4 Conservation of of Lesser Lesser White-fronted White-fronted Goose Goose on onthe the European European migration migration route route — Final — reportFinal report of the ofEU theLIFE-Nature EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009project 2005–2009 60 53 48 44 40 36 28 25 24 22 19 16 12 5 Overview ofresults andconclusions from the Overview CONTENTS Monitoringof Lesser Geese inGreeceWhite-fronted Space use andexposure ofLesser White-fronted Monitoring ofLesser Geesein White-fronted measures to Conservation protect Lesser White- Lesser onKanin Goose survey White-fronted Monitoringofthelate springstaging sites and Monitoringofstaging Lesser Geesein White-fronted The springmigration oftheLesser White-fronted Restoration andmanagementoftheLesser White- MonitoringofLesser GooseinEstoniaWhite-fronted Springstaging site ofFennoscandian Lesser White- ofmigration Mapping routes oftheFennoscandian Petteri Tolvanen, Yannis Tsougrakis Jostein Øien &Ingar international Lesser GooseLIFEproject White-fronted Maire Toming fronted GooseinEstonia Public awareness campaign for theLesser White- Theodoros &EleniMakriyanni Naziridis Panagiotopoulou,Maria Yannis Tsougrakis, Szabolcs Lengyel, János Tar &Zoltán Ecsedi region,Geese to Hungary huntingintheHortobágy János Tar, Zoltán Ecsedi&SzabolcsLengyel Hortobágy, Hungary, in2004–2008 Zoltán Ecsedi,János Tar &SzabolcsLengyel in2004–2008 fronted GeeseintheHortobágy Petteri Tolvanen, Tomas & Vladimir Anufriev Aarvak Peninsula, Russia,inSeptember2008 &Petteri Karvonen Risto Tolvanen Sulkava, Pekka Finnish Laplandin2004–2008 andNorwegian breeding areas ofLesser Goosein White-fronted Tomas Jostein Øien &Ingar Aarvak Porsangenthe Inner Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 Luukkonen Aappo Goose onBothnianBay coast, Finland, in2004–2008 Maire Toming &Petteri Tolvanen fronted GoosehabitatsinMatsalu, Estonia Maire Toming Pynnönen &Jyrki in 2004–2008 Castrén &Petteri Krister Kaartinen, TolvanenRiikka Lithuania fronted Geeserevealed intheNemunas delta, Petteri Tolvanen & Jostein Øien, Ingar Ekker Tomas Morten Aarvak, with profound priorities implicationsfor conservation Lesser GoosebreedingWhite-fronted population 90 89 88 86 85 84 83 83 81 76 71 68 65 Lesser GoosetrainingworkshopWhite-fronted JointRussian-Norwegian-Finnish workshop on Planfor NewNationalAction theLesser White- NewFinnish Planfor NationalAction theLesser Changing huntingregulations to benefi Planfor NewNationalAction theLesser White- The eff The planfor international single speciesaction the Population size estimationoftheFennoscandian Anote onthedietofLesser Goose White-fronted Public awareness campaign for theLesser White- Petteri Tolvanen the autumns of1996and2008 Peninsula,to river theMesna mouth,Kanin Russia,in during theLesser Whitefronted Gooseexpeditions ofbirdAppendix observations : Annotated checklist Yannis Tsougrakis Panagiotopoulou &Maria Greece Europeanfor countries south-east atLake Kerkini, Ekker, Morten Tomas &Petteri Aarvak Tolvanen Moscow, December 2007 oftheLesser conservation Goose,White-fronted Maire Toming fronted GooseinEstonia Teemu Lehtiniemi &Petteri Tolvanen Goose White-fronted Espelien Arild population ofLesser goose White-fronted Terje Bø fronted GooseinNorway SHORT NEWS Martin Kirsten the Lesser Goose White-fronted ofthe conservation Western Palearctic populationof Petteri Tolvanen Tomas Leinonen, J. Ari Ingar Øien& Aarvak, recognition andcolour ringing Lesser Goosebasedonindividual White-fronted PanagiotopoulouMaria & Savas Kazantzidis Karmiris, Ilias wintering intheEvros Delta,Greece Eleni Makriyanni Yannis Tsougrakis, Panagiotopoulou Maria & fronted GooseinGreece Ingar Jostein Øien & Ingar Tomas Aarvak in 2008 area for Fennoscandian Lesser Geese White-fronted ect ofRedFoxect cullinginthecore breeding t adwindling The Lesser maleImre Goose White-fronted extensively usedinthemediawork by the Overview ofresults andconclusions fromOverview theinternational LIFE project toLIFE project illustrate thechallengesin being taggedwithasatellite transmitter. Volgograd region inRussia. The casewas (right) justbefore beingreleased, after Five monthslater, Imre was shotinthe Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project the conservation ofthespecies.the conservation Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report oftheEU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2 © Morten Ekker,© Morten May 2006 © Morten Ekker © Morten Lesser LIFEproject Goose White-fronted tonia, Hungary andGreece(seeinner coverforthelistof thepartnersandco- project can be obtained. (www.wwf. to reducetheriskforLWfG ofbeingshot. The projectestablishedawebsite awareness campaigns, most ofallforhuntersandfarmersinthekey areas, to keepLWfG insafeandfavourablesitesEstoniaHungary; andpublic species inNorway, Finland andEstonia;habitatrestorationmanagement ing ofLWfG tomapthekeysites;preparationofnational Action Plansfor the T The Lesser 2005–2009 project Life-Nature Goose White-fronted along the urgently, andthereisalsoanurgent need to uncoverthestillunrevealedsites Conservation actionsinthealreadyknownkey sitesneedtobeimplemented ed geeseintheperiodswhenLWfG arepresentattheverylimitedkeysites. the onlyeffective way toprotectLWfG istobanhunting ofallwhite-front- quarry speciesinmostcountrieswithintherange ofLWfG. Thus, inpractice sembles verymuchthe White-fronted Goose( population declineishuntingandpoaching(Jones etal.2008). The LWfG re- the Fennoscandianpopulation. The mostimportantnegativefactorcausingthe map onp.8). grounds viaeasternHungarytothewintering sitesinnorthernGreece(seethe produce offspring (see Øienetal.2009)–fromtheFennoscandianbreeding pus, hereafterLWfG) population–especiallythepairsthathavesucceededto mary routeoftheFennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goose( route arereported. of theyear2004fromtraditionalstagingsites alongtheEuropeanmigration an migrationroute’ (April2005–March2009).Inaddition,monitoringresults The Lifeproject involvedtenpartner organisations in Norway, Finland,Es- The mainactionsofthe Lifeprojectweresatellitetrackingandcolour ring- The ultimateobjectiveoftheLWfG Lifeprojectwastostopthedeclineof The ‘Europeanmigrationroute’ inthenameofprojectreferstopri- project titled‘ConservationofLesser White-fronted Gooseonthe Europe- his reportpresentsthemainresultsandconclusionsofEULife-Nature fl yway. fi /lwfg)wherefurtherinformation ontheactionsandresultsof Petteri Tolvanen, Yannis Tsougrakis &IngarJosteinØien Tolvanen ofresults andconclusions etal:Overview from theinternational Lesser White-fronted GooseLIFEproject A. albifrons) thatisanimportant Anser erythro- 009 5 6 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 point inthe trend ofthepopulation, butitisstilltooearly todrawconclusions. the years2004–2008 (Figure1).In thebestcasethisisa Finland), thenumberof LWfG hasremainedstableorslightly increasedduring other regularlymonitored springstagingsites(Greece,Hungary, Estonia and the Valdak Marshesatall.Contrarytothesituation atthe Valdak Marshes,at the shows, thatinthelatest yearssome16%ofthepopulationwasnotobserved at spring migrationinEstonia, FinlandandNorway(see Aarvak etal.2009) Øien 2009). decrease of50%the populationduringthis15yearperiod(see Aarvak & 1993–2008 showsanaverage annualdecreaseofmorethan4%,with atotal site fortheFennoscandianpopulation,spring monitoringdatafromtheyears required urgently. At the Valdak Marshes,Norway, themostimportantstaging conservation efforts coveringallkeybreeding,stagingandwinteringsitesare candian populationisfacinganimmediaterisk ofextinction,andmoreeffective after thebreedingseasonin August (see Aarvak etal.2009). Thus, theFennos- countries isonlysome20breedingpairs,or respectively60–80individuals tries. The current,up-dated estimateofthenaturalpopulationinNordic The LWfG isthemostendangeredbreedingbirdspeciesinNordiccoun- Status oftheFennoscandian Lesser population Goose White-fronted tion. the Life-Naturewasnotafeasiblefundinginstrument forthecountryinques- project eitherbecausenospeci nia, Poland,Bulgaria, Turkey, Ukraine andKazakhstanwerenotincludedinthe plicated migrationroutesoftheFennoscandian LWfG populationlikeLithua- fi sula, andtheLifeprojectwaseventuallyabletoorganise conservation-oriented an importantautumnstagingsiteinthenorth-westernpartofKaninPenin- fl fi Ekker,in thearea. ©Morten November 2006 oftheEvros protected DeltaNational casefound part Park insidethestrictly A shotgun cartridge duringthevisitbyteam project theLIFE Tolvanen ofresults andconclusions etal:Overview from theinternational Lesser White-fronted GooseLIFEproject eld workalsothere(see Tolvanen etal.2009).Othercountriesalongthecom- yway, exceptforRussia.InRussia,theFennoscandian LWfG populationhas nanciers), i.e.inallcountrieswithknownimportantsitesalongtheEuropean However, adetailed analysis basedonindividualrecognitionof LWfG on fi c sitesforthespecies wereknown,orbecause fi rst signofaturning © Morten Ekker,© Morten November 2006 case(seeabove).found neartheshotgun cartridge A wingofanunidentifi ed white-fronted goosewas ed white-fronted Ekker, Valdak Marshes, Norway, June2008 on digitalvideofor individualrecognition. ©Morten project, Lesser were Geese White-fronted recorded oftheLIFE ofthemonitoring actions As apart Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 conservation measuresalongthewhole be wipedout, evenbysinglestochastic events,without effective andprompt However, theFennoscandianLWfG population isnowatimmediate riskto is inevitableforprotecting suchacriticallyendangeredmigratory species. critical phase. The projecthasdemonstrated thatinternational The Lifeprojecthasbeen atimelyboostfortheLWfG conservation workata conservation work Conclusions Lesser andimplications for further Goose White-fronted in Greece. work needstobedoneurgently forsecuringtheLWfG from hunting,especially zone ofastrictlyprotectedareainGreeceshowed thatmuchmoreprotection by theprojectinNorway2006,andlatershot deadinsidethehuntingfree ful onlyatthelocallevel(Tsougrakis etal.2009). A maleLWfG colourringed Ecsedi etal.2009),whileinGreeceitproved to beverydif tions hasbeengoodbothatnationalandregional levels(see Toming 2009b, campaigns, butinEstoniaandHungary, theco-operationwithhunters’ associa- Martin 2009). Palearctic PopulationoftheLWfG, thatwasadoptedby AEWA in2008(see International SingleSpecies Action Plan fortheconservationof Western 2009). The Lifeproject alsotookactivelypartinthepreparationofnew lation inthecorebreedingareastarted2007 (seeBø2009,Øien& Aarvak Inner PorsangenFjordarea,andcontrolofthe RedFox(Vulpes vulpes)popu- project: huntingofallgeeseisnowbannedin theautumnstagingareain vation actionsproposedinthenationalplan were startedalreadyduringthe 2009, Lehtiniemi& Tolvanen 2009and Toming 2009a). InNorway, conser- adopted bythenationalauthoritiesinNorway, FinlandandEstonia(seeBø roosting siteswithinthenationalparkmanagedbyproject. Hungary, theLWfG usedpracticallyonlythesafeandfavourablefeeding & Tolvanen 2009). Towards theendofproject,inHortobágyNationalPark, (see Ecsedietal.2009)andintheMatsaluNationalPark,Estonia Toming restored andmanagedbytheprojectinHortobágyNationalPark,Hungary important stagingsiteswerealsorevealed(Øienetal.2009). route viaKazakhstan,southernRussiaandUkraine.Severalformerlyunknown beria, andfromtherebacktothewinteringsitesinGreecealonganeastern Fennoscandian breedinggroundstomoultingsitesofnon-breedingbirdsinSi- cies attheprojectsites. project hadmarkedpositiveeffects ontheLWfG conservationstatusofthespe- The LWfG Lifeprojectreachedthegoalssetforactions,andaboveall, Results oftheLesser Life actions Goose project White-fronted daily counts becauseoftheturnover ofindividuals. the numbersbasedonindividualrecognition are regularly higherthanthehighest diff daily counts, whileinEstonia, Finland theyare andNorway total numbersof sites intheyears Greece 2004–2008.In andHungary, thenumbersare thehighest Figure 1.NumbersofLesser inspringat Geese thekeyWhite-fronted monitoring Itistooearlytoassesstherealconservation effect ofthepublicawareness New National Action PlansfortheLWfG werepreparedbytheprojectand As aresultofthehabitatmanagementactions,LWfG startedtousesites The satellitetrackingstudyrevealedawholenew‘loopmigration’ routefrom erent individualsbasedonindividualrecognition. thelatter In three countries, 0420 0620 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Tolvanen ofresults andconclusions etal:Overview from theinternational Lesser White-fronted GooseLIFEproject fl yway. fi cult andwasfruit- fl yway approach Norway Finland Estonia Hungary Greece 7 8 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 male Imre(see Øienetal.2009for furtherdetails)thatwas shotinthe Volgo- autumn migration route ofthe FennoscandianLWfG. The case oftheLWfG Russia, Kazakhstan andother countriesalongthe easternbranchofthe from theEC. received anyansweror reactiontotheappealsfromGreekauthorities or By thetimeof role inpressingitsmember statestoful international conservation efforts tosave the species. The EU playsacentral to increasethelevelof national lawenforcementinordernottojeopardize the to preventillegalhunting ofLWfG eveninsidetheprotected areas,aswell for theGreekauthoritiestoincreaseeffort tosafeguardtheprotectedareas, as NationalParksaccordingtothenationallegislation. There isanurgent need Specially Protected Areas (SPA), SitesofCommunity Importance(SCI)aswell are knowntouseregularly. All thefourGreekLWfG sitesareRamsarsites, alike speciesisbannedinasafeareaaroundthe protectedsitesthattheLWfG implemented especiallyintheprotectedareas, and(c):thatthehuntingoflook- measures relatedtohunting,illegalhuntingand accidentalshootingarestrictly Action PlansfortheLWfG areimplementedinGreece,(b):thatconservation to takenecessarymeasuresensure(a):that theinternationalandnational as welltheEuropeanCommission(EC)about thecase,andappealedtothem recruitment ofthepopulation. The LifeprojectinformedtheGreekauthorities of theFennoscandianpopulation,andhasasigni Loss ofonesingleadultmalerepresentsca5 percentofthebreedingmales serious threatfortheLWfG inGreeceeveninsidethestrictlyprotectedareas. (see Tsougrakis etal.2009fordetails),poachingand accidentalshootingisa of thespeciesatmoment.AsshownbycaseLWfG maleMánnu pointed outbytheLifeproject: Tolvanen ofresults andconclusions etal:Overview from theinternational Lesser White-fronted GooseLIFEproject 2. Urgentinternational conservationeffortsneedtobecarried outin 1. Within theEU,Greece seemstobethebottleneckin conservation In particular, wewanttoemphasizethefollowingfourissuesthathavebeen fi nalising thisreport(mid-March 2009)theLifeprojecthadnot Spring migration Spring Springmigration fi l theirnatureconservation obligations. fi cant negativeimpactonthe migration route migration route European the along theEuropean migration autumn The autumnmigration non-breeding birds non-breeding birds moult migration of of migration moult migration of Mid-summer Mid-summer Mid-summer © Google Earth © Google LIFEproject,satellite Goose White-fronted image details, seethetext andØien etal. (2009).