T5M 2Z4 Canada. 37 pp. Effron, B. & Tibshirani, R.J. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY. Fancy, S.G., Whitten, K.R. & Russell, D.E. 1994. Demography of the porcupine caribou herd, 19831992. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 72: 840-846. Feilberg, J. 1980. Vegetationsforhold. – In: Holsteinsborg, Sisimiut kommune naturog kulturforhold. Niels Haarløv, Niels Kingo Jacobsen, Jørgen Meldgaard and H.C. Petersen (eds). Udvalget vedrørende Fredningslov for Grønland. Ministeriet for Grønland/Geografisk Institut 1980. 88 pp.: 44-48 plus plates I to VIII. (in Danish) Ginsberg, J.R. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. 1994. Sex-biased harvesting and population dynamics in ungulates: Implications for conservation and sustainable use. Conservation Biology 8(1): 157-166. Grønnow, B., Meldgaard, M. & Nielsen, J.B. 1983. Aasivissuit – The Great Summer Camp Archaeological, ethnographical and zoo-archaeological studies of a caribou hunting site in West Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland. Man & Society No. 5. 96 pp. Haber, G.C. & Walters, C.J. 1980. Dynamics of the Alaska-Yukon caribou herds and management implication. – In: Reimers, E., Gaare, E. & Skjenneberg, S. (eds.). Proceedings of the Second International Reindeer/Caribou Symposium, Direktoratet for vilt og ferskvannfisk, Trondheim: 645-663. Heard, D.C. & Ouellet, J.P. 1994. Dynamics of an introduced caribou population. Arctic. 47(1): 88-95. Jepsen, B.I. 1999. Populationsgenetiske studier af vildren (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) and tamren (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) i Vestgrønland. MSc Thesis, Botany Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 64 pp. (in Danish). Kelsall, J.P. 1968. The migratory barren-ground caribou of Canada. Can. Wildl. Serv., Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, Canada. 340 pp. References 22 Loison, A., Cuyler, C., Linnell, J.D.C. & Landa, A. 2000. The caribou harvest in West Greenland, 19951998. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Technical Report No. 28. 33 pp. Meldgaard, M. 1986. The Greenland caribou – zoogeography, taxonomy, and population dynamics. Meddelelser om Grønland. Bioscience No. 20. 88 pp. Parker, G.R. 1972. Biology of the Kaminuriak population of barrenground caribou Part I. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. No. 20. 95 pp. Pollock, K.H. & Kendall, W.L. 1987. Visibility bias in aerial surveys: a review of estimation procedures. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51: 502-510. Roby, D.D. & Thing, H. 1985. Behaviour of West Greenland caribou during a population decline. Holarctic Ecology, 8(2): 77-87. Ryman, N., Baccus, R. Reuterwall, C. & Smith, M.H. 1981. Effective population size, generation interval, and potential loss of genetic variability in game species under different hunting regimes. Oikos. 36: 257-266. Skogland, T. 1985. The effects of density-dependent resource limitations on the demography of wild reindeer. Journal of Animal Ecology. 54: 359-374. Skoog, R.O. 1968. Ecology of the caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley. 699 pp. Strandgaard, H., Hothe, V., Lassen, P. & Thing, H. 1983. Rensdyrsundersøgelser i Vestgrønland 1977-82. Job completion report. Vildtbiologisk Station, Kalø: 1-29. (in Danish). Thing, H. 1981. Feeding ecology of the West Greenland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) in the Holsteinsborg-Sdr. Strømfjord region, a Thesis, University of Aarhus, June 1981. Thing, H. 1982. Struktur og årlig tilvækst i en bestand af vestgrønlandsk vildren (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus). Rangifer 2: 28-35. (in Danish) Thing, H. & Falk, K. 1990. Status over rensdyrbestandene i Vestgrønland mellem Naassuttooq og Paamiut, Sermiat martsapril 1990. Grønlands Hjemmestyre Miljø og Naturforvaltning Teknisk rapport nr. 19: 1-23. (in Danish) Thomas, D. 1998. Needed: Less counting of caribou and more ecology. Rangifer, Special Issue No. 10: 15-23. Vibe, C. 1967. Arctic animals in relation to climatic fluctuations. Meddelelser om Grønland. The Danish Zoogeographical Investigations in Greenland, 170 (5): 1-227. Ydemann, D. & Pedersen, C.B. 1999. Rensdyr i Vestgrønland 1993-1996. Unpublished report to Greenland Institute for Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland (in Danish). 