©Lesser Lesser population. Goose ForWhite-fronted more of themainfl Overview migration route migration route Asian Central the along theCentral Asian migration autumn The autumnmigration yways oftheFennoscandian benefi National Park,pond intheHortobágy Hungary The regulation of thewater level oftheKondás fi Hortobágy, Hungary, 2008 October the fi shpondasa roosting site. © Petteri Tolvanen, Inner PorsangenInner Norway. Fjord innorthern Asa and Estonia. In the Inner Porsangenand Estonia.theInner In Fjord area, result plans oftheLIFEproject,national action hunting ofall geeseisnow bannedduring the for thespecieswere madeinNorway, Finland tsalsotheCommon Cranes, whichalsouse fronted Ekker, Geese. ©Morten August 2008 A fl autumn staging periodoftheLesser White- ock ofLesser inthe Geese White-fronted Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project sh Ekker (NorwegianDirectoratefornaturemanagement),Tomas Aarvak (NOF), as well Tanja Pirinen(WWFFinland)astheProject SecretaryandMorten Ecsedi inHungary)didagoodjobtokeepthe nationalprojectteamsrunning, project co-ordinators(Maire Toming inEstonia,Szabolcs LengyelandZoltán and HellenicOrnithologicalSociety(HOS,BirdLife inGreece). The national Estonian MinistryofEnvironment,theHortobágy NationalPark(Hungary), the EstonianStateNatureConservationCentre /MatsaluNationalPark,the Management, NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety (NOF, BirdLifeinNorway), land), theFinnishEnvironmentInstitute,Norwegian DirectorateforNature (Finland), BirdLifeFinland,theFinnishMinistry oftheEnvironment(Fin- co-fi The projectwasfundedbytheEULIFE-Nature fundandbythepartners Acknowledgements agreement withoutratifyingit. for Greecetobecomeacontractingpartyof AEWA, asitishasonlysignedthe by thestate;itisurgent toup-dateandimplementthisplan.Itisalso important and submittedtonationalauthorities,butithassofarnotbeenimplemented for theLWfG waspreparedalreadyin1999byanotherLIFE-Natureproject task forthegovernmentsofthesecountries.InGreece,aNational Action Plan and developingofnationalplansbasedontheinternationalplanisanurgent Hungary, Russia,KazakhstanandUkrainedostill lacknationalactionplans, work forco-ordinatedinternationalaction.ManycentralLWfG countrieslike al Action Plan(Jonesetal.2008,seealsoMartin2009)providesagoodframe- sources are allocatedfor theLWfG conservationwork. national actionplansfor theLWfG, andalsothatadequatefi organizations immediatelystartimplementingthenewinternationaland survival. population and–atthesametime,evenmoreimportanttoincreasedadult Successful breedingcontributestorecruitmentofnewindividualsthesmall pes) populationandbylimitingthehumandisturbanceinbreedingareas. ing oftheLWfG inFennoscandiae.g.bycontrollingtheRedFox( conservation actions:itisveryimportanttotry‘support’ successfulbreed- result oftheLifeproject. This the discoveryofthis‘loopmigrationroute’ viaKazakhstantoGreecewasa autumn migrationroute,thatleadstothesamewinteringareasinGreece. Also failed breedingattempttheyarelikelytochoosethemoreriskyCentral Asian migration routeinyearswithsuccessfulreproduction,whilethe by Øienetal.(2009),itappearsthattheLWfG usethesaferEuropeanautumn portance’ for theFennoscandianpopulation.Asexplainedinfurtherdetail the LWfG thantheEuropeanmigrationroute. migration routeacrossRussia,KazakhstanandUkraineisevenmoreriskyfor ably considerablyhigherthanrecorded.Itisevidentthattheeasternautumn or found,andthustheactualmortalitycausedbyhuntingpoachingisprob- It hastobetakenintoaccountthatashotLWfG isveryunlikelytobereported adults ringedbytheproject(i.e.29%)werecon a birdringedbytheprojectwascon grad regioninRussiawasthesecondcaseduringLWfG Lifeproject,when 4. Itisveryimportantthatthenationalgovernmentsandinternational 3. The Lifeproject discovered thatsuccessfulbreeding hasa‘doubleim- nanciers: WWF Finland(thebene Tolvanen ofresults andconclusions etal:Overview from theinternational Lesser White-fronted GooseLIFEproject fi ndinghasacrucialimplicationfortheLWfG fi rmed shot. Thus, twooutoftheseven fi ciary oftheproject),Metsähallitus fi rmed shotduringtheproject! The newInternation- nancial re- nancial Vulpes vul- 9 10 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Øien, I.J., Aarvak, T., Ekker, M., & Tolvanen, P. 2009:Mappingofmigra- Martin, K.2009: The InternationalSingle Species Action PlanfortheConser- Lehtiniemi, T. & Tolvanen, P. 2009 Jones, T., Martin,K.,Barov, B.,Nagy, S.(compilers)2008 Ecsedi, Z., Tar, J.&Lengyel,S. 2009: Conservationmeasurestoprotect Bø, T.2009: NewNational Action PlanfortheLesser White-fronted Goosein Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2009:MonitoringofstagingLesser White-fronted Aarvak, T., Leinonen, A., Øien,I.J.& Tolvanen, P. 2009:Populationsize References other means,especiallyKalleRuokolainen,SeppoLeinonenandJariKostet. we wanttothankallthepeoplewhocontributedthisreportasauthorsorby more personsareacknowledgedintheindividualarticlesofthisreport.Finally, don Ramel,SylviaZakkakandDidier Vangeluwe tonamesomeofthem.Many National ParkDirectorate,LavrentisSidiropoulos,KostasPapadopoulos,Gor- Lontay, Tamás Zalai,allprofessionaland Ojaste, MerleLepik,KirstenMartin, Attila Szilágyi,Gábor Tihanyi, László of StabbursnesNatureHouseandMuseum,PekkaRusanen, Timo Asanti, Ivar Aappo Luukkonen,PetteriPolojärvi,JuhaMarkkola, Torkjell Morset,thestaff Pynnönen, MinnaRuokonen,JuhaMerilä,PetriLampila,HeikkiHolmström, or partofthestaff oftheprojectpartners:RistoKarvonen, Ari Leinonen,Jyrki number ofpersonstookpartintheimplementationprojectasvolunteers the implementationofprojectlocallywithoutbeingpartnerstoit. A large Kerkini andEvrosDeltaNationalParksplayedanactiveroleinfacilitating for runningtheprojectactions.InGreece,managementauthoritiesofLake Theodoros NaziridisandEleniMakrigianni(HOS)astheresponsiblepersons (Metsähallitus), János Tar (HortobágyNationalPark),MariaPanayotopoulou, Teemu Lehtiniemi(BirdLifeFinland),PekkaSulkavaand Ari Rajasärkkä Tolvanen ofresults andconclusions etal:Overview from theinternational Lesser White-fronted GooseLIFEproject White-fronted GooseontheEuropean migrationroute.Final reportofthe Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, K.(eds.): ConservationofLesser population withprofound implicationsforconservationpriorities. In: tion routesoftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebreeding Report 27&NOFRapportserie ReportNo1-2009:76–xx. Final reportoftheEULIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF Finland tion ofLesser White-fronted Gooseonthe Europeanmigrationroute. Goose. In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J. & Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conserva- vation ofthe Western PalearcticPopulation oftheLesser White-fronted 85–86. – WWF FinlandReport 27&NOFRapportserieReportNo1-2009: migration route.FinalreportoftheEULIFE-Nature project2005–2009. K. (eds.):ConservationofLesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropean Lesser White-fronted Goose.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, – AEWA Technical SeriesNo.36.Bonn,Germany. arctic PopulationoftheLesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus. Single Species Action Planforthe Conservation ofthe Western Pale- Rapportserie ReportNo1-2009:44–47. EU LIFE-Natureproject2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport27&NOF White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration route.Finalreportofthe Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser Lesser White-fronted GeeseinHortobágy, Hungaryin2005–2008. In: Report 27&NOFRapportserieNo1-2009:83–84. Final reportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009.– WWF Finland tion ofLesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration route. Norway. In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conserva- NOF RapportserieReportNo1-2009:28–35. the EULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport 27& White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigrationroute.Finalreportof nen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser Geese intheInnerPorsangenFjord,Norway, in 2004–2008.In: Tolva- port No1-2009:71–75. project 2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport27&NOFRapportserie Re- on theEuropeanmigrationroute.FinalreportofEULIFE-Nature Ruokolainen, K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser White-fronted Goose individual recognitionandcolourringing.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.& estimation oftheFennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goosebased on : NewFinnishNational Action Planfor the fi nancial employeesoftheHortobágy : International village. ©Petteri Tolvanen, September2006 for project hunters inameetingtheHortobágy SzabolcsLengyelco-ordinator ispresenting the Goose.White-fronted Here the Hungarianproject for thehunters inthekey areas for the Lesser organisedLIFE project many training meetings ofthepublic awarenessAs apart campaigns, the Tolvanen, Hortobágy, Hungary, 2008 October the Matsalu National Park inEstonia. ©Petteri National ParkHortobágy inHungary, andin weremanagement actions carriedoutinthe Goose.White-fronted theLIFEproject,such In ways to managethehabitats oftheLesser natural grasslands isoneofthemostimportant Ecologically sustainablelevel ofgrazing ofthe Just before thesunset, team theLIFEproject on thevast mudfl has managedto locate themainfl ockofthe Fennoscandian Lesser Geese White-fronted Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project © Morten Ekker ,November Ekker 2006 © Morten ats ofLake Greece. Kerkini, YT: Hellenic Ornithological Society, Kastritsiou str. HellenicOrnithological Society, Kastritsiou YT: 8, 54623, Thessaloniki PT: Finland, 10,FIN-00500, Helsinki, WWF Lintulahdenkatu IJØ: NOF-BirdLife Norway, Sandgata 30B, N-7012, Trondheim,NORWAY, email:[email protected] Tsougrakis, Y., Panagiotopoulou,M.&Makriyanni,E.2009:Publicaware- Toming, M.& Tolvanen, P. 2009:RestorationandmanagementoftheLesser Toming, M.2009b:PublicawarenesscampaignfortheLesser White-fronted Toming, M.2009a:NewNational Action PlanfortheLesser White-fronted Tolvanen,P., T.& Anufriev, Aarvak,V. 2009 Øien, I.J.& Aarvak, T. 2009: The effect ofRedFoxcullinginthecorebreed- YT and IJØ were the national co-ordinators oftheproject inGreece andIJØwere andNorway, thenational co-ordinators YT respectively. NOF RapportserieReportNo1-2009:65–67. the EULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport 27& White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigrationroute.Finalreportof nen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser ness campaignfortheLesser White-fronted GooseinGreece.In: Tolva- Report No1-2009:22–23. ture project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport27&NOFRapportserie Goose ontheEuropeanmigrationroute.FinalreportofEULIFE-Na- I.J. &Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser White-fronted White-fronted GoosehabitatsinMatsalu,Estonia.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, Finland Report27&NOFRapportserieNo1-2009:24. route. FinalreportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009.– WWF Conservation ofLesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration Goose inEstonia.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, K.(eds.): Finland Report27&NOFRapportserieNo1-2009:86–87. route. FinalreportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009.– WWF Conservation ofLesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration Goose inEstonia.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, K.(eds.): Rapportserie ReportNo1-2009:40–43. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport27& NOF fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigrationroute.FinalreportofEU P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser White- survey onKaninPeninsula,Russia,inSeptember2008.In: Tolvanen, Rapportserie ReportNo1-2009:81–82. EU LIFE-Natureproject2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport27& NOF White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigrationroute.Finalreportof Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser ing areaforFennoscandianLesser White-fronted Geesein2008.In: Rapportserie ReportNo1-2009:12–18. EU LIFE-Natureproject2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport27&NOF PT was the co-ordinator oftheLesserPT was GooseLIFEproject. theco-ordinator White-fronted Tolvanen ofresults andconclusions etal:Overview from theinternational Lesser White-fronted GooseLIFEproject The Valdak oftheStabbursnes Marshesispart Nature Reserve which also is a Ramsar site.Nature whichalsoisaRamsar Reserve © GREECE, FINLAND, email: [email protected] : Lesser White-fronted Goose Morten Ekker,Morten when?? email: [email protected] Authors’ information contact 11 12 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 ed thatsome oftheFennoscandian LWfG useanother migration (Lorentsen et al.1998).However, thesestudiesalsodocument- grounds in Lake Kerkiniandthe Evros RiverDeltainGreece through Hortobágyineastern Hungaryand mountains, throughthe KaninPeninsulainRussia,south-west tion routewentfromtheir breedingareasintheFennoscandian studies, thesatellitetracking datashowedthatthemainmigra- of thepopulationremained mainlyunknown.Intheprevious tory routes,butthe ed thattheFennoscandian populationusetwodifferent migra- servation ofLWfG ontheEuropeanmigrationroute”. hereafter LWfG) aspartoftheEULIFE-Natureproject“Con- population ofLesser White-fronted Goose( wintering groundsofthecriticallyendangered Fennoscandian Norway and WWF-Finland havemappedmigrationroutesand By useoflightweightGPSsatellitetransmitters, NOF-BirdLife 1. Introduction the supposedspringmigration track asbasedoncolour ringobservations. Figure 1.Satellite tracks oftheLesser FinnWhite-fronted Geese (bluetrack) andNieida andImre (red) in2006. Yellow stippled lineshows implications for priorities conservation breeding Goose White-fronted population withprofound Mapping ofmigration routes oftheFennoscandian Lesser Øien etal:Mappingofmigration routes oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebreeding population withprofound implications for conservation priorities Previous satellitetracking studies(in1995–1996)document- 3 2 1 Ingar JosteinØien WWF Finland, Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500, Helsinki, Finland, 10,FIN-00500,Helsinki, WWF Lintulahdenkatu Directorate for Nature Norway, Management, N-7485 Trondheim,NORWAY, email:[email protected] NOF -BirdLife Norway, Sandgata30B, N-7012, Trondheim,NORWAY, email:[email protected], [email protected] fi nal destinations(winteringsites)for parts 1 , Tomas Aarvak fi nallytowintering , Anser erythropus 1 , Morten Ekker , Morten FINLAND, email:[email protected] 2 &Petteri Tolvanen from thispopulation mayaccomplish alongdistance moult mi- the Fennoscandian LWfG –showedthatnon-breeding birds Valdak Marshes,Finnmark, Norway–akey stop-oversitefor This 2005). & Aarvak torical Mesopotamiain Iraq(Morozov& Aarvak 2004,Øien Sea andthejourneyterminated inwinteringareasthehis- proceeded southwardsalongthewesterncoast oftheCaspian larly to northern Kazakhstan through the Ob River valley and (Russia), revealedthatbirdsbreedinginthisarea migratedsimi- ern Kazakhstan(Figure1). the waytoacentralstagingareainKustanay regioninnorth- Ural MountainsandsouthwardsalongtheOb Rivervalleyall route fromtheKaninPeninsulafurthereastwards, crossingthe the MiddleEast. area, or at least more generally in the Caspian Sea region and through CentralRussia andKazakhstanalsocouldwinterinthis the FennoscandianLWfG thatutilizesthesamemigration route In 2004satellitetrackingofLWfG breedinginthePolarUrals Already in1997,satellite transmitters 3 fi nding led to the belief that the part of fi tted onLWfG atthe cannon-nets eachcoveringanareaof300m birds andtotagthemwithsatellitetransmitters. We usedtwo the catchingsite,see Aarvak &Øien2009)inordertoringthe gen FjordinNorthNorway(foramorethoroughdescriptionof in ordertocatchLWfG atthe Valdak MarshesinthePorsan- project period(2005–2008),considerableeffort wascarriedout In bothspringandautumnthroughoutthewholeLIFE-EU 2.1. Catching 2. Results areas duringmid-summer(Morozov2000). dition, inthePolarUrals,someofgeeseleftformoulting consequence ofunfavorableweatherconditionsthatyear. Inad- moulting sitesinearlyJuly, althoughthismight havebeena breed inthetundrasofBolshayaRogovayaRiverleftfor Hötker 1995).Morozov(2000)foundthatLWfG thatdidnot August 1989,ofwhichabouthalfwereableto The mostrecentobservationwasafl habitats in the forest tundra zone (see also Aarvak et al. 1997). on theRussian Taimyr Peninsulatothenorthofbreeding ing, non-breedingLWfG couldbefoundatseverallocations Northern Russia,andfoundthatregularaggregationsofmoult- Syroechkovski Jr. (1996)reviewedavailableinformationfrom breeding area(formoultingelsewhere)duringthesummer. & Øien1999,2000),suggestingthattheypossiblyhadleftthe had beendocumentedabsentduringautumnstaging(Aarvak the adultpairspresentduringspringtimeat Valdak Marshes gration toSiberia(Aarvak&Øien2003). A variablenumberof others were two adult pairs. The male in one of these pairs was ringed. Oneofthesewasa2ndcalendaryear bird,whilethe 23 May, fi birds werenamedas“Finn”(male)and“Nieida”(female).On in HungaryandGreeceontheEuropeanmigration route. The was wellknownwithmanyobservationsfromstopoversites colour-leg ringedatthe Valdak Marshesinspring 2002,and ringed andcolour-leg-ringed, whereasthefemalewasalready the femalewithanordinarysatellitetransmitter). The malewas lite transmitters(themalewithaGPS-satellitetransmitterand LWfG (apair),werecaughton18May, andprovidedwithsatel- Only inspring2006birdsweresuccessfullycaught:twoadult one larger cannon-netcoveringanareaof1350m ve moreLWfG werecaught,ringedandcolour-leg- Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project Novaya Zemlya Yamal peninsula ock of500individuals in 2 (25mx12m)and fl y (Prokosch& 2 (50mx27m). Øien etal:Mappingofmigration routes oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebreeding population withprofound implications for conservation priorities melskaya andBolshesemelskaya Tundras andtheGydanskiy the coastofKolaPeninsula,Kanin theMalose- arrived on6July. Along theroute,Imremadeshortstopoverson Pyasina RiverDelta,alsoonthe Taimyr Peninsula,whereImre Peninsula whereFinnandNieidaarrivedon8July, andatthe the tundraareasnearMalayaLogatariveron Taimyr rectly eastwardstothegatheringplacesformoultingLWfG at July) andstartedanimpressivemoultmigration2800kmdi- breeding area(Imrelefton29June, and Finn and Nieidaon6 surprise thatallthethreebirdsshortlyaftermidsummerleft the resultsfromsatellitetransmitterstudyin1997,itwasno viduals failedintheirbreedingattempts,andhavingmind breeding areas.However, allofthethreesatellitetaggedindi- After stagingat Valdak, thesatellitetaggedLWfG leftforthe 2.2. Moultmigrationandautumn he wasnamed“Imre”. also provided with a satellite transmitter with GPS plotter and Marshes 23May Jostein 2006.©Ingar Øien receiving colour legringsandsatellite transmitter at the Valdak The maleLesser Imre isbeingreleased Goose White-fronted after Taimyr peninsula River Delta, Taimyr, in2006. moulting site in the Pyasina Imre (red line)to andfrom the Logata River, Taimyr, andof from themoultingsite at Malaya (blueline)toand Nieida and Figure 2.Satellite tracks ofFinn bay onthewesternshore of rived atZaliv Vebarkapakha carried onwestwards and ar- after somefewdaystherethey Peninsula on25 August, but small lakeontheGydanskiy rived atastopoversitein The pairFinnandNieidaar- duals headedbackwestwards. mid August, all three indivi- After commencedmoultingin the moultingareas(Figure1). more orlessdirect during theshortandprobably de muchdetailedinformation Finn andNieidadidnotprovi- Bay, whilethetransmittersof fl ih to ight 009 13 14 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Fennoscandian Lesser inNovember-December. Geese White-fronted Jostein ©Ingar Øien, November 2008. A mixed fl October Finn andNieidawereboth locatedinLakeKerkini in Ukraine where theyspentsometime intheLakeSivash. On 28 ber theywere locatedonthenorthwest sideofthe Azov Seain located atthesamereservoir on20October, andon24Octo- October. Hewas soonfollowedbyFinnandNieidawhowere Tsimlyansk Reservoirinthe Volgograd RegioninRussia on18 again. Hepassedfarnorth oftheCaspianSeaandarrivedin from theRussianbreeding populations:heturnedwestwards on theearliersatellitetracking studiesontheLWfG originating tanay regionhemade a movementthatwasunexpectedbased in thesedaysandonthe wayfurthersouthwardsfromtheKus- in theborderareasbetweenKazakhstanandRussia. Lake Ayke (70kmsouthwest)wheretheystayed forsomedays geese. FinnandNieidamovedthesameday (10October)to and lowtemperatures,whichledtoasouthward movementof ern Kazakhstanfacedhardwinterconditions withsnowcover Kak, wheretheystayeduntil10October. Inthisperiod,north- the sametimeFinnandNieidamovedca45 km northtoLake also arrivednearLakeKoybagarinKustanay on1October. At the KazakhstanborderinKurganskaya regioninRussia,he the LakesMaloyeStepnoyeandBolshoye closeto south fromtheObRiver Valley, andafterashortstopoverin bagar on19September. On28September Imremigratedfurther in NorthernKazakhstanwheretheywerelocated atLakeKoy- the wellknownstagingareaforLWfG intheKustanayarea in theKaraSeauntil18Septemberandthenmoved directlyto ly). Herehestayeduntil27September. FinnandNieidastayed stopover siteintheObRivervalley(nearsettlementSherka- ber, whileImremigratedalreadyon3Septemberdirectlytoa ida movedtoBaydaratskayaBayintheKaraSeaon2Septem- (Figure 2). on thesoutheasternshoreof Yamal Peninsulaon24 August his moultingsiteinthePyasinaDeltaon21 August, andarrived the Yamal Peninsulaon29 August (Figure2).Imrestartedfrom Øien etal:Mappingofmigration routes oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebreeding population withprofound implications priorities forconservation Imre startedthesouthwardmovementfrom Lake Tontegir In earlySeptembertheyallturnedsouthwards.FinnandNie- ock of(mainly)Lesser andGreater at Geese LakeWhite-fronted Greece. Kerkini, isthemainwintering Kerkini site ofthe Lithuania (see Kaartinenetal.2009). A longexpectedmissing 18 April to24 April, Finnwaslocatedin theNemunasDeltain the Hungarian LWfG LIFE projectteamuntil 17 April. From at theHortobágy al ParkinHungary, where theywereregularlyobservedboth On 12March,Finnand NieidaarrivedintheHortobágyNation- 2.4. Springmigration but noLWfG wereobserved. tion. A that theLWfG mayvisitLakeKerkiniduringthespringmigra- kini con 6 March.On7March,plotsfromFinnstransmitter atLakeKer- Delta togetherwithFinnandtheystayedatthe EvrosDeltauntil the colourlegrings.Shewasregularlyobserved attheEvros from hertransmitterafterNovember, butshewasidenti Nieida hadlosthertransmitterandnosignals werereceived were visuallyobservedbytheGreekLWfG LIFEprojectteam. for theFennoscandianLWfG population.HereFinnandNieida LWfG LIFEprojectanditisknownasthemainwinteringsite ween Greeceand Turkey. This siteisalsoatargeted bythe December theyhadmovedtotheEvrosDelta on theborderbet- been alongtimewithoutsignalsfromtheirtransmitters. By28 cember. Duetointerferencefromother radiosignals,therehad Finn andNieidastayedinLakeKerkiniatleast until19De- 2.3. Wintering inGreece days ofOctober. partners confi gograd, Russia,andaftersomeweeksourRussianco-operation mitting inapositionnearthevillageBolshoy, not farfrom Vol- Greece. On30October, hissatellitetransmitterstoppedtrans- follow theEuropeanmigrationroute. sites andisknownasamainwinteringareafortheLWfG that Northern Greece.LakeKerkiniisoneoftheLWfG Lifeproject Imre didnotsucceedin fi eld surveywasorganised immediatelyatLakeKerkini, fi rmed thatthespringmigrationhadstarted, andalso rmed thatImrewasshotinthisareathelast fi sh ponds as wellattheDinnyesLaposby fi nalizing hisautumnmigrationto fi ed by ed legal) huntingalongthisrouteissigni autumn migrationroute,andcon of beingshotfortheFennoscandianLWfG thantheEuropean Central Asian autumnmigrationrouteincuramuchhigherrisk cases ofhuntingandpoachingLWfG, demonstratesthatthe the winteringgroundsforRussianLWfG intheMiddleEast. from theircommonstaginggroundsinNorthernKazakhstanto migration routemostprobablydon’t followtheRussianLWfG separate asassumedearlier, andthatthegeeseuseeastern tion, these undocumented stopoversitesbothonautumnandspringmigra- scandian LWfG population.Inadditiontolocalizingpreviously cally importantnewinformationonthemigrationofFenno- The satellitetrackingofFinn,NieidaandImreprovidedcriti- 3. Implicationsoftheresults for further conservationwork Life projectteam-bothwithoutthetransmitters. served togetheratthe Valdak MarshesbytheNorwegianLWfG May duringspringmonitoring,bothFinnandNieidawereob- transmitter orhadbeenshotatthislastsite.However, on18 weeks ofMay, itbecameobviousthatFinnhadeitherlostthe on 24 April. As nosignalswerereceivedthroughoutthe received fromFinnstransmittercametheNemunasDelta gration routewasfi stopover sitebetweenHungaryandEstoniaonthespringmi- © Google Earth © Google backyard ofahouseinvillage the Volgograd area, Russia.Later on,thetransmitter was received backandrefurbished use.. for further The lastsignalsofthetransmitter oftheLesser maleImre were Goose White-fronted received inthelastdays 2006 ofOctober The fateofthemaleImre,togetherwithotherdocumented fi ndings show thatthetwomigrationroutesarenot Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project nally documented. The verylastsignalwe fi rms thatthethreatfrom(il- fi cant. Øien etal:Mappingofmigration routes oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebreeding population withprofound implications priorities forconservation fi rst A logicalexplanationtothisisthatfailedbreedingencourage areas inGreeceyearswithsuccessfulgoslingproduction. far saferEuropeanautumnmigrationroutetothewintering LWfG breedingpopulation,itmeansthattheywillfollowthe is commonforasignifi khstan inthesamewayas2006.Ifthismigratorybehaviour duction sheperformedthe‘loopmigration’ viaNorthernKaza- in theseyearssheshowedupGreeceduringmidwinter. the Valdak MarshesnorinHungaryduringlateautumn,butalso spring (2002,2004and2006),shewasnotobservedneitherat during midwinter. The yearswhenshefailedinproducing off- August, inHortobágy(Hungary)lateautumnandGreece was observedbothatthe Valdak Marsheswithgoslingsinlate successful reproduction(2003and2005).Intheseyears,she Nieida usedtheEuropeanautumnmigrationrouteinyearswith transmitter withearliercolourringobservations,itappearsthat years between. When combiningthedatafromhersatellite observed regularlyalongtheEuropeanmigrationroutein and colourringedatthe Valdak Marshesalreadyin2002,and with thesatellitetransmitterinMay2006.Shehadbeentrapped acquaintance foruswhenshewascaughtandinstrumented Asian autumnmigrationroute. sis forimplementingconservationactionsalsoalongtheCentral ing sitesfortheFennoscandianLWfG nowprovideabetterba- This stronglyindicatesthatinyearswithfailedgoslingpro- As mentionedabove,thefemaleNieidawasalreadyanold This newdetailedinformationonmigrationroutesandstag- cant proportionoftheFennoscandian from the 15 16 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Kaartinen etal:Springstagingsite ofFennoscandian LesserKaartinen White-fronted Geeserevealed intheNemunasdelta,Lithuania in theNemunasdelta,Lithuania Spring stagingsite ofFennoscandian Lesser revealed Geese White-fronted old and/orunconfi been knownasapotentialstopoversiteforLWfG, basedon and thesurroundingvastagricultural ing intheEstonianspringstopoversites. The Nemunasdelta LWfG seemtoleavefromHungaryforawhilebeforearriv- gary andEstoniahasbeenapuzzle,sinceinsomeyearsthe north. Before2007,thespringmigrationroutebetweenHun- Russia, Kazakhstan,Ukraine,Greece,Hungaryandfurther May throughoutsummer, autumnandwinteracrossNorway, Finnmark, Norway. Their movementsweretrackedfrom with transmittersinMay2006theInnerPorsangenFjord, of theLWfG EULifeproject. Three LWfG wereequipped ern coastofLithuania. The satellitetrackingwasasapart help ofsatellitetrackingintheNemunasRiverdelta,west- opus,hereafterLWfG) wasfoundwiththe (Anser erythr dian breedingpopulationoftheLesser White-fronted Goose In April 2007,anewspringstopoversitefortheFennoscan- Lesser in19April2008(red in the survey 2009 dot).©Satellite observed Goose image,White-fronted Earth Google Locations ofthesatellite transmitter ofthe Lesser maleFinn Goose White-fronted in22–24April 2007(yellow dots)andlocation ofthe and thetransmitterstoppedsending,butbirdhasbeenob- this, thebirdapparentlymanagedtogetridoftransmitter April, whenthebirdwasstillinNemunasDelta. After delta. The lastlocationofthetransmitterwasreceivedon24 River valley, and region (Russia),thenturningwestfollowingtheNemunas ing alongtheborderbetweenLithuaniaandKaliningrad on itswaynorthwards.Laterthesamedayitwaslocated named asFinnwaslocatedin tions. has notbeencon Ventės Ragas Ragas On 18 April 2007,themalecarryingasatellitetransmitter 5,4 km fi rmed bydirect,welldocumentedobserva- rmed observations,butbefore2007this fi nally locatedinattheNemunasRiver fl ight overnorth-easternPoland fi elds andmeadowshas Rusne Island fl y- 2008. Geese.White-fronted ©Petteri Tolvanen, NemunasDelta,April identifi dark head, stubby billandhighwhite frontal blaze are thebest of Geese.White-fronted anddarkbrown all- The neck, short Nemunas Deltaon19April 2008,here infl An adultLesser inthe was Goose observed White-fronted Delta in April 2007,theareawasshortlysurveyedbytwo at severallocations. served alive(identi Already whenthebirdwasstillpresentinNemunas RUSSIA cation charactersto separate itfrom thesurrounding fi ed bycolourrings)lateronseveraltimes LITHUANIA ight inalarge fl Šilutė ock for LWfG. light ontheimportanceofareaasaspringstaging of theFennoscandianLWfG, willbeneededtoshedmore surveys inmid-April,aswellcontinuedsatellitetracking ous threatstogeese,likepoachingorhabitatchange.Further staging areaforLWfG andothergeesetherearenoobvi- ing intheareaduringsurvey. The areaiswellsuitedasa total around25000 White-fronted Geesewereobservedstag- observations ofthespeciesincountryrecentyears.In This recordconstitutesoneoftheveryfewwelldocumented remained theonlyobservationofLWFG duringthesurvey. a in afl of theSilutetownandonRusneIsland. surveyed aroundtheNemunasdelta,including Estonia. All potentialstagingsitesofgeeseintheareawere Hortobágy, Hungary, butbeforethemain fl April 2008. The surveywascarriedoutrightafterthemain area bytheLWfG LIFEproject,coveringtheperiod18–21 the followingspring,aLWfG surveywasarrangedinthe were observedduringthesequicksurveysin April 2007.In fi Nemunas Delta, Lithuania,April2008. diff were Geese White-fronted counted staginginthearea, and30 inmid-April 2008,ca25,000 survey geese. Duringthe three-day springstagingarea forThe NemunasDeltaisanimportant ockoftheFennoscandianLWfG hadleftthestagingsitein eld teamsorganized bytheLWfG LIFEproject.NoLWfG fi On 19 April 2008,oneunringedadultLWfG wasobserved erent ofthemwere neck-collars read. ©Petteri Tolvanen eld ca2kilometerssouth-west oftheSilutetown. This Riikka Kaartinen ock ofca4000 White-fronted Geese( Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project 1 WWF Finland,WWF Lesser Gooseproject, White-fronted Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500 Helsinki, 10,FIN-00500 Helsinki, Lintulahdenkatu 2 Birutes 58-9, LT-08101 gatve Vilnius, 1 , KristerCastrén email: [email protected] , email: [email protected] 2 [email protected] &PetteriTolvanen fl ock hadarrivedin on A. albifrons) fi LITHUANIA, elds west FINLAND Øien etal:Mappingofmigration routes oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebreeding population withprofound implications priorities forconservation 1 ström, Risto Karvonenandmany others) andFinland(Aappo Tar), Estonia(Maire Toming, JyrkiPynnönen, HeikkiHolm- lou, EleniMakriyanni, Theodoros Naziridis),Hungary (Janos LIFE-Nature project various helpandgoodco-operation. We arealsoindebtedtothe and SveinIngebrigtsen atStabbursnesNaturhusogMuseumfor would