23 Survey method & design This survey attempted to improve both accuracy and precision in method and design. A further analysis of the survey method can be found in Appendix 3. Accuracy equates to the population size calculated being close to the true value. Bias, which makes the calculated population size depart from reality, results in inaccuracy. There can be bias in your counting, sampling design or even analysis. Precision is the measure of variation in the numbers of caribou on each of the transects. Poor precision can result from sampling errors, e.g., if group size and distribution were highly variable within a stratum. Reducing negative bias: Sightability of caribou on transect This survey reduced the negative bias associated with observers missing caribou that were actually within the transect strip, and hence is more accurate than previous surveys. The improvements in survey design over those described in Ydemann & Pedersen (1999) are listed below. Helicopter used versus fixed-wing aircraft. Strip width was narrower, only 500 metre to each side versus 700 metre. Slower flying speed, 100 kilometre/hour versus 167 kilometre/hour. Lower altitudes, 100 metre versus 152 metre. Sun typically behind observers, versus sun often in observer’s eyes. Short transect length promoted full observer concentration and reduced observer fatigue, 7.5 kilometres versus typically c. ≥ 100 kilometres Statistical correction for missed caribou. Together, these improvements served to reduce the bias associated with violation of the assumption that all caribou within the strip are observed. In the 1993, 94, 95 & 96 surveys, the long transects flown at high speed and altitude regardless of sun direction likely increased observer fatigue and provided poor observation conditions. All would increase negative bias and decrease accuracy of the calculated population estimate. Precision Precision can be improved in two ways, increasing the number of transect lines and improving on the stratification and allocation of transect lines between strata. In this case the stratification was changed based on the observed densities from the previous surveys. It is difficult to assess the contribution of the stratification to the precision but it is possible to assess the contribution of the transect allocation to the precision. The allocation during the 2001 survey was not optimal. The allocation used during this survey gave 40 transects to the high-density area and 20 transects to the low-density area. A better allocation would have been the exact opposite (in retrospect, i.e., knowing the relative size of the variances and the size of the areas), 20 to the high-density area and 40 to the low-density area. The difference in precision was a parametric 90% CI of ± 10,500, where the optimal allocation would have given a 90% CI of ± 8,750. Statistical design The total population estimate for caribou in region North can be calculated as follows: For each stratum we have: Appendix 1 ˆi j i jj i i yA N Ay AA =⋅ = ⋅ ∑ ∑(0.1) 24 Where is the estimated total in the jth strata is the total number of caribou observed in strip i is the total area of strata j is the area of strip i is the mean area of the strips in the stratum Because the area of each strip is constant the calculation of variance is ˆ j N 22 1 ˆ() ( ) 1 ii i Var y s y y n == − −∑ Since the total number of caribou in the area is the sum of the totals in each stratum the variance of the total will be the sum of the variances in the strata. ˆj j j A N y A =⋅ ∑ 2 () ˆ () ji j AVar y Var N An  =⋅   ∑ 25 Increasing the accuracy of aerial counts of caribou in western Greenland. Most aerial surveys of animal abundance are negatively biased because animals within the sample unit are overlooked by observers. Various doublecount methods have been developed to generate survey specific correction factors. However, these methods require that observations can be attributed to specific individuals or groups, which is not always possible. We present a simple method for generating a minimum estimate of the number of overlooked animals based on the total number of animals seen by double observers on one side of the aircraft. In addition, we describe aspects of survey design that have been used in caribou Rangifer tarandus surveys in West Greenland to further reduce bias. The extent to which animals are overlooked can be influenced by many factors such as aircraft design, flying speed, flight height, light conditions, vegetation density, topographic complexity, and observer experience/fatigue (Caughley 1974, Samuel et al. 1987, Aastrup & Mosbech 1993). Early attempts to correct for this bias focused on determining a factor from a series of controlled trials, and using this as a blanket correction factor for all further surveys (Caughley 1974, Caughley et al. 1976, Samuel et al. 1987, Pollock & Kendall 1987, Aastrup & Mosbech 1993). However, because conditions vary from survey to survey there have been attempts to develop surveyspecific correction factors, especially using the doublecount methodology (Pollock & Kendall 1987, Graham & Bell 1989, Rivest et al. 1995). In this process, at least one side of the aircraft has two observers. Using the numbers of animals or groups seen by the first observer only, the second observer only, or by both observers it is possible to apply capture-mark-recapture methodology to calculate the number of animals seen by neither observer (Pollock & Kendall 1987). However, this requires that observations from the two observers can be attributed specifically to each animal or group observed. While such results may be achieved using double-track tape recorders (Marsh & Sinclair 1989) or GPS/data logger technology, there