alsoliketothank directorGryIngebretsen, Tove Persen valuable assistanceduring catchingoperationsinMay2006. We ance duringthe selv, Norwayforhisoutstanding logisticandpersonalassist- Torkjell MorsetattheStateNatureInspectorate(SNO) inLak- tracking projectduring2006–2008.Specialthanks aredueto Many personshavebeeninvolvedinthecatching andsatellite 4. Acknowledgements entire furthermore enablenecessaryconservationactions alongthe graphical informationrevealedbytheGPSsatellite transmitters to increasedadultsurvival. The verydetailedandprecisegeo- to thesmallpopulationand–evenmoreimportant –contribute cessful breedingthatbothrepresentsrecruitment ofnewbirds tion actionsonthebreedinggroundsinorder to “support”suc- ways. The documentation showstheimportanceofconserva- vital importancefortheLWfG conservationworkinseveral the BlackSea. The resultsfromthisstudyarethereforeof in northernSiberia,Kazakhstanand northern coastof impressive ‘loop-migration’ viatheRussian Taimyr Peninsula Fennoscandian LWfG innorthernGreeceafterundertakingthe LWfG. The birdsusingtheeasternroute,rejoinwithother from satellitetrackingorringingdataoftheFennoscandian the RussianLWfG, butthereisnoevidenceonwintering dian populationcouldwinterintheMiddleEasttogetherwith does notexcludethepossibilitythatbirdsformFennoscan- not separateandtheyleadtothesamewinteringgrounds. This noscandian LWfG populationshowingthatthetwo on themigratorymovementsofcriticallyendangeredFen- level until2007. was reducedby35%between2000and2001keptonthat number ofLWfG onspringstagingat Valdak thefollowingyear year supportsthistheory. The monitoringdatashowthatthe LWfG wasobservedinHungaryduringautumnmigrationthat tion routethatautumn. The factthatasimilarlylownumberof than normallyfacedthehighhuntingpressurealongthismigra- consequence, asigni and followedtheCentral Asian autumnmigrationroute. As a breeding populationaccomplishedmoultmigrationtoRussia This season,mostprobablythemajorpartofFennoscandian two goslingsinonebroodwereobservedat Valdak in August. tumn 2000,onlyonebroodwasproduced,and8adults have bredsuccessfullygatheratthe Valdak Marshes. Intheau- the breedingareainFinnmark,Norway, theLWfG pairsthat Aarvak &Øien2004).Beforeonsetofautumnmigrationfrom the Fennoscandianpopulationbetween2000and2001(seee.g. erts ontheadultsurvivalmayalsoexplainsigni via easternHungarytothewinteringareainGreece. is muchshortertofollowtheEuropeanautumnmigrationroute are preparedtoleavethebreedinggroundsandforthesebirdsit the goslingsbecome moult inthebreedingareaFennoscandiasimultaneouslyas cessfully, they“areforcedto”takecareoftheiroffspring and coast oftheBlackSea. When theLWfG producegoslingssuc- Greece isviatheObRivervalley, Kazakhstanandthenorthern from there,theshortestmigrationroutetowinteringareasin the LWfG toaccomplishthemoultmigrationSiberia,and Through theresultsfromthisstudy, newlighthas beenshed This importantadditionaleffect thatreproductivesuccessex- fl yway ofthepopulation. fi eldwork, aswellto Ari Leinonenforin- fi fl fi cantly higherproportion ofthepopulation edglings. Inlate August thefamilygroups eld teams inGreece(MariaPanayotopou- fi cant dropin fl yways are 17 18 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Kaartinen, R.,Castrén, K.& Tolvanen, P. 2009:Springstag- Aarvak, T., ØienI.J.,Syroechkovski Jr., E.E.&Kostadino- Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2000:MonitoringofLesser White- Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2004:MonitoringofstagingLesser Aarvak, T. andØien,I.J.2003:Moultautumnmigration 5. References Norwegian Directoratefornaturemanagement. Affairs –Offi cial supportwasprovidedbytheDepartmentofEnvironmental søksdyrutvalget). InadditiontotheLIFE-Naturefunding, and theCommitteeforexperimentsonanimalsinNorway(For- provided bytheNorwegianDirectorateofnaturemanagement sion tocatchandinstrumenttheLWfG withtransmitterswas and in theinvestigationoffaithImre Volgograd region period ofthebirds.KonstantinLitvinprovidedinvaluablehelp servations andexcellentco-operationthroughoutthetracking Luukkonen, Ari Leinonenandmanyothers)forvaluableob- male (at right). onthebackground. Geese White-fronted ©Didier Vangeluwe The pairFinn 2007.Colour intheEvros andNieida ringsare Delta5January well visibleaswell asthesatellite transmitter on the backof Øien etal:Mappingofmigration routes oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebreeding population withprofound implications priorities forconservation fi nally inrescuingthetransmitterforfurtheruse.Permis- route. Final reportoftheEULIFE-Nature project2005– Lesser White-fronted Gooseon theEuropeanmigration P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, K.(eds.): Conservation of revealed intheNemunas delta,Lithuania.In: Tolvanen, ing siteofFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Geese 1997. 68s. logical Society, Klæbu.NOF Rapportserie.ReportNo.5- programme. Annual report1997.–NorwegianOrnitho- monitoring Goose Lesser White-fronted va, I.1997:The no. 1-2000:24–27. wegian OrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapportserieReport Annual report1999.– WWF FinlandReport12&Nor- dian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservationproject. nen, T., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.).Fennoscan- fronted Geeseatthe Valdak Marshesin1999.In: Tolva- Rapportserie Reportno.1-2004:19–24 port No20&NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOF project. Annual report2001–2003.– WWF FinlandRe- Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation the years2001–2003.In: Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S.(eds.). White-fronted Geeseatthe Valdak Marshes,Norway, in – BirdConservationInternational13:213–226. Geese Anser erythropusmappedby satellite telemetry. of non-breedingFennoscandianLesser White-fronted ce oftheCounty GovernorofFinnmarkandthe fi nan- Prokosch, P. &Hötker, H.1995:FaunistikundNaturschutz Øien, I.J., Tolvanen, P., Aarvak, T., Litvin, K.&Markkola, Øien, I.J., Aarvak, T., Lorentsen, S.-H.&Bangjord,G. Morozov, V.V.& Aarvak, T.2004: Wintering oflesserwhite- Morozov, V.V.2000: SurveysforLesser White-frontedGoosein Lorentsen, S.-H.,Øien,I.J., Aarvak, T., Markkola,J.,von Lorentsen, S.-H.,Øien,I.J., Aarvak, T. 1998:Migrationof sonderheft. auf Taimyr –Expeditionen 1989–1991. –Corax16, Report no1-1999:37–41. & NorwegianOrnithological Society, NOFRapportserie project. Annual report1998.– WWF FinlandReport10 Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goose conservation – In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, K.(eds.). autumn migrationroutes mappedbysatellitetelemetry. Geese at Taimyr Peninsula1998 –preliminaryresultson J. 1999:SurveyandcatchingofLesser White-fronted C, Cinclus19:69–76. Anser erythropusatastagingground.–Fauna norv. Ser. population monitoringofLesser White-fronted Goose 1996: Useofindividualdifferences inbellypatches (Casarca) 10:156–162. Goose StudyGroupofEasternEuropeand North Asia fronted geesebreedinginthePolarUrals.– Bulletin of Report no.1-2000:35–38. & NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapportserie project. Annual report1999.– WWF FinlandReport12 Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation In: Tolvanen, T., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.). the Bolshezemelskaya Tundra, EuropeanRussia,in1999. mental ResearchInstitute,Rönde,Denmark.344pp. tional, Wageningen,Environ- National Netherlands. The – Wetlands InternationalPubl.No.48, Wetlands Interna- Western Palearctic. A reviewofstatusanddistribution. nell, G.&Fox, A.D. (eds.).Goosepopulationsofthe Anser erythropus.–Pp.:144–161in:Madsen,J.,Crack- E. & Tolvanen, P. 1999:Lesser White-fronted Goose Essen, L.,Farago,S.,Morozov, V., Syroechkovsky Jr., 47–52. ropus mappedbysatellitetelemetry. –Biol.Cons. 84: Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser eryth- Report NoX-2009:16–17. 2009. – WWF FinlandReport27&NOFRapportserie pus ontheEuropeanmigrationroute”in2005–2008Estonian During theLWfG Lifeproject“Conservationof Anser erythro- conservation projectandthestaff ofMatsaluNatureReserve. tonia hasbeencarriedoutannuallyby WWF Finland’s LWfG nen 1999).Since1999,thespringmonitoringinwesternEs- area in April–May 1998withoutsystematicmonitoring(Tolva- in 1996–1998,andatleast32individualswereobservedthe population ofLWfG wasrevealedatMatsalu,westernEstonia (Leibak etal.1994). would originatefromtheSwedishreintroductionprogramme thus itwaspresumedthatalltheLWfG seeninwesternEstonia nia, mainlyin ish reintroductionprogrammewereobservedinwesternEsto- single individualsandsmallgroupsoriginatingfromtheSwed- species weremadeinEstonia(Leibaketal.1994).Since1985, et al.1994).Inthe1970’s, nocon tor inEstoniaduringthespringandautumnmigration(Leibak Estonia. Untilthe1960’s, LWfG wasascarcebutregularvisi- 1900’s surelyaffected thenumbersofLWfG migratingthrough Fennoscandian LWfG populationduringthe Estonia (Norderhaug&Norderhaug1984). The crashofthe jor migrationroutepassedthroughthenorth-westernpartsof bird inmountainregionsofnorthernFennoscandia,andama- , hereafterLWfG) wasacommonbreeding (Anser erythropus In thebeginningof1900’s, theLesser White-fronted Geese 1. Introduction in 2004–2008 Monitoring ofLesser inEstonia Goose White-fronted recorded by digital videocamera mounted © Maire onaspotting scope (ontheleft). Toming, April 2006 The Finnish-Estonian Lesser team village. Goose monitoringWhite-fronted geeseinHaeska The Lesser are Geese White-fronted als An importantspringstagingareafortheFennoscandian 2 1 Maire Toming WWF Finland,WWF Lesser 10,FIN-00500 Helsinki, Gooseproject,Lintulahdenkatu White-fronted State Nature Conservation Center,State Nature Conservation NationalPark, Lihula90305,Penijõe, Matsalu EST fl ocksofBarnacleGeese( Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project 1 & Jyrki Pynnönen &Jyrki fi rmed observationsofthe Branta leucopsis 2 fi rst halfofthe ) and to surveytheotherpotentialstagingsitesinPärnumaaandHar- by Tolvanen etal.(2000).Inaddition,severalvisitsweremade ous yearsweresurveyedbytheestablishedmethodsdescribed (see Table 1). All sitesknowntobevisitedbyLWfG inprevi- carried outwhenpossible. video forindividualrecognition(see Aarvak etal.2009)was ing & Tolvanen 2009).RecordingLWfG individualsondigital tivities onthehistoricalroostingsitesofHaeskaIslets,see Tom- (primarily thein of theLWfG andtheeffect oftheLWfG Lifeprojectactions on thepopulationdevelopment,demographicaspects,spaceuse Estonia weremonitoredannuallyinordertoachieveestimates In theyears2004–2008,stopoversitesforstagingLWfG in 2.1. Springmonitoring 2. Methods threats forLWfG inthearea. impact oftheLWfG Lifeprojectactionsandtoassesspossible tify individuallytheLWfG staginginthearea,tomonitor Nature Reserve. tion between WWF Finland,MatsaluNationalParkandSilma and theHaapsaluBay. All surveyswere carried outinco-opera- surroundings ofMatsaluNationalPark,SilmaNatureReserve autumn migrationperiodinwesternEstoniatheterritoryand stopover sitesweremonitoredbothduringthespringand The monitoringstartedinmid-Aprilandlasteduntilmid-May The mainaimofthemonitoringwastocount,ageandiden- ONIA, fl uence oftherestorationandmanagementac- email: [email protected] FINLAND, Toming Monitoring &Pynnönen: ofLesser White-fronted GooseinEstonia in2004–2008 email: [email protected] o being 19 20 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 were surveyed butat least caonce (inspring)less often aweek. The areas marked by Bare lessfrequently usedby thegeese, andthese have Lesser Geese,White-fronted andthesewere monitored (inspring) almostdaily. Figure 1. The areas marked by Aare thesites that are mostregularly usedby the between theyears.Forexamplein2007,LWfG werestag- ferred the Haeska site, but the use of the sites differed quite a lot Haeska and(Noarootsi) Tahu. Inmostoftheyearstheypre- LWfG wereobservedmostlyattwotraditionalsites,(Ridala) 3.1. Springmonitoring 3. Results south-eastern Estonia(nearLakePeipsi). area), insouthernEstonia(inthe surroundings of Tartu) andin staging areasinsouth-westernEstonia(Häädemeeste-Nigula less daily, andinadditionthemonitoringcovered thepotential The usualspringstagingareasofLWfG werevisitedmoreor (see Table 1forthetimingofmonitoringperiodeachyear). ing wascarriedoutduringsevenweeksinSeptember–October, weeks, exceptfortheautumn2005whenlowintensitymonitor- years 2004–2008. The monitoringperiodwasonaveragetwo Autumn surveyswerecarriedoutinSeptember–Octoberthe 2.2. Autumn monitoring in Figure1. sites (see Aarvak etal.2009). The monitoringareasareshown belly patchpatternsonthevideotapesfromdifferent staging tory movementsandlifehistoryofindividualsbycomparingthe of individualsandpairs,whicheventuallyhelpstorevealmigra- purpose ofthevideorecordingwastoimproveidenti be possiblewithtraditionalphotographicequipment. The main bles ustorecordthegeeseatmuchlongerdistancethanwould video cameramountedonatelescope. This combinationena- ally alsofromFinnishornithologistsbirdinginthearea. jumaa countiesandvaluableobservationswerereceivedannu- Toming Monitoring &Pynnönen: ofLesser White-fronted GooseinEstonia in2004–2008 When possible, the staging LWfG were recorded by digital fi cation and theminimumwas13daysin2003(Tolvanen etal.2004). 18–19 days,themaximumlengthwas25daysin2008(Table 1) has beenquitestableduringthelastdecade.Onaverageitwas Figure 2). in 2006,withoutanycleartrendthe period 2004–2008(see ing variedfrom13individualsinspring2004to32 and roostinginspring2007. LWfG Lifeproject,see Toming & Tolvanen 2009)forfeeding in Haeska,LWfG alsousedtheHaeskaislets(managedby of monitoring).Forthefi Noarootsi, andwereseenonlyonceinHaeska(onthe In 2008,theLWfG behavedintheoppositewayandstaged ing inHaeskaandvisitedtheNoarootsisitesonlyononeday. Estonia insprings1998–2008. Figure 2. The Lesser numberofobserved in Geese White-fronted 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 The lengthofthestagingperiodLWfG inwesternEstonia The totalnumberofLWfG observedduringspringmonitor- 9819 0020 0220 0420 0620 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 noscandian populationofLWfG ispassingEstonian observations itseemsthatthemajor partoftheFen- protected areas) isverylow. Based ontheautumn man disturbanceatthe sites(thataresituatedwithin safe fortheLWfG, thereisnohuntingandthehu- The springstagingperiod inEstoniaisrelatively spring stagingsitesvaried alotbetweentheyears. stable inthereportperiod, butuseofthetwomain The springstagingpopulation ofLWfG wasrather 4. Discussion (see Table1). one adultatPuhja,Tännassilmaon28September) (two adultsatNoarootsi, Tahu on22September, and and in 2007 there was one observation of 5 birds one adultatPuhja,Tännassilmaon28September) (two adultsatNoarootsi, Tahu on22September, and in 2006thereweretwoobservationsofthree birds three birdswereseen(allofthematRidala,Haeska), there wasnoobservationofLWfG atall.In2005 ing theautumnmigrationperiod.In 2004 Only afewindividualsofLWfG wereobserveddur- 3.2. Autumn monitoring Table 1). spring duringtheLifeprojectyears2005–2008 (see with Norwegiancolour-rings wereobservedevery in thecalculation. fl from othersitesclearlybeforethearrivalofmain main sites;occasionalobservationsofsinglebirds the The lengthofthestagingperiodwascalculatedfrom ock, orclearlyaftertheirdeparturearenotincluded The birdsweremostlyadults(see Table 1).Birds fi rst observationuntilthelastat rsttimeduringthemonitoringhistory fi rstday ever therearenoconfi ably tourists,wereshootinggeesearoundthesame together withothergoosespeciesandsometenhunters,prob- observed outsidetheprotectedareasonanagriculturalfi occasion during the report period, a fl LWfG duetohuntingcannotbeexcluded.Forexampleinone as thegeeseusetofeedmostlyonarableland,mortalityof gration happensduringthehuntingseasonofwaterfowl,and regularly occurinEstoniaalsoautumn. As theautumnmi- autumn migration.Nevertheless,smallnumbersofLWfG still staging areasorusingadifferent migrationrouteduringthe Leibak, E.,Lilleleht, V. & Veromann, H.(eds.)1994:Birds Aarvak, T., Leinonen, A., Øien,I.J.& Tolvanen, P. 2009: 6. References of thepeoplewhohavecontributedtomonitoring. denswan, FransSilveniusandJarmo Ahveninen, tonamesome Klaij, OlevMihkelmaa,JukkaHauru,MikaBruun, GustafNor- Valker, Marko Valker, Renno Nellis, Trinus Haitjema, Miranda Kaartinen, SeppoEkelund, Aivar Veide, KaarelKaisel, Tarvo during these years: Heikki Holmström, Risto Karvonen, Riikka ers thatcarriedoutthe Estonia in2004–2008.Ourspecialthanksare due toallobserv- Many personswereinvolvedintheLWfG monitoringactionsin 5. Acknowledgements cidental shootingofLWfG inEstoniaduringthelastdecade. = 2nd-calendar-year bird.= 2nd-calendar-year autumn, nocolour ringedbirds were are observed, too andtheautumnobservations few to conclude thelengthofstagingper Table 1.Monitoring periodsandthemainresults oftheLesser monitoringWhite-fronted Goose inEstonia intheyears 2004–2008In Age distribution Total numberofLWfG Last observation ofLWfGLast observation First ofLWfG observation Monitoring ended Monitoring started Autumn individuals Number ofcolour-ringed Age distribution Total numberofLWfG Lenght ofstaging period Last observation ofLWfGLast observation First ofLWfG observation Monitoring ended Monitoring started Spring pp. of Estonia. – Estonian Academy Publishers, Tallinn. 288 27 &NOFRapportserie ReportNo1-2009:71–75. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009. – WWF Finland Report on theEuropeanmigration route.FinalreportoftheEU K. (eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Goose colour ringing.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen, White-fronted Goosebased onindividualrecognitionand Population sizeestimation oftheFennoscandianLesser Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project fi rmed casesofhunting,poaching orac- eld workandreportedtheirobservatiosn All adults One 2-cy ind, the One2-cy All adults ock of ock May 11 Sep 20 Sep Apr 16 Apr 16 May 8 Oct 2 Oct 2004 25 20 0 – –1213 – – fi ve LWfG was fi eld. How- 3 (+11possible) rest adults All adults May 10 Sep 25 Sep Apr 10 Apr 19 Oct 20 Oct eld May 8 Sep 1 Sep Oct 5 Oct 2005 24 19 Toming, M.& Tolvanen, P. 2009 Tolvanen, P., Toming, M. & Pynnönen, P. 2004 Tolvanen, P., Karvonen,R.,Pynnönen,P. &Leito, A. 2000: Tolvanen, P. 1999: A springstagingareaforLesser White- Pynnönen, J.& Tolvanen, P. 2001:MonitoringofLesser Norderhaug, A. &Norderhaug,M.1984:StatusoftheLesser One 2-cy ind, the One 2-cy 27 &NOFRapportserie ReportNo 1-2009:22–23. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport on theEuropeanmigration route.FinalreportoftheEU K. (eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Goose salu, Estonia.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen, ment oftheLesser White-fronted Goosehabitats inMat- Rapportserie Reportno. 1-2004:9–13. Report 20&Norwegian OrnithologicalSociety, NOF conservation project.Report 2001–2003.– WWF Finland K. (eds.):FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goose 2001¬2003. In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen, ing ofLesser White-fronted GeeseinwesternEstonia NOF RapportserieReportno.1-2000:18–21. land Report12&NorwegianOrnithological Society, conservation project. Annual report 1999. – WWF Fin- K. (eds.):FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goose tonia in1999.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen, Monitoring ofLesser White-fronted GeeseinwesternEs- no. 1-1999:15–18. wegian OrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapportserieReport Annual report1998.– WWF FinlandReport10&Nor- dian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservationproject. nen, P., Øien, I.J. & Ruokolainen, K. (eds.): Fennoscan- fronted GeeserecoveredinMatsalu,Estonia. In: Tolva- Report no.1-2001:10–11. & Norwegian Ornithological Society, NOF Rapportserie project. Annual report2000.– WWF FinlandReport13 noscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Fen- White-fronted GeeseinwesternEstonia2000.In: dia. –Swedish Wildlife Res.13:171–185. White-fronted Goose, Anser erythropus,inFennoscan- rest adults l dls4aut,1jvnl Alladults 4adults, 1juvenile All adults May 12 May 11 Sep 20 Sep Sep 22 Sep Sep 28 Sep Apr 16 Apr 21 Oct 4 Oct 2006 32 18 3 Toming Monitoring &Pynnönen: ofLesser White-fronted GooseinEstonia in2004–2008 Two ind, the 2-cy rest adults May 13 May 11 Sep 22 Sep Sep 25 Sep Sep 25 Sep Apr 14 Apr 24 Oct 7 Oct 2007 22 18 5 : Restorationandmanage- All adults May 12 May 19 Sep 21 Sep Sep 13 Sep Apr 16 Apr 16 Oct 13 Oct Oct 13 Oct 2008 25 25 : Monitor- 2 iod. 2-cy 2-cy iod. 009 21 22 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 camp that was part oftheLessercamp that was part Life ©Petteri actions. Goose White-fronted project Tolvanen, August 2006 cluded that the HaeskaRahuislets wouldbeaperfectroosting many other bird species. of themanagementissigni most importanttasksof theMatsalunationalpark.Continuation securing themanagement ofcoastalareasandisletsisonethe wetland birdswaslost. Nowadaysstoppingthehabitatlossand valuable stagingandroosting areaforgeeseandothermigratory ally overgrown bytheextensivereedbeds or bushes,andthusa decreased rapidly, andthe formeropenmeadowsweregradu- the landuse(haymaking andcollectingofreeds)ontheislets coastal meadows.Duringthelastdecadesof the20thcentury stant mowing,theRahuisletswerekeptasopen, low-growth larly usedforhaymakingbythelocalpeople, andduetocon- & Pynnönen2009). Fennoscandian LWfG population(see Tolvanen 1999, Toming known sincetheendof1990’s asanimportant stagingsiteofthe on theisletsafterabreakofhalfcentury. The Haeskaareais after theremovalofreed,re-introducecontinuous grazing the actionswastoremovereedbedfromparts oftheislets,and the MatsaluBay, withintheMatsaluNationalPark. The aimof management actionswerecarriedontheHaeska RahuIsletsin hereafter LWfG) LIFE-Natureproject(2005–2009),habitat During theLesser White-fronted Goose( 1. Introduction The extensive reed bedsofthe Väike IsletontheMatsalu Bay Rahu were fi habitatsGoose inMatsalu, Estonia Restoration andmanagement oftheLesser White-fronted Toming & Tolvanen: Restoration andmanagement oftheLesser White-fronted Goosehabitats inMatsalu, Estonia In theplanning phaseoftheLWfG LIFEproject itwascon- Historically (untilthemid-1900’s) the RahuIsletswereregu- 2 1 Maire Toming WWF Finland, Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500, Helsinki, Finland, 10,FIN-00500,Helsinki, WWF Lintulahdenkatu State Nature Conservation Center,State Nature Conservation NationalPark, Lihula90305,Penijõe, Matsalu EST 1 &Petteri Tolvanen fi cant notonlyforLWfG butalso for 2 ne rtropus , Anser erythr FINLAND, [email protected] rst mowed restoration down andthenburnedduring thevoluntary without anydisturbanceforthem. it ispossibletoobservethegeesestagingon the Haeskaislets tower, situatedonthecoastalmeadowmainlandside, mainland. ItisalsonotablethatfromtheHaeska birdwatching and ontheisletsthereisremarkablylessdisturbance thanonthe their favouritefeedinggroundsontheHaeska coastal meadows, and feedingplaceforLWfG, astheisletsaresituatednextto Petteri Tolvanen, Matsalu, Estonia, August 2006 Lesser habitat Goose restoredWhite-fronted by the Life project.© coastal meadows, take care ofthe continuous management ofthe cattle, eff Highland that isparticularly ONIA, email: [email protected] ective ingrazingective onreed on Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis found breedingontheislets.On Väikerahu, apairofMarsh lus), andsomefemalesofRuff (Philomachuspugnax pina), Redshank(Tringa totanus 2008, severalpairsofmeadowbirdslikeDunlin ( now coveredbyalowcoastalmeadowvegetation. In2007and eral occasionsinspring2007. The managedpartof Väikerahu is of boththeHaeskaRahuisletsforfeedingand roostinginsev- monitoring historyinMatsalu,theLWfG usedthemanagedpart frequently usedbybirds.Forthefi toration camp(i.espring2007)andsincethen thesiteswere geese andotherbirdsalreadyinthe ha ontheSuurrahuIslet. opened andmanagedbygrazingonthe Väikerahu Islet,and60 During theLIFEprojectperiod,intotal11.2 haofmeadowarea 3. Results brought backtothemainlandbeforeautumnstorms. the fencehastoberemovedforwinterandcattlehave can damagethefenceifleftinplaceoverwinter. Therefore, and winterintheareaareusuallyrough,stormsice 2007 and2008. The weatherandiceconditionsduringautumn built aroundthe Väike rahu isletintheyears the isletsafterLIFEprojectperiod. secure continuationofthemanagement grazing oftheisletsmoreeffective andto was boughtbyprojectinordertomakethe sheep). Sevenindividualsofbeef-cattle can resistsuchconditionsmuchbetterthan and oftenfl for grazingbecausetheisletsareverylow years 2006–2008.Beef-cattlewerechosen grazed onbothislandsinsummerthe whole projectperiod.Morethan80cows was sincethenimplementedduringthe taneously withtherestorationactionsand targets de ha ofSuurrahuIslet,exceedingclearlythe and burnedon8haof Väikerahu andon40 During thecamp,reed-bedwasmowed nity Conservation Assosiation (ESCCA). (ELF) andEstonianSeminaturalCommu- together withEstonianFundforNature WWF FinlandandMatsaluNationalPark mid-August 2006inco-operationbetween Väikerahu Islet. The campwasarrangedin camp inordertoremovethereedbedon islets startedbyavoluntaryrestoration The habitatmanagementontheHaeska 2. Methods The Estonian natureconservationauthorities willberesponsible continued annually, andbyadequately highgrazingpressure. effort will beinvain,ifthemanagement ofthesitewill notbe (2006–2008) andatrelatively lowexpenses.However, allthe successfully implemented withinarelativelyshorttimeperiod – andanewsafefavourable stagingsiteoftheLWfG – was It canbeconcluded,that therestorationofacoastalmeadow 4. Discussion National Park. 2008. This isthefi Both oftheisletswereinfavourablecondition forstaging An electricfence(1300meters)ofwas Grazing onbothisletswasstartedsimul- fi ned. ooded bythesea-water(cattle Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project rst breedingrecordofthespeciesinMatsalu ) wasbreedinginthesummer ) andLapwing(Vanellus vanel- rst timeduringtheLWfG fi rst springaftertheres- August 2006 places thereed bedswere more thanfour dense. meters highandvery ©Petteri Tolvanen, isletswas carriedoutby Rahu ofthemowing tractor. ontheHaeska Major part some In Calidris al- ) were Tolvanen, P. 1999: A spring stagingareaforLesser White- Toming, M.&Pynnönen,J.2009:MonitoringofLesser Toming, M.2009:NewNational Action Planforthe Lesser 6. References cooperation. very complicatedconditions,and Ants Ale forunderstanding ing fencesandgrazinghisanimalsontheislets, sometimesin camp organizers and participants,Margo Vichterpal forbuild- able forLWfG andotherbirdspecies: WWF Finlandrestoration worked hardduringtheprojecttomakeRahuIsletssuit- We wouldliketothankallthosewhohavecontributedand 5. Acknowledgements cies (see Toming 2009). for this,asdefi

no. 1-1999: 15–18. wegian Ornithological Society, NOF RapportserieReport Annual report 1998.– WWF Finland Report10&Nor- dian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation project. nen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, K.(eds.):Fennoscan- fronted Geeserecovered inMatsalu,Estonia.In: Tolva- serie ReportNo1-2009: 19–21. 2005–2009. – WWF FinlandReport27& NOF Rapport- tion route.Finalreport oftheEULIFE-Natureproject of Lesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropean migra- nen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conservation White-fronted GooseinEstonia2004–2008. In: Tolva- No 1-2009:86–87. – WWF FinlandReport 27&NOFRapportserieReport Final reportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009. White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration route. I.J. &Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted GooseinEstonia.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, Toming & Tolvanen: Restoration andmanagement oftheLesser White-fronted Goosehabitats inMatsalu, Estonia ned inthenewEstonian Action Planforthespe- 23 24 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 the Ministry ofEnvironment. Nature Reserve aswelltheNature ProtectionDepartment in ists ofMatsaluNational Park,SilmaNatureReserveandNigula of theCountyEnvironmental DepartmentofLäänemaa,special- the hunters in Läänemaa and Pärnumaa counties, the employees 000 persons). The otherprintedmaterialswere disseminatedto charge to all members of the Estonian Hunters Society (ca 10 the LWfG LIFE project. The magazine isdisseminatedfreeof ing itfromtheothergoose species,andontheobjectivesof the threatenedstatusof theLWfG, thechallengesinseparat- ‘Eesti Jahimees’ (Toming 2007). The articlefocusedmainlyon conservation waspublishedintheEstonian hunters’magazine in colour(1000copies)wereprinted. An articleontheLWfG Estonian language(1000copies)andasticker showingLWfG activities wereexplained. project areaweremade,andtheobjectivesof theLIFEproject islet, aswellwiththefarmerkeepinglivestock withinthe tween MatsaluNationalParkandthelandowner of Väikerahu main stagingsitesforLWfG inEstonia.Severalagreementsbe- islets inHaeska(see Toming & Tolvanen 2009),oneof thetwo project inordertomanagetheRahu ment activitiesoftheLWfG LIFE formed aboutthehabitatmanage- holders intheprojectareawerein- The farmersandothercentralstake- 3. Results generally. and naturereservesintheregion LWfG bothinsidethenationalparks meadows importantforthestaging in themanagementofcoastal farmers andstakeholdersinvolved The maintarget groupswerehunters, scribing possibilitiestoavoidthem. threats tothespeciesaswellde- and introducingthemostimportant the LWfG fromothergoosespecies bally threatenedspecies,separating knowledge aboutLWfG asaglo- campaign aimed at increasing the The Estonianpublicawareness 2. Aims andtargetgroups and verysimilartotheLWfG. which isacommonhuntingspecies albifrons), White-fronted Goose (A. cially separatingtheLWfG fromthe ability ofthespeciesandproblemsinidentifi hunters, landownersandbirdwatchersawareofthevulner- erythropus, hereafter LWfG)fronted Goose (Anser is to make One of the key objectives in conservation of the Lesser White- 1. Introduction inEstoniaGoose Public awareness campaignfor theLesser White-fronted Toming: Public awareness campaignfortheLesser White-fronted GooseinEstonia Three educational meetingsforhunters werearranged. The A bookletintroducingtheLWfG andtheLIFEprojectin State Nature Conservation Center,State Nature Conservation NationalPark, Lihula90305,Penijõe, Matsalu EST Maire Toming tower intheMatsalu National Park. Life bird isplacedGoose project watching intheHaeska One oftheinformation signsoftheLesser-White-fronted pärast pesitsust. enne pesitsemaasumistjapesakondadepeatusala tähtsaim väike-laukhanedekevadinekoondumispaik kuni Valdaki soodeniPõhja-Norras.Sealonka Ungari, Lääne-EestijaBotnialaheümbruseSoomes Kevadel rändavad väike-laukhaned Kreekast läbi Ida-Ungari kuni talvitusaladeni Põhja-Kreekas. järgivad “Eurooparändeteed”läbiBaltiriikide,Poolaja suundub Kasahstanipoole,ülepoolelindudestaga poolsaarele. Siinjagunebseltskondkaheks:osa Lapimaal asuvateltpesitsusaladeltVenemaale, Kanini Sügisel rändavadFennoskandiaväike-laukhaned Kreeka:Evrosejõedelta,Kerkinijärv, Nestosejõe 5. Ungari:HortobágyRahvuspark 4. Eesti:MatsaluRahvuspark 3. Soome:Botnialaherannikjavõimalikud 2. Norra:PorsangenFjordjaVarangerfjord ning 1. rändeteel: Projekti tegevuskohadväike-laukhanedeEuroopa Väike-laukhane Eurooparändetee delta jaIsmarida(võiMitrikou)järv pesitsusalad SoomeLapimaal pesitsusalad Põhja-NorrasFinnmarkis 4 1 Väike-laukhanede kaitse 2 3 cation, espe- cation, 5 Partner Eestis:RiiklikLooduskaitsekeskus,Hiiu-Lääneregioon,Lihulavald90305,Penijõe. Life-projekti rahvusvahelinekoordinaator:SoomeWWF, Lintulahdenkatu10,FIN-00500,Helsinki. Euroopa rändeteel Projekti toetavad:EestiJahimeesteSelts ■ liikumist jälgida väike-laukhanesid indiviiditieristadaningnende videokaameraga läbivaatlustoru.Seevõimaldab demograa sügisrände ajal.Populatsiooniarenguja Teostatakse iga-aastastseiret kevad-ja ● võimalikkusest hulgas väike-laukhanedekaitsevajadusestja tehakse selgitustöödjahimeestejatalunike MatsalujaHäädemeeste-Nigulapiirkonnas ● peatuvatele väike-laukhanedele KoostataksekaitsekorralduskavaEestis ● toitumiseks jaööbimisekssobivadtingimused ||GL }K -DD UQåL D RNN MD URRVDNDV  Q LG DODG RUDQ O- å ringiga. Joonistused:JariKostet   KX N}  LG Lennupilt G | Y| (2) sügavroosa värvusega.Heatunnusmääramiseksonerekollanerõngasümbersilma. pealaele, mustadkõhuvöödidontavaliseltväiksemad,kaellühemjatumedam.Nokklühike,kolmnurksekuju (1) • LIFE-Nature projekt“Väike-laukhanedekaitseEurooparändeteel” peatada järgnevatemeetmetega: pesitsevate väike-laukhanedearvukuselangustpüütakse kogu Eurooparändeteeulatuses.Fennoscandias kõikidel tähtsamatelpesitsus-,peatus-jatalvitusaladel Projekti eesmärgiksonväike-laukhanedekaitsetagamine Soomest, Norrast,Eestist,UngaristjaKreekast. Projektis osalebkokkuüheksapartner-organisatsiooni Eestis onprojektipartneriksRiiklikLooduskaitsekeskus. Liidu pooltkaas- ■ Projekti peamisedtegevusedEestis Osaväike-laukhanedepeatus-jatalvitusaladest Suur-laukhani Väike-laukhani (Ansererythropus)–Vägasarnanesuur-laukhanele.Valge laukulatubkõrgemale on siianiteadmata.Samutiteadmatatäpsed Haeska rahudeltaastatakselindudele Matsalu Rahvuspargiterritooriumil laukhanede kaitseEurooparändeteel”on Rahvusvaheline LIFE-Natureprojekt“Väike-  : Täiskasvanud laukhanedelontugevkõhumuster, noorlinnulseepuudub.Väike-laukhaniontähistatud a väljaselgitamiseks a  nantseeritud aastatel2005–2008. (Anseralbifrons www.ejs.ee Toming, M.