are always situations whereby technology fails, is unavailable or cannot be applied practically. We present an extension of the normal doublecount statistics to estimate the correction factor for the proportion of animals unseen using the total number of animals counted by each observer within a given sample strip. In many ways this is similar to the aims of Caughley & Grice (1982), but is designed for species that occur at a higher density. Accounting for overlooked animals In the cases where there are more than one observer in one side of the aircraft and it is possible to know which animals have been seen or not seen by each observer, it is possible to estimate the probability that a visible animal has been observed. The method is thoroughly discussed in Pollock & Kendall (1987) and will be slightly elaborated upon here. We will use the following nomenclature similar to the one used by Graham & Bell (1989). is the number of animals observed by both observers is the number of animals observed by the front seat observer only is the number of animals seen by the rear seat observer only is the number of animals not seen by either observer is the probability that a visible animal is seen by the front seat observer Appendix 2 B f Sr S M f p 32 Table 9. Random transects for aerial survey Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd, region North, March 2000. Transect start DD mm.m Transect end DD mm.mDate ddmmyy Direction flown Transect number Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude 15.03.00 NE-SW 77 66º 47.1' 51º 52.8' 66º 43.7' 51º 58.3' 15.03.00 NE-SW 27 66º 35.0' 52º 14.4' 66º 33.1' 52º 23.3' 15.03.00 SSE-NNW 151 66º 38.6' 52º 34.9' 66º 42.5' 52º 31.9' 15.03.00 SSE-NNW 161 66º 36.5' 52º 56.1' 66º 40.3' 52º 52.3' 15.03.00 SE-NW 113 66º 33.7' 53º 08.1' 66º 36.6' 53º 15.1' 15.03.00 SSE-NNW 101 66º 21.0' 53º 26.8' 66º 24.6' 53º 31.4' 15.03.00 ESE-WNW 47 67º 01.5' 53º 31.1' 67º 02.4' 53º 41.2' 15.03.00 S - N 87 67º 18.8' 53º 01.6' 67º 22.6' 53º 05.2' 15.03.00 SW-NE 155 67º 22.9' 53º 37.2' 67º 24.8' 53º 27.9' 15.03.00 SW-NE 29 67º 26.8' 52º 59.0' 67º 28.5' 52º 49.3' 15.03.00 SE-NW 120 67º 27.1' 52º 33.1' 67º 30.9' 52º 36.6' 15.03.00 SW-NE 193 67º 32.3' 52º 27.0' 67º 34.7' 52º 18.5' 15.03.00 NE-SW 203 67º 31.2' 52º 22.1' 67º 27.3' 52º 24.4' 15.03.00 NW-SE 139 67º 23.2' 52º 20.7' 67º 19.9' 52º 14.9' 15.03.00 NW-SE 143 67º 20.4' 52º 38.9' 67º 17.0' 52º 33.2' 16.03.00 W - E 125 66º 56.3' 50º 25.5' 66º 55.9' 50º 35.8' 16.03.00 SE-NW 32 66º 51.7' 49º 56.0' 66º 55.1' 50º 01.7' 16.03.00 SE-NW 8 66º 44.4' 50º 20.4' 66º 46.5' 50º 29.2' 16.03.00 SE-NW 61 66º 39.4' 50º 37.2' 66º 42.1' 50º 44.8' 16.03.00 S - N 135 66º 34.5' 50º 32.9' 66º 38.5' 50º 34.3' 16.03.00 NE-SW 5 66º 30.3' 50º 24.5' 66º 28.9' 50º 34.0' 16.03.00 E - W 150 66º 30.9' 50º 49.8' 66º 31.0' 50º 59.9' 16.03.00 SW-NE 158 66º 34.4' 51º 26.5' 66º 37.8' 51º 21.0' 16.03.00 W - E 64 66º 36.6' 51º 53.9' 66º 36.6' 51º 43.7' 16.03.00 SW-NE 175 66º 48.3' 51º 44.0' 66º 49.6' 51º 34.3' 16.03.00 NE-SW 152 67º 06.2' 50º 32.3' 67º 04.3' 50º 41.5' 16.03.00 SW-NE 116 67º 04.4' 50º 44.9' 67º 08.2' 50º 41.7' 16.03.00 WNW-ESE 73 67º 09.9' 50º 25.6' 67º 09.2' 50º 15.4' 16.03.00 SW-NE 9 67º 13.0' 50º 20.4' 67º 16.4' 50º 14.4' 16.03.00 SW-NE 153 67º 13.2' 50º 33.2' 67º 16.8' 50º 28.2' 16.03.00 SE-NW 142 67º 18.6' 50º 10.2' 67º 21.5' 50º 17.4' 16.03.00 SW-NE 59 67º 17.2' 49º 59.5' 67º 20.5' 49º 53.3' 16.03.00 SE-NW 70 67º 21.9' 50º 09.6' 67º 24.9' 50º 16.6' 16.03.00 SE-NW 192 67º 21.4' 50º 30.8' 67º 25.5' 50º 34.3' 16.03.00 SE-NW 189 67º 25.4' 50º 49.5' 67º 27.2' 50º 58.9' 16.03.00 SE-NW 197 67º 21.8' 50º 51.6' 67º 24.3' 50º 59.8' 16.03.00 NE-SW 106 67º 22.4' 50º 42.1' 67º 18.6' 50º 46.3' 16.03.00 WSW-ENE 58 67º 15.3' 50º 51.3' 67º 16.9' 50º 41.8' 17.03.00 WSW-ENE 183 67º 01.1' 50º 08.6' 67º 02.2' 50º 58.6' 17.03.00 SE-NW 10 66º 59.1' 51º 12.8' 67º 01.9' 51º 20.3' 17.03.00 NE-SW 24 66º 56.9' 51º 19.6' 66º 55.0' 51º 28.7' 17.03.00 SSW-NNE 34 67º 02.3' 51º 17.5' 67º 06.2' 51º 14.3' 17.03.00 SE-NW 200 67º 04.9' 51º 22.7' 67º 06.4' 51º 32.4' 17.03.00 SE-NW 211 67º 11.6' 51º 30.9' 67º 14.2' 51º 38.9' 17.03.00 SSW-NNE 137 67º 13.2' 51º 15.0' 67º 17.1' 51º 12.5' 17.03.00 W - E 149 67º 17.7' 51º 02.7' 67º 17.7' 50º 52.2' Continues... 33 Transect start DD mm.m Transect end DD mm.mDate ddmmyy Direction flown Transect number Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude 17.03.00 SSE-NNW 112 67º 27.4' 51º 06.0' 67º 31.4' 51º 08.2' 17.03.00 NE-SW 92 67º 29.2' 51º 14.7' 67º 26.8' 51º 23.2' 17.03.00 NW-SE 36 67º 14.2' 51º 05.3' 67º 10.5' 51º 01.3' 17.03.00 SE-NW 63 67º 39.3' 50º 11.7' 67º 41.5' 50º 20.7' 17.03.00 SSE-NNW 154 67º 41.9' 50º 32.8' 67º 45.8' 50º 35.2' 17.03.00 SE-NW 104 67º 40.9' 50º 45.4' 67º 42.6' 50º 55.0' 17.03.00 SSW-NNE 210 67º 34.3' 51º 11.7' 67º 38.3' 51º 10.7' 17.03.00 SW-NE 209 67º 34.6' 51º 22.8' 67º 37.9' 51º 16.4' 17.03.00 SW-NE 65 67º 33.1' 51º 36.5' 67º 36.5' 51º 30.4' 17.03.00 SE-NW 115 67º 35.1' 51º 47.6' 67º 38.0' 51º 55.0' 17.03.00 NW-SE 202 67º 35.5' 52º 00.8' 67º 32.4' 51º 54.0' 17.03.00 SW-NE 76 67º 30.7' 51º 52.5' 