& Tolvanen, P. 2009:Restorationandmanage- Toming, M.2009:NewNational Action Planforthe Lesser Toming, M.2007:Kaitsealusedväikesedhaned.–EestiJa- 5. References sible threatforLWfG inEstonia. Geese byaspecialpermitfromEU,canstill constituteapos- maa, includingHäädemeeste-Nigulaarea. A Powerpointpres- and thethirdmeetingwasheldinHunters Association ofPärnu- Department ofLäänemaa)washeldin Tooraku nearHaapsalu, ond meeting(fortheemployeesofCountyEnvironmental was held in the visitor center of Matsalu National Park, the sec- fi  lmitakse linde lmitakse rst meeting(forhuntersofLäänemaaandHiiumaacounties) ) –Silmatorkavakstunnuseksonvalgelaukotsmikuljatugevadmustad www.matsalu.ee www.wwf. peatuspaigaks HaeskarannaniidudMatsalulahepõhjakaldal. Matsalu Rahvuspargisonväike-laukhanedetähtsamaks © KaardikirjastusRegio2003 27 &NOFRapportserie ReportNo 1-2009:22–23. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport on theEuropeanmigration route.FinalreportoftheEU K. (eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Goose salu, Estonia.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen, ment oftheLesser White-fronted Goosehabitats inMat- No 1-2009:86–87. – WWF FinlandReport27&NOFRapportserie Report Final reportoftheEU LIFE-Natureproject2005–2009. White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration route. I.J. &Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted GooseinEstonia.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, himees 8/9:50/446–52/448 – rahvuslike kaitsekorralduskavade koostamine Eestis, rahvuslikekaitsekorralduskavadekoostamineEestis, – kohalikejahimeestejataluniketeavitamineväike- – EestisjaUngarisväike-laukhanedetähtsamate – • ■ pesitsusaladel kuikakogurändeteeulatuses. säilitamiseks onvajalikefektiivnekaitsenii Väike-laukhanede päästmiseksjaliigina rändepeatuspaik. väike-laukhaned eipesitse,agasiinonnendetähtis neid allesvähemkui30pesitsevatpaari.Eestis populatsioon ligikaudu10000isendist.Nüüdon alguses koosnesväike-laukhanedeFennoscandia 3. 2. 1. ülemaailmselt: Suurimad ohud,misähvardavadväike-laukhanesid Anser erythropus Väike-laukhani Peatus-jatalvitusaladelpüütaksekõrvaldada /lwfg Häirimine:inimtegevushirmutabhanesidjasunnibneid Peatus-jatalvitusalademuutusedvõikadumine Suursuremusjahipidamisejasalaküttimisetõttu alla võtmine. laukhanede abilnendealadeväljaselgitaminejakaitse rõngastatud jasatelliit-saatjagavarustatudväike- pesitsusalad Lapimaal.Eesmärkonprojektikäigus Norras jaSoomes laukhanedest ningnendekaitsmisest korraldamine toitumis- jaööbimisaladehooldaminekaitse ohutegureid: võimalikult paljuväike-laukhanesidmõjutavaid lendama ebasoodsatelevõiohtlikelealadele linnuliikidest Euroopas. Eelmise sajandi linnuliikidest Euroopas.Eelmisesajandi Väike-laukhani on üks kadumisohus olevatest 1 ONIA, email:[email protected] 2 possibilities tohuntalsoBarnacle Western Estonia,includingthenew and thegrowinghuntingtourismin the protectionofLWfG. ciety hasdeclareditsfullsupportto have risen, and Estonian Hunters So- hunting ncaseofLWfG occurrence ments againstlimitationsforgoose has beensuccessful.Nomajorargu- in EstoniatheLWfG LIFEproject the natureconservationorganisations Cooperation betweenthehuntersand 4. Discussion 2009) intheautumnwerediscussed. hunting season(seealso Toming in caseLWfG willoccurduringthe ‘red light system’ for goose hunting tablishing avoluntary, temporary for LWfG, andpossibilitiesfores- hunt in Western Estoniaandthreats leucopsis ) Barnacle Goose (Branta ing tourism,connectionsbetween local goose-huntingproblems,hunt- presented inthesemeetings. Also, issues andthreatsfortheLWfG were of LWfG inEstonia,identi entation, describingtheoccurrence However, accidentalshooting fi cation

Aarvak etal.2009forfurtherdetails). the individualsbytheirindividualdifferent bellypatches(see LWfG were also recorded on digital video in order to identify study area, not only those made by the monitoring team. The traditional sites. All LWfG observationswerecollectedfromthe served duringthespringmigrationatconstantlymonitored The estimateofthepopulationsizeisbasedonindividualsob- population sizeandagestructureoftheFennoscandianLWfG. The primaryaimofthemonitoringwastocollectdataon 2.1. Aim ofthestudy 2. Methodsanddata only remainingFinnishstagingareaforLWfG. These coastalmeadowsontheBothnianBaycoastmakesup by constantmethodslongerthananyotherLWfG stagingsite. started inthisarea1985,andthussitehasbeenmonitored ecology ofthespecies. The annualspringmonitoringofLWfG data onthepopulationsizeandagestructureaswell toring ofLWfG ontheFinnishBothnianBaycoastistocollect population (Tolvanen etal.2004). The aimofthespringmoni- 10–15 years shows a declining trend of some 4% annually in the pairs (see Aarvak etal.2009). The datacollectedwithinthelast , hereafterLWfG)(Anser erythropus isonlysome20breeding The numberofFennoscandianLesser White-fronted Geese 1. Introduction Bothnian Bay coast, Finland, in2004–2008 The springmigration oftheLesser on White-fronted Goose clearly themost important. these, Of theSäärenperäLiminganlahti (LumijokiandLiminka). site isnowadays (Hailuoto), theSäärenperä andthemeadows meadows inthe Bay (Siikajoki) of meadow areas for stagingontheFinnish BothnianBay coast: the Tömppä meadows Figure 1.Duringspring, theLesser usethreeWhite-fronted Geese diff erent coastal WWF Finland WWF 10,FIN-00500Helsinki, Lesser project,Lintulahdenkatu Gooseconservation White-fronted Aappo Luukkonen Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project border ofthemonitoring area border ofmunicipality airport fiacricultural elds meadows andagricultural Karinkannanmatala. The monitoringsitesconsistofcoastal only partlyincludedintheNatura2000areaofSäärenperäand Maasyvänlahti andLiminganlahti). The sitesinSiikajokiare in LiminkaandHailuotoareNatura2000areas(Isomatala- LWfG atSiikajoki,HailuotoandLiminka(Figure1). The sites The monitoringfocusedonthetraditionalstagingareasof 2.2. Studyarea andyears tion hidewasconstructed.Dailymonitoringroutinesbeganon Monitoring in Siikajoki started on 25 April, when an observa- 2.2.2. Spring2005 was carriedoutby11 voluntaryobservers. An observationhidewasusedinSäärenperä. The Thus, earlyarrivingLWfG wouldprobablyhavebeendetected. Geese censusesprecededinthesameareasonpreviousweeks. until 18 May, i.e. fi on Hailuoto2May. Inbothareasthemonitoring continued The monitoringperiodstartedinSäärenperäon30 April, and 2.2.1. Spring2004 study (Table 1). were notmonitoredasintensivelythesitesinSiikajokithis Therefore thesitesinBayofLiminganlahtiandonHailuoto rinkanta areaonthemainlandinmunicipalityofSiikajoki. but after 2000 the LWfG have mainly used the Säärenperä–Ka- the mainstagingsitesweresituatedonislandofHailuoto, Luukkonen: The springmigration oftheLesser White-fronted Baycoast, GooseonBothnian Finland, in2004–2008 April–2 May, 7–11 May and 15 May. The poten- Hailuoto the monitoringcovered the periods30 Säärenperä were madeduring18–26 April. On and 6May. Already beforethis,shortvisitsto monitoring wascontinuous exceptfrom28 April April andendedon19 May;inthisperiodthe Continuous monitoring inSiikajokibeganon27 2.2.4. Spring2007 times. of couple a for only team monitoring the May). The BayofLiminganlahti wasvisitedby consisted oftwoperiods(6–10Mayand 12–16 itoring inSiikajoki. The monitoringonHailuoto Altogether sevenvolunteersparticipatedthemon- monitoring beganon2Mayandended18May. when anobservationhidewasconstructed.Daily The monitoringinSiikajokistartedon24 April 2.2.3. Spring2006 carried outbyeightvoluntaryobservers. the period30 April –10May. The ly visited,andthevisitsinthisareaweremade in LWfG sitesinLiminganlahtiwereonlyirregular- was notasintensiveinSiikajoki. The potential ed from30 April to16May, butthemonitoring on 26 April and continuousmonitoringtherelast- monitoring wascontinuous. day without monitoring was 7 May, otherwise the last observationofLWfG. Inthisperiod,theonly 29 April andendedon17May, threedays afterthe The ve days after the last sighting of LWfG. Bean fi rst monitoringvisittoHailuotowasmade fi elds (Markkola2001).Formerly FINLAND, email: aaluukko@paju.oulu.fi fi eld workwas fi eld work eld 009 25 26 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 total number ofLWfG was thehighestsince2000. pairs +2single adults)andfour2nd-calendar-year birds. The Tauvo, Siikajoki. dition, oneadultwasobserved migratingnorthin17Mayat one wasa2-cybird. the Säärenperä-Karinkanta area.Sixofthemwereadultsand the FinnishBothnianBay coast. the lowestnumbereverrecordedduringspring monitoringon Spring 2004:Intotal,sixadultbirdswererecorded. This was 3.3.1. Age structure andnumbersofLWfG 3.3. Siikajoki Virkkula. In2008no LWfG wereseen. the studyarea.In2007,one2-cyLWfG wasseenon5Mayin grating westaboveseaontheSwedishcoast atthelatitudeof mentioning thatshortlyafterthis,oneLWfG was observed mi- on thedeltaofRiver Temmesjoki intheendofMay. Itisworth (Anser brachyrhynchus ). seen atPitkänokkaon18MaywithtogetherPink-footed Geese No LWfG were seen in 2004. In 2005 one 2-cy individual was 3.2. Liminganlahti since May2002(seeMarkkolaetal.2004). Lahdenperä. This wasthe 20 May 2008 one individual was observed migrating north at No LWfG wereseenonHailuotointheyears 2004–2007. On 3.1. Hailuoto 3. Results May. LWfG stagingsitesinLiminganlahtiwerevisitedirregularly visits weremadeduringthe Hailuoto therewasnoregularobservationeffort, butonlyshort ous monitoringbeganon29 April andendedon21May. On The monitoringstartedon19 April, andthedailycontinu- As inthepreviousyears,monitoringfocusedonSiikajoki. 2.2.5. Spring2008 second dayintheperiod28 April 2–16May. tial LWfG sitesinLiminganlahtiwerevisitedroughlyevery Table1. Monitoring periodsonBothnianBay coast, Finland, in2004–2008. Luukkonen: The springmigration oftheLesser White-fronted Baycoast, GooseonBothnian Finland, in2004–2008 Geese ontheFinnishGeese BothnianBay coast in2004–2008. Table 2. Timing ofthestagingperiodsLesser White-fronted 2008 2006 2007 2005 erSato oioigEdo oioigDrto ndy tr fmntrn n fmntrn Durationindays Endofmonitoring ofmonitoring Start Durationindays Endofmonitoring ofmonitoring Start 2004 Year is bevto a a a a 27 April 20May 12May 3May 17May 7May 13May 13 May 9May Last observation 1May First observation Spring 2008:20LWfG wererecorded,including16adults (7 Spring 2007: Adult birdsin Spring 2006:10adultLWfG in Spring 2005: Altogether sevenindividualswereobservedin Also in2006,one2-cyindividualwasseen Limiganlahti, Apr 30 Apr 30 May 1 May 6 May 2 0420 0620 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 fi rst LWfG observationonHailuoto fi rst weeksofMay. The potential fi ve pairswereobserved.Inad- fi ve pairswereobserved. Hailuoto May 20 May 16 May 18 May 16 May 15 ca 10 ca 10 5 9 9 nearby wereusedequally. appeared on 13 May. Coastal meadows and agricultural fi May). The threepairsthatarrivedfi of LWfG was madeon17May(thepairwhicharrived 13 served onlyonce:inSavilahti on15May. The lastobservation favoured bythegeesefor grazing). The May onthefi with the LWfG pairs arrived on10May, whentheywerefoundstaging seen infl Savilahti (Siikajoki). Two unidentifi from coldnortherlywinds. staying overnightinthe 2005 theLWfG wereobservedonthe spent ca10%oftheirtimefeedingonagricultural land,butin shore line).E.g.inspring2000itwasestimated thattheLWfG parts of the natural coastal meadows (200–300 meters from the ever before. This was probablycausedbytheearlyspring. The stagingperiodofLWfG wasonly same individualthatwasobservedinLiminganlahti on18May. peared on11 May. It ispossiblethatthis2-cyindividualwasthe tion ofadultswasmadeon13Mayandthe 2-cybirddisap- tions wereunsuitableformigration on 9May. The lastobserva- was notcoveredbythemonitoring)because weathercondi- likely thebirdshadarrivedalreadyon8May(whenthisarea the stagingtime. staging period.Coastalmeadowswerefavouredintheendof mainly onagricultural last pairdisappearednextday, 13May. The LWfG werefeeding On 12Maytwoofthesepairscontinuedthemigrationand May. Three dayslater, twonewadultpairsjoinedthe 2004: The Spring 3.3.2. Timing ofmigrationandhabitatuse Bay coast, Finland, during spring migration in1998–2008. Figure 2. The numberofLesser ontheBothnian White-fronted Geese of ‘Kivikasa’ on 3 May. This pair spent only three days in the 10 20 30 40 50 0 Spring 2007: The Spring 2006: The Spring In Säärenperä,theLWfG spent most ofthetimeindryer 2005: The Spring 9820 0220 062008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 40 ightintheareaalreadyonpreviousday. Two new fi rst pairinSavilahti. The fourthpair wasfoundon13 27 Apr 29 Apr 29 Apr 30 Apr 27 May 2 elds of‘Kivikasa’ (alarge andopen 26 fi rst pairarrivedinSäärenperä already on1 fi fi fi rst LWfG wereobservedon9May. Most rst LWfG pairwasobserved in7May rst adultpairwas observedonthe 17 fi elds, especiallyintheearlypartof fi elds closetotheforestedge,sheltered 5 Siikajoki May 21 May 18 May 19 May 17 May 18 8 rst (during7–10May)dis- ed small Anser-geese were 66 fi fth LWfG pairwas ob- fi fi ve days,shorterthan elds onlyoncewhen 010 10 fi eld whichis 23 17 21 19 19 fi rstpair. fi elds elds 17 since thenthe LWfG have almostexclusively used thesiteson the south-eastern partofHailuoto (Markkolaetal.2004), but riod 1988–1998theLWfG usedmainlythecoastalmeadows of inganlahti Bay was the most important staging area, in the pe- a lotoverthepastdecades: intheperiod1985–1988Lim- population intheprevious summer(cf. Aarvak &Øien2009). incide withverygoodjuvenile productionintheFennoscandian the FinnishBothnianbay coast(years1998,2001and2007)co- spring 2008. The springswithhighershare ofyoungbirdson very lowinthestudyperiod 2004–2008,withanexceptionfor 2009).The proportion of young(2nd-calendar-year) birdswas eas thantheNorwegiancorebreedingarea(see Aarvak et al. implies thatpartofthepopulationpossiblybreeds inotherar- Estonia and/orinFinlandbutnotatthe Valdak Marshes,which the LWfG individualsrecordedonspringmigrationareseenin Øien 2009).Itisworthnoting,however, thatsome10–15%of the springnumbersdecreasedinsameperiod (see Aarvak & size, becausee.g.atthe Valdak MarshesinFinnmark,Norway, the springmigrationratherthanarealincrease inthepopulation more probablyrelatedtothechangesintiming androutesof back to the level of early 2000’s (Figure 2). This is, however, Bay coastincreasedmarkedlyduringtheperiod 2004–2008 The numbersofspringstagingLWfG ontheFinnishBothnian 4. Discussion while thethirdfl May. The third fl ture ofLWfG fromtheFinnishBothnianBaycoast. The second parted on29 April, settinga new earliness record forthedepar- that these birds could have arrived already earlier. The fl ing periodstarted,i.e.27 April, andthusitcannotbeexcluded birds. The sisted ofthreeadultpairsandfouryoung(2nd-calendar-year) period consistedofthree they wereseenonlytwiceon spring theLWfG stagedmainlyonthecoastalmeadows,and adults, with May, andthe ing pairs:thefourthadultpairarrivedon10Mayandleft12 days in the area. A similar pattern was repeated with the follow- area. Two newadultpairsarrivedon7May, spendingonlytwo off a ockof70 Pink-footed Geeseand fl on thefi eld for awhile, only50meters ock, wolf chasedthemoff as well. The next of seven Lesser at 04:30 White-fronts forward from thebushesandchased away from thewolf. After awhilethe pair ofLesser remainedWhite-fronts The spaceuseofLWfG within thestudy areahasvariedquite Spring 2008: The LWfG observationsduringthemonitoring On 20May 2008,arare episodewas day thispairwas seenat the Valdak fi ve ofthe Lesser White-fronts. One Bay coast. Hewas recording afl fi eld team onthe Finnish Bothnian Lumijoki. Suddenly, awolf trotted witnessed by Ari Leinonen, oneof a.m. onafiSäärenperä eldnear in the volunteers oftheLIFEproject fl ock arrivedinSäärenperäon16Mayanddeparted20 fi ve adults,arrivedon2May, andlefton12May. The fi rst twofl fi rst fi ve individualsinboth fi fth adultpairarrivedandlefton12May. This fl Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project ock wasfoundinthesamedayasmonitor- ock wasobservedonlyonagriculturalfi Marshes inNorway. ocks stagedmainlyonthecoastalmeadows, © ElinaSeppänen fl ocks. Two fi elds nearby. ock fl ocks. The third ocks. The fl ockswerecomposedby fl ock con- ock de- elds. Tolvanen, P., Aarvak, T., Øien, I. & Timonen, S.2004: Intro- Markkola, J.,Luukkonen, A. &Leinonen spring A. 2004:The Markkola, J.2001:SpringstagingofLesser White-fronted Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2009:MonitoringofstagingLesser Aarvak, T., Leinonen, A., Øien,I.J.& Tolvanen, P. 2009 5. References the LWfG variesbetweentheyears. (feeding on natural coastal meadows vs. agricultural Even withinthepresentstagingareainSiikajoki,habitatuse merous, especiallyonHailuotoandintheLiminganlahtiBay. Eagles (Haliaeetusalbicilla known, butapartoftheexplanationcouldbethat White-tailed the coastofSiikajoki. The reasonsforthesechangesarenot port No.1-2004: 27–28. Norwegian Ornithological Society, NOF Rapportseriere- Report 2001–2003. – WWF Finland Report No 20 & dian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation project. duction. In: Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S.(eds.):Fennoscan- ety, NOFRapportseriereport No.1-2004:14–18. Finland ReportNo20& NorwegianOrnithologicalSoci- Goose conservationproject. Report2001–2003. WWF monen, S.(eds.):Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Bay coast,Finland,in 2001–2003. In: Aarvak, T. & Ti- migration oftheLesser White-fronted GooseonBothnian report No.1-2001:12–16. & Norwegian Ornithological Society, NOF Rapportserie project. Annual report2000.– WWF FinlandReport13 noscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, K.(eds.):Fen- Geese ontheFinnishBothnianBaycoastin 2000.In: 2009: 28–35. Finland Report27&NOFRapportserie No1- port oftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009. – WWF fronted Goose on the European migration route. Final re- Ruokolainen, K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser White- Norway, in2004–2008.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.& White-fronted Geese in the Inner Porsangen Fjord, 27 &NOFRapportserieReportNo1-2009:71–75. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport on theEuropeanmigrationroute.FinalreportofEU K. (eds.):ConservationofLesser White-fronted Goose colour ringing.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, White-fronted Goosebasedonindividualrecognitionand Population sizeestimationoftheFennoscandianLesser Luukkonen: The springmigration oftheLesser White-fronted Baycoast, GooseonBothnian Finland, in2004–2008 ) havebecomemoreandnu- fi elds) of elds) 009 : 27 28 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 The FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goose( 1. Introduction inthebackground.left Jostein ©Ingar Øien Stabbursnes headland. siteThe for capeOldereidnesset theLesser which isanimportant inautumnisvisibleWhite-fronted onthe Geese the Stabburselva river Stabbursnesheadlandinthefront. andtherectangular The Valdak Marshesare visibleas atriangulararea behind ofthePorsangenAerial viewoftheinnerpart Fjord, facingsouthtowards thebottom ofthefj ord andthe town ofLakselv. The outletof Porsangen Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 Monitoring ofstagingLesser intheInner Geese White-fronted &Øien:Monitoring ofstagingLesserAarvak White-fronted GeeseintheInnerPorsangen Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 are reported bySulkavaetal.(2009). the latespring stop-oversitesinnorthernmost FinnishLapland toring work inthesameperiod the Varangerfjord areaand at the resultsfromyears 2004to2008.Resultsfromthemoni- cussions areomitted,and isrestrictedtoashortdiscussionon the monitoringandresearch work,butmorecomprehensivedis- 1996, 1997, Aarvak &Øien1999,2000,2001and2004)from reiterates resultspresented inpreviousreports(see Aarvak et al. the InnerPorsangenFjord arereportedhere. The articlealso staging intheyears2004–2008 atthe Valdak Marshes andin riod. The resultsofthemonitoringduring springandautumn ing andasthe LWfG asthelastspringstagingareabeforeonsetofbreed- gen FjordinwesternFinnmark,andthisarea isutilisedbythe The Valdak MarshesissituatedintheinnerpartofPorsan- population inthenorthernmostareasof Nordic countries. Fjord seemstobecriticallyimportantforthe smallremaining present onlythetraditionalstagingareain InnerPorsangen Fjord area,especiallyatthe Valdak Marshes(since1990). At LWfG in Varangerfjord (since 1995) and in theInnerPorsangen Finland andNOFhasannuallymonitoredthe stagingareasfor ropus, hereafter LWfG) conservation project run by WWF Norwegian Ornithological Society (NOF),Sandgata30B, Ornithological Society N-7012 Norwegian Trondheim, NORWAY, email:[email protected], [email protected] Tomas &IngarJosteinØien Aarvak fi rst autumnstagingarea afterthemoultingpe- Anser eryth- species aswellthemost importantfooditemfortheLWfG arctic saltgrass( feeding/fattening areafortheLWfG inFennoscandiawherethe ven & Johansen 1982), and represents an extremely important the largest salt and brackish marshes in northern Norway (El- IBA 012,Lislevandetal.2000). The Valdak Marshesisoneof BirdLife InternationalImportantBird Area (IBA)(Norwegian areas forbirdsinnorthernScandinavia.Itisalso classi which byitselfmakesuponeofthemostimportant wetland portant partoftheshallowinner Porsangen Fjord, approximately 2.3km²isdryland. The siteisaparticularlyim- was establishedin1983andcoversanareaof 16km²,ofwhich bursnes NatureReservewhichalsoisaRamsar site. The reserve The Valdak Marshes (N70°09’ E24°54’) is part of the Stab- 2. Studyarea andmethods 08 a ue 20August -4September 20August -4September 20August -2September 20August -6September 9 May -4June 21August -4September 8 May -5June 8May -4June 8May -5June 9May -4June 2008 2007 2006 2005 Autumn 2004 Year Spring &Øien2004. 2004-2008. Earlieryears are inAarvak reported Table 1.Monitoring periodsat the Valdak Marshesintheyears Puccinellia phryganodes ) isthemostabundant fi ed asa identi were recordedbyvideocameratoincreasetheef of juvenilesinthepopulation. The staginggeesewithgoslings to obtainestimatesonbroodsize,productivityandproportion on carryingoutcountsoffamiliesandsocialgroupsinorder of disturbance,habitatuseandmigratorymovements. individuals and out behaviouralstudiesofdominanceanddailyactivity time ofthepairs(turnoverrates),andinaddition,wecarried We monitoredthenumberofstagingindividualsand thorough descriptionofthemethodgivenbyØienetal.(1996). tifi the area(Table 2). As in formeryears,theindividualswereiden- of migrationandregisterthetotalnumberstagingLWfG in Øien etal.1999). can bereliablyagedinspringbytheirplumage(see ing) adults. Young (2nd-calendar-year) individuals less extensiveblackbellymarkingsthanin(breed- plumage, but‘non-adult’ behaviourandgenerally supposedly 3rd-calendar-year individualswithadult al. 1999,2009).By‘sub-adults’ werefertothose age determination of the staging geese (Aarvak et tifi creased the possibilities for accurate individual iden- the geese through the telescope. This method has in- birds byusingatelescope(20–60xmagni of 250–500metreswithoutanydisturbancetothe the foragingbirdscaneasilybestudiedatadistance the edgeofheadland.Undersuchcircumstances, Valdak. During the studies, the observers sit close to 25 metresabovethemiresandsaltmarshesof ral watchingpointwithaheightofapproximately fl Stabbursnes, whichisaheadlandmadeupofglaci- kola etal.2003). (for dietpreferences,see Aarvak etal.1996,Mark- 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 (5 (4 (3 (2 (1 no. ofsingle no. ofsingle no. of pairs no. ofsubad. no. ofad oneday Maxon Year calendar-year individual, individual). imm=immature, non-adult(2–3–cy as total numberofstagingindividualseachspring. Abbreviations: ad=adult, subad =subadult(seeChapter 2for defi =2nd- nition),2-cy number ofstaginggeeseat thebestday, distribution ofadultpairs, subadultpairs, singlesubadults, singleadultsandimmatures, aswell Table 2.NumbersofLesser at Geese the White-fronted Valdak Marshesduringspringstagingin1993–2008. The tableshows thema 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 uvial depositions. The headlandconstitutesanatu- Including onesubadult inthe Including “ad. pairs” column. individualsinpairwith subadultswhichisincluded inthe two 2-cy Including “no. ofsubad. pairs” column. Three subad. are included inthead individualsinpairwith subadultswhichisincludedinthe Notincludingtwo 2-cy “no. ofsubad. pairs” column. individualsinpairwith adultswhichisincludedinthe Alsoincludingtwo 2-cy “no. ofad. pairs” column. individualsinpairwith adultswhichisincludedinthe Notincludingtwo 2-cy “no. ofad. pairs” column. pairs column, andnotinthe subadpaircolumn. ed bytheindividualpatternsofbellypatchesfollowinga cation signi During autumnmonitoring(Table 3),theemphasiswasput The aimofthespringmonitoringwastofollowprogress Since 1998wehaveusedavideocameratorecord Valdak isdemarcatedinwardsfromthefjordby fi cation. fi cantly andmayalsobesupportivein Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project fl 35 37 32 31 48 24 32 16 16 20 29 18 25 29 22 44 ocks, foodpreferences,toleranceto-andlevel > 25 22 33 26 23 26 32 11 12 16 18 14 13 18 25 9 fi cation). ar 2c. sbdls adults subadults 2-cy. pairs 7 5 3 5 1 3 3 9 1 5 2 13 13 0 2 6 1 2 – 7 7 10 >10 4 – 4 – – – – – 10 10 2 10 – – – – 14 14 – fi cec of ciency to the edge of the headland. © Morten Ekker,to theedgeofheadland. ©Morten May 2006 Marshes. During the Lesser sit close studies the observers White-fronted Goose The Stabbursnesheadland constitutes anatural (1 (3

a smallnetcoveringanareaof180m We haveusedacombinationofvarioussizedcannon-netsfrom effort was spent on attempts to catch LWfG for colour ringing. In bothspringandautumnintheyears2004–2008,considerable obtained bythesatellitetelemetry(see Aarvak etal.1999,2000). colour ringed. This has added further knowledge to the results and Øienetal.2009). A numberofindividualshavealsobeen lite telemetry(cf.Lorentsenetal.1998, Aarvak &Øien2003 Finland andRussiatomapthemigrationroutesbyuseofsatel- larger netcoveringanareaof1350m Carlo simulations(>100000repetitions)–see chapter3.5. during springandautumn. at thesametimeinoneshot. While thelatter, canbeusedboth pairs defendfeedingterritoriesandonly1–2canbecaught is suffi Since 1995,anumberofLWfG hasbeencaughtinNorway, Trends inpopulationdevelopmentwastestedwithMonte cient for catching during spring staging when individual Aarvak &Øien:Monitoring ofstagingLesserAarvak White-fronted GeeseintheInnerPorsangen Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 3 3 1 2 1 5 1 – – – – – – – – – 25.9% 1 1,% 30 43 43 35.3% 13,3% 23,3% 13,6% 1 2 1 2 7.3% 3 5,% 41 43 53,7% 34.9% 1 2 2. 84 21.4% – 1. 59 56 56 >60 11.9% 68 17.9% 7.1% >16.7 % 5.9% – – – – – 23.8% – 3.% 41 34.1% – watching pointabove the Valdak 2 (50x27m). The former 2 (15x12m)toamuch m ofind. imm Ttln. Total no. % (5 (4 (2 (5 41 63 58 34 ximum 009 29 30 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 100 110 dlsjvnls oa jvnls fl juveniles total adultsjuveniles * Assumed that the observations are three* Assumed independent fl thattheobservations 08 8 3 1 17 43 0.9 1.2 4.3 2.0 2.8 3.7 1 2.1 1.4 2.6 1 2.0 0.8 3.2 1 31.7 1.7 1.3 2.4 1 50.0 2.7 1.9 3.9 1 53.5 41 2.4 2.6 3.1 1 50.0 13 66 3.2 2.0 3.2 2 44.4 33 43 28 3 57.4 23 32 1.3 0.8 2.8 33 54.8 16 27 20 6 61.3 12 47 2.40.9 2.6 1.2 2.8 2008 4.0 16 27 62 2.9 1.0 2007 2.6 15 3–1 1 39.5 34 62 2006 20 2.22.7 1 51.6 3.9 38 2005 28 2.21.3 2.4 56.1 43 3 2004 24 59.0 17 60 3 2003 31 57 52.3 2002 26 32 39 *51.6 2001 29 23 2000 128 25 67 64 1999 16 33 1998 61 1997 31 1996 1995 1994 1993 (3 (2 (1 – –3.6 – 1 –3.6 64.3 1 28 64.3 18 28 10 18 1992 1988–91 10 1987 1982–86 1981 Year distribution ofbroods andnumberofpairswithbroods). Nodataexistsfrom theyears 1982–1986,1988–1991and1993. Table 3.Autumn ageratio andannualbrood sizes ofLesser in1981–2008atWhite-fronted Geese the Valdak Marshes(seealso Table 4for the Valdak Marshesinautumntheyears 1994–2008. Figure 2.Meanannualbrood size ofLesser at Geese White-fronted years (2005–08)are marked withadarker colour. is shown to illustrate decrease. the observed The EU-LIFE project drawings ofbellypatches andvideoanalyses). Alineartrend line at the Valdak Marshesinthe years 1994–2008(estimated from Figure 1. Total numberofLesser observed Geese White-fronted &Øien:Monitoring ofstagingLesserAarvak White-fronted GeeseintheInnerPorsangen Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Numberofjuveniles inautumn dividedby number ofpairsinspring Numberofjuveniles divided by numberofadults (pairs)inautumn. Counts ofpairswithbroods inautumn. 