67º 32.4' 51º 49.9' 17.03.00 NW-SE 172 67º 30.5' 51º 43.6' 67º 28.7' 51º 34.1' 17.03.00 NW-SE 122 67º 26.2' 52º 09.4' 67º 22.8' 52º 03.8' Date ddmmyy Transect number Zig-Zag flown Group Size Males (Age > 1 year) Females (Age > 1 year) Calves (Age < 1 year) 15.03.00 77 4 1 2 1 15.03.00 77 2 1 1 0 15.03.00 77 2 1 1 15.03.00 77 3 1 1 1 15.03.00 77 5 3 1 1 15.03.00 77 4 1 3 0 15.03.00 77 2 2 0 15.03.00 77 6 3 1 2 15.03.00 77 5 2 2 1 15.03.00 77 2 2 0 15.03.00 77 2 1 1 15.03.00 77 3 1 2 0 15.03.00 151 2 1 1 0 15.03.00 151 4 2 2 0 15.03.00 151 2 2 0 15.03.00 151 1 1 0 15.03.00 151 6 2 4 0 15.03.00 151 1 1 0 15.03.00 151 1 1 0 15.03.00 151 4 2 2 0 15.03.00 151 1 1 0 15.03.00 151 4 1 3 0 15.03.00 151 1 1 0 15.03.00 151 2 1 1 0 15.03.00 47 2 1 1 15.03.00 47 5 2 3 0 15.03.00 47 6 4 1 1 15.03.00 87 3 1 2 0 15.03.00 87 5 4 1 15.03.00 87 2 2 0 Table 10. Raw data aerial survey herd structure Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd, region North, March 2000. Continued... Continues... 34 15.03.00 8 7 2110 15.03.00 87 2 2 0 15.03.00 155 6 4 2 15.03.00 120 4 1 3 0 15.03.00 120 4 2 2 15.03.00 120 2 2 0 15.03.00 120 4 2 2 15.03.00 120 5 3 2 15.03.00 120 1 1 0 15.03.00 120 1 1 0 15.03.00 120 2 2 0 15.03.00 193 2 2 0 15.03.00 193 4 3 1 0 15.03.00 193 3 3 0 15.03.00 193 2 2 15.03.00 193 3 3 0 15.03.00 193 5 3 2 0 15.03.00 193 1 1 0 15.03.00 193 1 1 0 15.03.00 193 2 2 0 15.03.00 193 2 2 0 15.03.00 193 3 2 1 0 15.03.00 193 2 2 0 15.03.00 193 2 2 0 15.03.00 193 7 7 0 15.03.00 193 7 5 2 0 15.03.00 193 4 4 15.03.00 193 3 3 15.03.00 193 2 2 0 15.03.00 193 7 3 4 15.03.00 203 6 5 1 15.03.00 203 7 1 3 3 15.03.00 203 5 1 2 2 15.03.00 203 1 1 0 15.03.00 203 5 5 0 15.03.00 203 1 1 0 15.03.00 203 4 4 0 15.03.00 203 3 3 0 15.03.00 203 1 1 0 15.03.00 203 1 1 0 15.03.00 203 8 7 1 15.03.00 203 7 3 3 1 15.03.00 139 1 1 0 15.03.00 139 2 2 15.03.00 139 1 1 0 15.03.00 139 1 1 0 15.03.00 139 2 2 0 15.03.00 139 1 1 15.03.00 139 3 2 1 15.03.00 139 2 1 1 15.03.00 139 3 1 1 1 15.03.00 139 1 1 0 Date ddmmyy Transect number Zig-Zag flown Group Size Males (Age > 1 year) Females (Age > 1 year) Calves (Age < 1 year) 15.03.00 139 3 1 2 15.03.00 139 5 2 2 1 15.03.00 139 1 1 0 15.03.00 139 1 1 0 Continues... Continued... 35 15.03.00 139 1 1 0 15.03.00 139 4 1 2 1 15.03.00 139 4 4 0 15.03.00 139 3 1 2 0 15.03.00 139 1 1 0 15.03.00 139 3 1 1 1 15.03.00 139 1 1 0 15.03.00 139 5 2 2 1 15.03.00 143 2 1 1 0 15.03.00 143 2 2 0 15.03.00 143 3 3 0 15.03.00 143 1 1 0 16.03.00 125 4 3 1 0 16.03.00 125 3 1 2 16.03.00 125 4 3 1 16.03.00 125 6 3 3 0 16.03.00 125 3 2 1 0 16.03.00 125 3 1 2 0 16.03.00 125 1 1 0 16.03.00 32 2 1 1 0 16.03.00 32 2 1 1 16.03.00 61 1 1 0 16.03.00 61 1 1 16.03.00 61 2 2 16.03.00 61 1 1 0 16.03.00 61 3 1 2 16.03.00 61 1 1 16.03.00 61 2 1 1 0 16.03.00 61 1 1 0 16.03.00 61 2 2 0 16.03.00 135 3 1 2 0 16.03.00 135 2 1 1 16.03.00 135 6 1 3 2 16.03.00 135 1 1 0 16.03.00 135 1 1 0 16.03.00 135 3 3 0 16.03.00 135 1 1 16.03.00 135 1 1 0 16.03.00 135 3 2 1 0 16.03.00 135 17 10 7 0 16.03.00 135 3 3 0 16.03.00 135 3 2 1 0 16.03.00 135 1 1 0 16.03.00 5 1 1 0 16.03.00 5 2 1 1 Date ddmmyy Transect number Zig-Zag flown Group Size Males (Age > 1 year) Females (Age > 1 year) Calves (Age < 1 year) 16.03.00 150 1 1 0 16.03.00 150 2 1 1 16.03.00 150 2 1 1 16.03.00 158 6 3 3 0 16.03.00 158 7 2 5 0 16.03.00 158 1 1 16.03.00 158 1 1 16.03.00 158 2 2 16.03.00 158 1 1 0 16.03.00 158 10 2 2 6 Continues... Continued... 36 Date ddmmyy Transect number Zig-Zag flown Group Size Males (Age > 1 year) Females (Age > 1 year) Calves (Age < 1 year) 16.03.00 158 4 2 1 1 16.03.00 158 2 2 0 16.03.00 158 4 1 3 16.03.00 158 2 2 16.03.00 158 1 1 0 16.03.00 64 1 1 0 16.03.00 64 4 3 1 0 16.03.00 64 2 2 0 16.03.00 64 4 1 2 1 16.03.00 64 5 2 3 16.03.00 116 5 5 16.03.00 116 3 2 1 16.03.00 116 5 1 4 0 16.03.00 116 6 6 0 16.03.00 116 2 1 1 16.03.00 116 2 2 0 16.03.00 116 2 2 0 16.03.00 73 2 1 1 16.03.00 73 2 1 1 16.03.00 73 3 2 1 16.03.00 73 3 1 1 1 16.03.00 73 3 3 0 16.03.00 73 2 1 1 16.03.00 73 5 4 1 16.03.00 73 5 3 2 16.03.00 73 4 2 2 0 16.03.00 73 2 1 1 16.03.00 73 2 1 1 16.03.00 73 3 2 1 16.03.00 73 3 2 1 16.03.00 73 7 4 3 16.03.00 9 2 1 1 0 16.03.00 9 2 2 0 16.03.00 9 2 2 0 16.03.00 9 4 1 3 0 16.03.00 9 2 1 1 16.03.00 9 1 1 0 16.03.00 9 4 2 2 0 16.03.00 9 4 1 3 0 16.03.00 9 2 1 1 16.03.00 9 5 3 2 16.03.00 9 1 1 0 16.03.00 9 2 2 0 16.03.00 9 2 1 1 16.03.00 59 5 3 1 1 16.03.00 59 1 1 0 16.03.00 59 2 1 1 16.03.00 59 4 1 1 2 16.03.00 59 4 2 2 16.03.00 59 4 3 1 16.03.00 59 2 2 16.03.00 59 1 1 0 16.03.00 192 2 2 16.03.00 192 2 2 0 16.03.00 192 1 1 16.03.00 192 2 1 1 0 Continues... Continued... 37 Date ddmmyy Transect number Zig-Zag flown Group Size Males (Age > 1 year) Females (Age > 1 year) Calves (Age < 1 year) 16.03.00 192 3 1 1 1 16.03.00 192 2 1 1 0 16.03.00 192 2 1 1 16.03.00 192 4 2 2 16.03.00 192 2 1 1 16.03.00 192 2 2 0 16.03.00 192 2 1 1 16.03.00 192 7 1 6 0 16.03.00 192 2 2 0 16.03.00 192 4 1 3 16.03.00 192 4 4 0 16.03.00 192 3 3 0 16.03.00 192 1 1 0 16.03.00 192 3 2 1 16.03.00 192 2 1 1 16.03.00 106 3 1 2 16.03.00 106 6 3 3 0 16.03.00 106 4 4 0 16.03.00 106 1 1 16.03.00 106 5 2 3 16.03.00 106 3 3 0 16.03.00 106 3 2 1 16.03.00 106 2 2 16.03.00 106 3 1 2 0 16.03.00 106 7 1 3 3 16.03.00 106 3 1 2 16.03.00 106 2 1 1 16.03.00 106 4 4 0 16.03.00 106 6 4 2 16.03.00 106 2 1 1 16.03.00 106 1 1 0 16.03.00 106 4 4 17.03.00 10 2 1 1 17.03.00 10 2 2 0 17.03.00 10 3 1 1 1 17.03.00 10 1 1 17.03.00 10 1 1 0 17.03.00 10 5 5 17.03.00 10 2 1 1 17.03.00 10 1 1 0 17.03.00 10 1 1 17.03.00 10 1 1 17.03.00 10 3 3 0 17.03.00 10 2 1 1 0 17.03.00 10 4 1 1 2 17.03.00 10 1 1 17.03.00 34 5 3 2 17.03.00 34 1 1 0 17.03.00 34 1 1 17.03.00 34 1 1 0 17.03.00 34 1 1 0 17.03.00 34 4 4 0 17.03.00 34 4 3 1 17.03.00 34 2 2 17.03.00 34 1 1 17.03.00 34 3 2 1 Continues... Continued... 38 Date ddmmyy Transect number Zig-Zag flown Group Size Males (Age > 1 year) Females (Age > 1 year) Calves (Age < 1 year) 17.03.00 34 2 2 0 17.03.00 34 1 1 0 17.03.00 34 3 1 2 0 17.03.00 34 3 1 1 1 17.03.00 34 6 5 1 17.03.00 34 4 3 1 17.03.00 34 1 1 0 17.03.00 137 2 1 1 17.03.00 137 4 1 3 17.03.00 137 1 1 0 17.03.00 137 3 3 0 17.03.00 137 3 1 2 17.03.00 137 4 2 2 17.03.00 137 1 1 17.03.00 137 1 1 0 17.03.00 137 2 1 1 0 17.03.00 137 3 1 1 1 17.03.00 137 1 1 0 17.03.00 137 6 2 4 17.03.00 137 2 2 0 17.03.00 137 4 1 3 0 17.03.00 137 4 2 2 17.03.00 137 2 1 1 0 17.03.00 137 3 1 1 1 17.03.00 137 1 1 0 17.03.00 137 2 1 1 0 17.03.00 112 9 4 5 17.03.00 112 7 4 1 2 17.03.00 112 4 4 0 17.03.00 112 3 2 1 17.03.00 112 6 2 4 0 17.03.00 112 2 1 1 0 17.03.00 112 5 4 1 17.03.00 112 6 1 4 1 17.03.00 112 3 3 0 17.03.00 112 1 1 0 17.03.00 112 1 1 0 17.03.00 112 1 1 17.03.00 112 1 1 0 17.03.00 112 2 1 1 17.03.00 112 2 1 1 17.03.00 112 1 1 17.03.00 112 1 1 17.03.00 112 1 1 0 17.03.00 112 2 2 17.03.00 112 7 2 4 1 17.03.00 112 1 1 0 17.03.00 112 3 3 0 17.03.00 112 2 2 0 17.03.00 112 5 5 0 17.03.00 112 1 1 0 17.03.00 36 4 1 1 2 17.03.00 36 2 2 17.03.00 36 2 2 0 17.03.00 36 2 1 1 Continues... Continued... 39 Date ddmmyy Transect number Zig-Zag flown Group Size Males (Age > 1 year) Females (Age > 1 year) Calves (Age < 1 year) 17.03.00 36 3 1 2 0 17.03.00 36 2 1 1 17.03.00 36 2 1 1 17.03.00 36 4 1 3 17.03.00 36 5 3 2 17.03.00 36 2 2 0 17.03.00 36 1 1 0 17.03.00 36 4 3 1 0 17.03.00 36 1 1 0 17.03.00 36 1 1 0 17.03.00 36 5 2 2 1 17.03.00 36 2 1 1 17.03.00 36 4 1 3 17.03.00 36 2 2 17.03.00 36 4 1 3 17.03.00 36 6 1 3 2 17.03.00 36 3 3 0 17.03.00 36 5 1 2 2 17.03.00 36 3 2 1 17.03.00 36 2 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 2 1 1 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 3 3 0 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 1 1 17.03.00 210 2 2 0 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 4 2 2 0 17.03.00 210 2 2 17.03.00 210 3 1 2 0 17.03.00 210 3 3 0 17.03.00 210 4 2 2 0 17.03.00 210 3 2 1 0 17.03.00 210 2 1 1 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 3 3 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 2 1 1 17.03.00 210 2 1 1 17.03.00 210 2 1 1 17.03.00 210 1 1 0 17.03.00 210 2 2 0 17.03.00 210 2 1 1 0 17.03.00 65 2 2 17.03.00 65 4 4 0 17.03.00 65 3 2 1 0 17.03.00 65 2 1 1 0 17.03.00 65 2 2 0 17.03.00 65 2 1 1 0 17.03.00 65 4 2 2 Continues... Continued... 40 Date ddmmyy Transect number Zig-Zag flown Group Size Males (Age > 1 year) Females (Age > 1 year) Calves (Age < 1 year) 17.03.00 65 1 1 0 17.03.00 65 2 2 0 17.03.00 65 2 2 0 17.03.00 65 1 1 0 17.03.00 65 2 2 0 17.03.00 65 5 1 2 2 17.03.00 65 3 1 2 17.03.00 65 2 2 17.03.00 65 9 2 6 1 17.03.00 65 7 2 1 4 17.03.00 65 3 3 17.03.00 65 2 2 0 17.03.00 65 3 1 2 0 17.03.00 65 2 1 1 17.03.00 65 6 2 4 0 17.03.00 172 5 4 1 17.03.00 172 3 1 2 0 17.03.00 172 4 4 17.03.00 172 2 2 0 17.03.00 172 1 1 0 17.03.00 172 3 1 2 0 17.03.00 172 6 2 4 0 17.03.00 172 2 2 17.03.00 172 1 1 0 17.03.00 172 2 1 1 17.03.00 122 3 2 1 17.03.00 122 1 1 0 17.03.00 122 1 1 0 17.03.00 122 2 2 17.03.00 122 2 2 17.03.00 122 3 3 17.03.00 122 1 1 0 17.03.00 122 2 2 0 17.03.00 122 2 2 0 17.03.00 122 2 2 17.03.00 122 2 1 1 17.03.00 122 4 1 3 17.03.00 122 4 1 3 0 Totals 1,130 All 387 Males 443 Females 300 Calves Continued... 41 Appendix 4 Ground surveys 1998 & 2000; Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou population in West Greenland Table 11. Raw data ground survey herd structure Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou herd, region North, 19 February – 4 March 1998. Date ddmmyy Group Size Females > 1 year Calves < 1 year Males > 1 year 19.02.98 1 1 19.02.98 2 1 1 19.02.98 2 1 1 19.02.98 1 1 19.02.98 2 2 19.02.98 1 1 19.02.98 3 2 1 19.02.98 3 3 19.02.98 2 1 1 19.02.98 2 2 19.02.98 2 2 19.02.98 2 1 1 19.02.98 2 1 1 19.02.98 4 1 2 1 19.02.98 2 2 19.02.98 4 4 19.02.98 1 1 19.02.98 2 2 19.02.98 2 2 19.02.98 1 1 19.02.98 2 1 1 21.02.98 4 2 1 1 21.02.98 2 2 21.02.98 2 1 1 21.02.98 1 1 21.02.98 2 1 1 21.02.98 2 2 21.02.98 2 1 1 21.02.98 2 1 1 21.02.98 1 1 21.02.98 1 1 21.02.98 2 1 1 21.02.98 2 1 1 21.02.98 4 2 2 21.02.98 4 2 2 21.02.98 1 1 21.02.98 3 1 2 21.02.98 4 4 21.02.98 5 2 3 21.02.98 2 2 21.02.98 2 1 1 Continues... 48 GPS position DD.dddGroupsize Females Calves < 1 year Males Sex unknown (yearlings) Latitude Longitude 6667.452 52.590 8867.452 52.590 11 3 3 5 67.478 52.477 21 1 67.478 52.477 21 1 67.478 52.477 2267.502 52.357 2267.502 52.357 1167.502 52.357 0 67.520 52.237 5567.520 52.237 81 6 1 67.520 52.237 2267.520 52.237 31 1 1 67.520 52.237 2267.520 52.237 2267.478 52.092 1167.478 52.092 21 1 67.478 52.092 11 67.478 52.092 21 1 67.478 52.092 11 67.478 52.092 2267.478 52.092 3367.467 52.073 21 1 67.467 52.073 52 1 2 67.467 52.073 6667.467 52.073 2267.467 52.073 21 1 67.442 52.093 3367.442 52.093 32167.442 52.093 41 1 2 67.442 52.093 21 1 67.442 52.093 31 2 67.442 52.093 1167.442 52.093 66 67.422 52.130 22 67.422 52.130 63 3 67.375 52.075 14 8 6 67.375 52.075 62 2 2 67.337 52.080 11 67.337 52.080 11 67.337 52.080 1167.337 52.080 53 1 1 67.315 52.047 94 2 3 67.315 52.047 54167.315 52.047 32 1 67.315 52.047 11 4 1 6 67.315 52.047 3367.295 52.133 21 1 67.295 52.133 16 7 1 8 67.295 52.133 42 2 67.272 52.035 1167.272 52.035 41 2 1 67.258 52.037 1167.258 52.037 1167.202 52.087 42 1 1 67.163 51.990 53 1 1 67.163 51.990 Continued... Continues... 49 GPS position DD.dddGroupsize Females Calves < 1 year Males Sex unknown (yearlings) Latitude Longitude 11 67.170 51.885 1167.170 51.885 1167.170 51.885 44 67.170 51.885 84 2 2 67.147 51.855 21 1 67.130 51.837 1167.130 51.837 11 67.152 51.802 22 67.152 51.802 21 1 67.092 51.743 84 4 67.092 51.743 1167.092 51.743 54 1 67.088 51.715 2267.088 51.715 2267.088 51.715 21 1 67.088 51.715 11 67.067 51.738 2267.067 51.738 31 1 1 67.067 51.738 11 67.123 51.573 2267.123 51.573 11 67.123 51.573 21 1 67.123 51.573 11 67.123 51.573 62 4 67.082 51.540 43 1 67.082 51.540 22 67.082 51.540 21 1 67.052 51.563 61 2 3 67.052 51.563 1167.038 51.585 42 2 67.038 51.585 22 67.038 51.585 1167.038 51.585 1167.035 51.600 11 67.030 51.612 91 1 7 67.525 52.157 62 3 1 67.375 52.902 10 1 1 8 67.368 52.858 5567.413 52.835 95 2 2 67.548 52.103 17 7 2 8 67.548 52.103 33 67.548 52.103 53 2 67.548 52.103 62 2 2 67.548 52.103 54 1 67.548 52.103 21 1 67.495 52.097 94 5 67.400 52.070 77 67.047 51.598 14 5 3 4 2 66.985 51.515 62 2 2 66.933 51.458 51 1 1 2 54.200 51.478 95 4 66.947 53.055 53 2 66.962 53.142 1,091 All 383 Females 413 Calves 210 Males 85 Unknown 1,006 Sexed & aged Ground survey observers were Torsten Ingerslev, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources and Hanseraq Olsen, KNAPK hunter from Sisimiut. No dates were provided in original data report. Continued... 50 List of terms Accuracy - how well a survey estimate for animal numbers reflects the true population size. Annual - occurring, or done every year. Bias - describes how far the average value of the estimator is from the true population value. An unbiased estimator centers about the true value for the population. Bias is the extent to which an estimate is systematically wrong. Bias decreases the accuracy of a survey. In popular terms, negative bias in surveys moves the final estimate to below the true population size and positive bias can move it above the true population size. Body condition - pertaining to amount of fat present, i.e., plenty of fat equals excellent body condition. Bootstrapping - statistical tool to arrive at confidence intervals without knowledge of the distribution of the parameter in question. Confidence interval - statistical term for when the standard error (SE) is combined with a probability (P) level to yield confidence limits (CL) and their interval, the confidence interval (CI). For example: at a P = 0.90 (α = 0.1) then assuming no bias a 90% CI is likely to contain the true population size in 90% of surveys of the same type and intensity. NOTE: it is incorrect to state that there is a 90% chance that the actual number of caribou in a survey area is within the CI. Criteria - standards set on which judgement can be made, i.e. the sex or age of a caribou. Density - the number of caribou per square kilometre of land area. Estimate - a calculation as to the likely or approximate size of the caribou population. Fecundity - related to fertility and is the potential level of reproductive performance of a population, which is usually much greater than the realised reproduction (fertility). However, fecundity and fertility are often used inconsistently and even interchangeably in the literature. Fertility - of a population is the number of live births over a time period, usually a year, e.g., the number of live births per female, or the number of female young born per female. To calculate fertility we need to know the average litter size, average number of litters produced per time interval (year) and the sex ratio at birth (Caughley 1977). Fertility index - see also under recruitment. Ratio of calves to females or calves to adults. Herd - see also under population. Greenlandic caribou seldom or never aggregate into large coherent groups. Group size typically stays under 4 animals, with groups scattered throughout a large area. Herd structure - this is the sex and age distribution of the animals within a given population/herd. Logistics - the obtaining, distribution, maintenance and replacement of field equipment and personnel. Management - e.g., wildlife management, which is the act of manipulating, directing, controlling, regulating and/or administrating a wildlife resource and any number of the factors affecting that wildlife resource. Natural mortalityall mortality due to factors other than hunting (disease, accident, starvation, predation, parasites, etc.). Net recruitment - or rate of increase of the herd is determined by subtracting the adult mortality rate from the gross recruitment. Population - see also under herd. All the animals of the same species living in a specific region, which do not mix with animals of the same species from other regions, i.e., they are reproductively isolated. A population is a demographic unit distinct by virtue of its unique density, distribution, birth & Appendix 5 51 death rate, sex & age structure, immigration & emigration rates, and other demographic parameters. Population status - states a wildlife species’ occurrence and abundance, i.e., where and how many. Population analysis - attempts to determine herd structure (sex & age) and the forces controlling the composition of the population/herd. Population dynamics - in any analysis of herd structure and status the parameters are seldom if ever static, therefore the term population dynamics. Precision - is a measure of the quality of the survey estimate for animal number, i.e., how close you could expect the estimate to approximate its expected value. Precision refers to the variation in repeated measurement of the same quantity. Precision is determined primarily by the variation in the population and the size of the sample. An indicator of the precision of an estimate is the confidence interval. Range - the extent of the land area on which the caribou wander and graze. The land area used during foraging/calving/rutting by the caribou, e.g., summer and winter ranges. The word is often synonymous with pasture or habitat, however, the term range brings vegetation to mind rather than for example topography. Recruitment - see also under fertility index. The late winter (March) value for calves/ 100 cows, which indicates the increment in caribou number for a specific population/ herd from one year to the next. Sightability - the probability of actually seeing a caribou present within the strip flown. Standard error (SE) - standard error is the standard deviation (SD) divided by the square root of sample size (n) or (n-1) if SD is calculated using n and not n-1. Sampling error would be zero if the same number of caribou were seen on each transect flown. Strata - (plural of stratum) in this report refers to the division of region North according to caribou density present. Terrain - refers to the land or ground, usually in conjunction with a description of topography, e.g., rough terrain, mountainous terrain, etc. Variance - statistical term for the amount of variation in measurements. Variance is the expected square deviance regardless of the distribution. Its square root is standard deviation (SD). Note: variance is distribution independent. It is simply the expected square deviation. 52 Recommendations for the future Aerial survey design & field methods Future aerial surveys could further improve caribou sightability by using even lower flight altitudes, slower flight speeds and a further narrowing of the strip width. Results indicate observers are able to detect caribou typically at distances ≤ 300 metres from the helicopter. Caribou were seldom sighted in the 300 to 500 m zone. To increase sightability and further reduce negative bias for missed caribou, future surveys should narrow the strip width to 300 metres. Throughout the duration of this survey the same observers were used and they kept the same seats. This procedure is not recommended for future surveys. Although the results of the present survey suggest a possible intrinsic sighting advantage for the front seat observer, later surveys suggested no advantage existed (Cuyler et al. 2002, Cuyler et al. unpublished). When you don’t know observer ability, by changing observers and their positions it is possible to spread the bias risk over an average of individuals’ abilities rather than risking the possibility of a poor observer causing high negative bias. Recommended for future surveys is the use of several different rear seat observers, plus changing their seating from left to right rear seat, as it is then possible to measure observer quality and to select for the best observers, given that the front seat observer is of known and acceptable observer quality. Ground survey design & field methods Future ground surveys could be improved by establishing a systematic program of fixed routes to collect data annually or biannually. Routes chosen should provide a broader coverage of both inland and coastal areas. The season and timing of the survey could remain February-March. A time series of ground surveys could provide an index of caribou herd structure, recruitment and minimum count for region North. Index changes could reflect changes in the caribou population. Appendix 6 53 54 55 56 Technical reports from Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Nr. 12 Aningaasarsiutigalugu Chionocetes opilio-ik saattuarniarneq piffissami 1992-imiit 1996-imut saattussallu annertussusaannik naatsorsukkat/ Kommercielt krabbefiskeri efter Chionoecetes opilio i perioden 1992 til 1996 og estimerede biomasser. Burmeister, A.D. 1997. Nr. 13 Kalaallit Nunaata kitaani saattussat (Chionoecetes opilio) amerlassusaasa naatsorsorneqarnerat 1997-imi/Bestandsstatus af krabber (Chionoecetes opilio) ved Vestgrønland 1997. Burmeister, A.D., 1997. Nr. 14 Bestandsundersøgelse af krabben Chionoecetes opilio i Sydgrønland sept. – okt. 1998. Burmeister, A.D. 2000. Nr. 15 Appanik nalunaarsuineq Hakluyt Ø-mi, Avanersuarmi 1987 – 1997/Monitering af lomviebestanden på Hakluyt Ø, Avanersuaq 1987 – 1997. Falk, K. & K. Kammp 1998. Nr. 16 Nunatsinni timmissat aamma miluumasut nunamiut imarmiullu – pisuussutit uumassusillit pingaarnerit pillugit nalunaarut 1. oktober 1998/ Grønlandske fugle, havpattedyr og landpattedyr – en status over vigtige ressourcer, oktober 1998. Born, E. et al., 1998. Nr. 17 Kalaallit Nunaanni aalisakkat, kinguppaat, assagiarsuit uiluiillu – pisuussutinut pingaarutilinnut tunngatillugu killiffik 1. oktober 1998/Grønlandske fisk, rejer, krabber og muslinger – en status over vigtige ressourcer, oktober 1998. Siegstad, H. et al., 1998. Nr. 18 Langsigtet moniteringsplan for lomvier i Grønland. Falk, K. & K. Kammp. 1998. Nr. 19 Kalaallit Nunaata kitaani saattussat (Chionoecetes opilio) naatsorsorneqarnerat aamma uumassusilitsigut siunnersuineq 1999-imi/Bestandsstatus af krabber ved Vestgrønland og biologisk rådgivning for 1999. Burmeister, A.D. 1998. Nr. 20 Pisuussutit uumassusillit pillugit isumasioqatigiinneq/Seminar om de levende ressourcer. Rydahl, K. (ed.) & I. Egede. 1998. Nr. 21 Avanersuarmi 1998-mi miternik kisitsineq/Ederfugleoptællinger i Avanersuaq 1998. Christensen, K.D. & K. Falk, februar 1999. Nr. 22 Kalaallit Nunaata Kitaani saattuaqassusianik (Chionoecetes opilio) killiffiliineq kiisalu biologit 2000imut inassuteqarnerat/Bestandsstatus af krabber (Chionoecetes opilio) ved Vestgrønland og biologisk rådgivning for 2000. Burmeister, A.D. 2000. Nr. 23 Spættet sæl i Kangerlussuaq/Søndre Strømfjord. Lisborg, T.D. & J. Teilmann 1999. Nr. 24 Flytællinger af fugle og havpattedyr i Vestgrønland 1998. Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., M. Acquarone & F.R. Merkel 1999. Nr. 25 Polarlomvien i Disko Bugt og det sydlige Upernavik, 1998 - bestandsopgørelse og grundlag for fremtidig monitering i lomviebestanden. Merkel, F.R., A.S. Frich & P. Hangaard 1999. Nr. 26 A photographic survey of walruses (Odobenus rosmarus) at the Sandøen haul-out (Young Sund, eastern Greenland) in 1998. Born, E.W. & T.B. Berg 1999. Nr. 27 Grønlands Biodiversitet – et landestudie. Jensen, D.B. (ed.) 1999. Nr. 28 The caribou harvest in west greenland, 1995-98. Sex, age and condition of animals based on hunter reports. Loison, A., C. Cuyler, J. Linnell & A. Landa 2000. Nr. 29 Naturbeskyttelse i Grønland. Due, R. & T. Ingerslev 2000. Nr. 30 Omplantning af kammuslinger, Clamys islandica, ved Nuuk. Engelstoft, J.J. 2000. Nr. 31 Rensdyr og moskusokser i Inglefield Land, Nordvestgrønland. Landa, A., S.R. Jeremiassen & R. Andersen 2000. Nr. 32 Monitering af lomviekolonierne i Sydgrønland, 1999. Falk, K., K. Kampp & F.R. Merkel 2000. Nr. 33 Er rensdyrene på Inglefield Land mest beslægtet med de vestgrønlandske rener eller Peary rener? Landa, A., P. Gravlund, C. Cuyler & S.R. Jeremiassen 2000. Nr. 34 The scientific basic for managing the sustainable harvest of caribou and muskoxen in Greenland for the 21st century: an evaluation and agenda. Linnell, J.D.C., C. Cuyler, A. Loison, P.M. Lund, K.G. Motzfeldt, T. Ingerslev & A. Landa 2000. Nr. 35 Qilalukkat qaqortat pillugit nalunaarusiaq. Qilalukkat qaqortat pillugit ilisimatuussutsikkut ilisimasat pillugit Kalaallit Nunaanni piniartunut nalunaarusiaq/Hvidbog om hvidhvaler. Rapport til fangerne i Grønland om den videnskabelige viden om hvidhvaler. Rydahl, K. & M.P. Heide-Jørgensen 2001. Nr. 36 Græsningsvurdering af dværgbuskheder i Eqaluit ilorliit og Qasigiannguit, i Ameralikfjord, jagtområde Kujataa. Lund, P.M., E.S. Hansen & C. Bay 2000. Nr. 37 Fødevalg hos rensdyr i Akia og nær Kangerlussuaq, Vestgrønland, vinteren 1996/97. Lund, P.M., E. Gaare, Ø. Holand & K.G. Motzfeldt 2000. Nr. 38 Lomvien i Grønland: mulige effekter af forskellige bestandspåvirkende faktorer, og praktiske grænser for ressourceudnyttelse. Falk, K. & K. Kampp 2001. Nr. 39 Kalaallit nunaata kujataani, Vatnahverfimi nuna qarajallernikup nunap assiliorneqarnera/Kortlægning af erosionen i Vatnahverfi, Sydgrønland. Jónsson, Á. & A.B. Thorsteinsdóttir 2001. Nr. 40 Isbjørne i Østgrønland. En interviewundersøgelse om forekomst og fangst, 1999. Sandell, H.T., B. Sandell, E.W. Born, R. Dietz & C. Sonne-Hansen 2001. Nr. 41 Overgrown Hooves Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) of Kangaarsuk (Kap Atholl) Northwest Greenland. Cuyler, C. & H.S. Mølgaard 2002.