0 9019 9419 9820 0220 062008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 9419 9820 0220 062008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 n=7 n=17 ...... n=9 n=8 n=11 24 n 2 0 00 () (0.7)(0.04) (2) 1 20.0 10 2 8 .. n=6 n=1 n=12 n=11 4 58 34 n .. n=7 n=5 n=5 n .. n=9 ocks. n=9 n=3 58.6 birds) andonesingleadult. Marshes, distributedas11 adultpairs,11 immature(2–3cy on 27May. Totally 34individualswerestagingatthe Valdak the numbersincreasedslowly, reachingapeakof 16individuals year. The marshes brie es, butduetoextremelylatespringmostbirdsonlyvisitedthe adult individuals,twojuveniles(2-cy)andsingleadults. at the Valdak Marshes,distributedas12adultpairs,twosub- visiting thesiteeveryday). Totally 30individualswerestaging doned by LWfG from 25 May onwards (only 1–5 individuals numbers decreasedandthe Valdak Marsheswerealmostaban- reaching apeakof16individualson20May. Thereafter the arrived on10May. Thereafter thenumbersincreasedslowly, nak Airport in the period 25–28 May. The but duetohighdensityofSeaEagles,theywerecloseBa- one singleadand10immaturebirds(2–3cy). total of43individualswerestaging,distributedas16adpairs, bers increased,reachingapeakof20individualson19May. A fi adult andonesingleadult. pairs, onesubadultpair, threejuveniles(2-cy),onesinglesub- May. Totally 43individualswerestaging,distributedas19adult bers increasedslowly, reachingapeakof29individuals on25 fi (2-cy) ,5singlesubadultsand1adult. distributed as9adultspairs,twosubadult13juveniles 18 birdson16and19May. Totally 41individualswerestaging, observed 9May, thereafterincreasingslowlyreachingapeakof spent allthetimeat Valdak Marshes. The fi Total springnumbersaregivenin Table 2.In2004,theLWfG 3.1. Springstaging 3. Results rst LWfG (onepair)arrivedon12May. Thereafter thenum- rst LWfG (onepair)arrivedon13May. Thereafter thenum- % .. In 2008,theLWfG spentmostofthetimeat Valdak Marsh- In 2007,theLWfG spentmostofthetimeat Valdak Marshes, In 2006,theLWfG spentallthetimeat Valdak Marshes. The In 2005,theLWfG spentallthetimeat Valdak Marshes. The fi rst LWfG (fi fl y. Alternative stagingareaswerenotlocalisedthis ok brood ocks Ma Ma Mean Mean Mean n .. ? ve ind.)arrivedon14May. Thereafter 28 – 2.8 – (1 ...... brood fi rst LWfG (one pair) rst fourbirdswere (2 brood (3 All the41Lesser that Geese wereWhite-fronted Porsangen intheInner observed Ekker, Fjord inautumn2008.©Morten August 2008 aiets albicilla (Haliaeetus Eagles of White-tailed were scaredawayfromthe Valdak Marshes by alarge number catching attemptsinspring2007wassurelythe factthatLWfG fi transmitter withGPS-plotter(seeØienetal.2009). adult maleinapair(namedasImre)wasprovided withsatellite more LWfG were caught and ringed and colour-leg-ringed. One on theEuropeanautumnmigrationroute). On 23May, already wellknownfromstopoversitesinHungary andGreece already colour-leg ringedat Valdak Marshesinspring2002(and male wasringedandcolour-leg-ringed, whereasthefemalewas GPS-plotter, femalewithordinarysatellite-transmitter). The on 18May, andprovidedwithsatellitetransmitters(male pair namedasFinn(male)andNieida(female), werecaught rings, butnosatellitetransmitters.In2006twoadultLWfG, a four youngbirds(2-3cy)werecaughton28May. All gotcolour Catching: Catchingsucceededonlyin2004and2006.In 0.0, 32.6,22.0,31.7,7.0,23.3,6.7and29.4respectively. (2-cy) percentagesfortheyears1998–2008are6.0,12.1,12.7, were registeredasadultsbefore1998. The comparablejuvenile tween theperiods1993–1997and1998–2008,sincesubadults However, thesepercentagesarenotdirectlycomparablebe- known. adult birds. The alternativestaging placesthisyearare stillun- and latespring surelyinfl of LWfG present atthe Valdak Marshes duetocoldweather of duetoriskscaring awaytheadultbirds. The lownumber satellite transmitters,the cachingpossibilitieswasnotmadeuse to a decision on giving priority to catch adult males for several possiblecatching possibilitiesonyoungbirds,butdue period forLWfGs. Neitherin2008LWfG were caught. We had cided withveryhighspring tideandthepeakofstaging forcing them ashore. The infl tide coveredallnaturalsittingrocksfor White-tailed Eagles, staging time(maxcountof26birdsatthemarshes). The spring cult catchingconditions.Oneofthe reasonsforunsuccessful Both 2007and2008turnedouttobeyears with verydif- Percentages ofjuvenilesandsubadultsaregivenin Table 2. Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project uenced thepossibilities ofcatching ux of White-tailed Eagles coin- ) during the peak fi tting fi ve of thetime they wereintheislets ofPorsangenFjord,but the day (usually inearlymorning)atthe Valdak Marshes. The rest varying betweenyears. nermost partofthePorsangen Fjord.However, thispatternis which isnormallyspent ontheadjacentsmallislandsinin- tern isthattheyonlyrarely stayatthemarshesduringdaytime, evenings, nightsandearly mornings. The mostcommonpat- marshes muchlessduring autumn,andthenmostlyduringlate spend alltheirtimeatthe Valdak Marshes,theLWfG utilisethe some yearsitmightendlaterthanobserved. assume thattheactualstagingperiodcouldstart earlierandin period from20 August tothe most yearscontinuousobservationeffort hasbeenlimitedtothe This yieldsarangeof26daysautumnstaging. However, in the period16 August –10September(Aarvak&Øien2004). As inallpreviousyears,theautumnobservations datefrom 3.2. Autumn staging 1994–2008. at the goslings observed Valdak Marshesinautumntheyears Figure 3. Total annualnumber ofLesser White-fronted Goose 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 In 2004,the LWfG typically spentonlysomefew hoursevery As comparedtothespring stagingperiodwhenthegeese 9419 9820 0220 062008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 Aarvak &Øien:Monitoring ofstagingLesserAarvak White-fronted GeeseintheInnerPorsangen Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 fi rst daysofSeptember, andwe 009 31 32 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 tgn raV 43 3 2008 3 4.3 2007 9 because 1999 fl* One omitted, been has (16 goslings) of individuals ock 32 2006 3.7 1 2005 9 1 6 Staging 5 2.6 area 3.2 Staging VM 2003 2.8 area 124 Staging 7 VM 1997 1997 area 412 3.9 2002 Staging VM 21 11 8 3 area 3.1 1 2001 Staging VM 12 1996 3.2 area Staging 4.0 2.4 2.3 2004 123 5 area 2 9 VM Staging VM 2 514 1 area 2 2 1 Staging VM 35 1 2.6 area 3 1 Staging VM 1998 (2.0) 5 VM area area Staging 11 2.8 1994 2.0 1 VM 2000 Staging 1 1 1 7 2 1999 area Staging 1 2 2 area 241 2.0 SI Staging VM 1 *2.4 4 1998 VM area area Staging 3 3 3 1 SI SI area Staging 1995 17 VM area Staging 3.9 3.3 5.0 8 1995 Staging 1996 area Staging 1 4326 1 area 2.0 4 SI Staging VM 132 2 1 1995 area Breeding 2 2 area VM SI area Staging 2.0 Breeding 3 1994 1 5 1 area Area also Table3). data exists from thebreeding areas in1996–2008(see inNorway in 1995–2003 and in the breeding grounds in 1994 and 1995. No area at Valdak in1994–2008, SkjåholmenIsland(SI) Marshes(VM) Table 4. Distribution of brood sizes (post-moult) at the staging Tomas ismountingalightweight satellite Aarvak transmitter onanadultLesser Ekker, Goose.White-fronted ©Morten May 2006 &Øien:Monitoring ofstagingLesserAarvak White-fronted GeeseintheInnerPorsangen Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 the of distribution is broods (see unknown also Table 5). sz size 1 23456 Bodsz Ma n Year n Mean brood size Brood Oldereidnesset, but some time was also spent on the innermost casions during thestagingperiod. Most timewasspentin Cape these surveys. and localizedtheLWfG Porsangen Fjordtogether withStateNatureInspectorate(SNO), in themonitoringperiod. Onseveraloccasionswesurveyedthe periods atthe Valdak Marshesapproximatelyhalf ofthedays spent inCapeOldereidnesset. The Valdak Marsheswithnodefi observed atthe Valdak marshes. 23–25 individuals.On31 August, one pairwithoutgoslingswas fl the innerpartofPorsangenFjord,andlocalized theLWfG the exactlocationswereunknown.On30 August, wesurveyed part ofthePorsangenFjord(onisletsandat Oldereidet),but the Valdak Marshes. The restofthetimewasspent intheinner the 5clutchesof16juveniles,altogether25individuals. Stuorra Saivva.On21 August, the veyed thePorsangenFjord,andlocalized innermost part of the Porsangen Fjord. On 28 August, we sur- The period22 August –30 August theyspentontheisletsin islets ofPorsangenFjord,buttheexactlocations whereunknown. Marshes withnoexactdailyrhythm.Mosttime wasspentinthe in 2004,ofwhichonly12werejuveniles. exact locationswhereunknown.Only27LWfG wasregistered ock onthecapeOldereidnesset. The In 2008,theLWfG wereobservedat Valdak onlyonfouroc- In 2007,theLWfG wereobservedsomehourseverydayatthe In 2006,theLWfG wereobservedonly one day (21 August) at In 2005, the LWfG only spent 6 days out of 16 at the Valdak fl ock onthecapeOldereidnesset onall ned daily rhythm.Mosttimewas fl ock consisted of 9 adults with ock consistedof9adultswith fl ock wasobservedforshort fl ock thenconsistedof fl ock on the island ock ontheisland

at Valdak theprevious springweget aratioof22.6%,27.1%, niles produced during summer in relation to all birds present (1994–2008) themean is1.48.Basedonthenumberofjuve- 2004–2008 (goslingsper potentialbreeding pair). Forallyears which yieldsanestimated averageof1.52forthereportyears the pre-breedingperiod (Meanbrood3–cf. Aarvak etal.1997), pared tothenumberof pairsobserved(potentialbreeders)in probably bestestimate isbasedonnumberofjuvenilescom- years 2004–2008(seeSulkava etal.2009)(Table 4). Figure 1). 6.2 pairsperyearbringinggoslings(range3–9) (Table 3and4, period (2004–2008)of3.2goslingsperpairwith anaverageof 1994 –2008is3.1(sd=0.7,n=15),withamean forthereport (weighted byyear)observedatthe Valdak Marshesintheyears area beforetheonsetof autumn migration.Meanbroodsize riod atthe Valdak Marshes,whichrepresentthe Breeding successismonitoredduringthepost breedingpe- 3.3 Breeding success and 4. Oldereidnesset onallthesesurveys. M =male, F=female Table colour 5.Observed ringedLesser at Geese the White-fronted Valdak Marshesin2004–2008.Abbreviations: S = spring, A= from Lakselv, andlocalized the LWfG together withStateNatureInspectorate(SNO) orwentbyfoot islets. Onseveraloccasionswesurveyedthe PorsangenFjord elwRd(ih)FS20 25.05.2000 2005 2004 27.05.2002 2005 S+A Yellow (right) S 2004 Máddu F Yellow (right) S 22.05.2006 2008 F Yellow (right) S 2007 2006 M Yellow-Red (right) S+A 2008 M Yellow-Red (right) S+A F A (left) White-Green 2007 S F (left) White-Green 2006 27.05.2002 F S+A Red-White (right) F Mánnu Red-White (right) 2005 S F 23.05.2006 Red-White (right) S+A 2007 Red-White (left) F 2006 satellite transmitter Carrying May 2006-April2007 Red-White (left) F 28.05.2004 Finn S+A 2006 A Red-White (left) 2005 M 28.05.2004 25.05.2000 2008 Red-White (left) S M 2007 (right) Red-Orange S 2004 S+A M (right) Red-Orange S+A M M Orange-Yellow (right) S M 2007 Orange-Yellow (right) 28.05.2004 2006 (left) Orange-Red F 11.05.2002 2005 (left) Orange-Red A 2004 S Green-Black (right) M S Black (left) M S -new Black-Red (left) M -new Black-Red (left) M -new Black-Red (left) -old Black-Red (left) Colour code Estimates onbroodsize canbederivedindifferent ways. The No youngLWfG wereseeninthe Varangerfjord areainthe All datafromtheautumnmonitoringaregiven intables3 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project e esnYa b.Rne aeNm Comments Name date Ringed Year obs. Season Sex 2008 A M + 2008 2007 2006 S+A S+A F S F F

fl ock nearor at thecape fi rst staging rst

2000, thepopulation hasdecreased with5.4%annually, totally age 7%annually, butthisisnotstatistically signifi Within thereportperiod (2004–2008)thedecreasewasonaver- tal decreaseof50.7%(see alsoFigure1)inthis15yearperiod. -4.60% annuallyforthis population(p=0.010,n=16),withato- for theyears1993–2008 showsanaveragenegativetrendof tion basedontotalnumbers duringthespringstagingperiod (Øien et al. 1996, Aarvak et al. 1997). A Monte Carlo simula- the period 1992–1997, as estimated by Monte Carlo simulation ing the Valdak Marshesdecreasedonaverageby5% annuallyin We haveearliershown thatthespringnumbersofLWfG utilis- 3.5. Populationtrend resightings canbeviewedin Table 5. been resighted at the Valdak Marshes. The distribution of these the years2004–2008altogetherninedifferent individualshave such asinstagingandwinteringareasHungary orGreece.In have beenresightedeitheratthe Valdak Marshesorabroad, 50 birdsduringtheyears1995–2008. A larger amountofthese Valdak Marshesandthreeinthecore breeding area,atotalof in subsequentyears. Altogether 47LWfG hasbeen ringedatthe Most LWfG ringedatthe Valdak Marshesarebeingresighted 3.4. Colourringobservations (SD=13.1, n=15). tion fortheyears2004–2008. The meanforallyearsis33.6% 34.8, 52.4and27.7%juvenilesintheautumn/winter popula- Nieida Re-captured andprovided satellite transmitter May- Re-captured Nieida

Aarvak &Øien:Monitoring ofstagingLesserAarvak White-fronted GeeseintheInnerPorsangen Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 Overlap ofcodes,Overlap seebelow This -newthathaslost thered isBlack-Red ring (left) This is Yellow-Red (right)thathaslostthered ring December 2006 cant. Since cant. autumn, 009 33 34 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Based onnew knowledgeonthein 80% ofthe breeding birdsthatutilise Valdak asstagingground. used breeding areainFennoscandia, anditmaypossess upto tion. This isespeciallyimportantsinceit isthelastregularly breeding areainNorway fromdisturbanceandhabitatdestruc- protection measuresare carriedoutquicklytosecurethecore duction. Above all,itisofcrucialimportancethatallnecessary therefore importantto identify allfactorsthatmaylimitrepro- secutive yearsoflowreproduction andhighadultmortality. Itis at presentsuchalow level,thatitcannotstandseveralcon- siderable impactonthe populationtrend. The populationsizeis population. Minorchangeswouldmostcertainly haveacon- to reducetheadultmortalityrateinFennoscandian LWfG of vitalimportancethatconservationmeasures areundertaken (Lampila 2001). As discussedby Aarvak &Øien(1999),itis duction doesnothaveassigni However, fortheoverallpopulationdevelopment,goslingpro- vival ofthegoslingsin2004–2008seemsto havebeengood. 2007, andrelativelylowproductionintheother years. The sur- 2008 wasfl The numberofjuvenilesregisteredduringthe autumns2004– 4. Discussion Øien etal.2009foramorethoroughdiscussion onthis). and therebyincreasingalsothemortalityrate for theadults(see the populationprobablymigratedoneastern migrationroute two goslingswereproduced.Becauseofthat, themajorityof has beenattributedtotheverybadbreedingseasonwhereonly cance. The large dropinpopulationsize between2000and2001 also thedecreaseof30%between2006and2007issigni took placebetween2000and2001withadecreaseof35%,but 36.1% (p=0.026,n=9).However, themajorityofdecrease Overview of the Overview Valdak Marshesinmid-May. Ekker, ©Morten 15May 2006 &Øien:Monitoring ofstagingLesserAarvak White-fronted GeeseintheInnerPorsangen Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 uctuating, withgoodgoslingproductionin2006and fi cant impactasdoadultmortality fl uence ofbreedingsuccess fi - Aarvak, 6. References rectorate forNatureManagement,Norway. fairs –Offi support wasprovidedbytheDepartmentofEnvironmental Af- able Ekker attheDirectorateforNatureManagement bothforvalu- help andgoodco-operation. We wouldalsoliketothankMorten Ingebrigtsen at“StabbursnesNaturhusogMuseum” forvarious like tothankdirectorGryIngebretsen, Tove Persen andSvein and personalassistanceduringthe ture Inspectorate(SNO)inLakselvforhisoutstanding logistic 2008. Specialthanksaredueto Torkjell Morsetat theStatena- Many personshavebeeninvolvedintheproject during2004– 5. Acknowledgements Fennoscandian LWfG population. European initiative,couldthusbecrucialforthe survivalofthe ing groundsontheEuropeanmigrationroutethroughacommon among FennoscandianLWfG (seeØienetal.2009). duction inthebreedingareawillalsoincreaseadultsurvival on thechoiceofautumnmigrationroute,securinggoslingpro- An increasedfocusonsafeguardingofthestagingandwinter- fi eld assistance and forverygoodco-operation.Financial 27 &NOFRapportserie ReportNo 1-2009:71–75. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport on theEuropean migrationroute. Final reportoftheEU K. (eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Goose colour ringing.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen, White-fronted Goosebased onindividualrecognitionand Population sizeestimation oftheFennoscandianLesser T ceoftheCountyGovernorFinnmarkand the Di- ., Leinonen, A., Øien,I.J.& Tolvanen, P. 2009 : fi eldwork. We wouldalso Lampila, P. 2001: Adult mortality asakeyfactordetermining Elven, R.&Johansen, V. 1982:SeashoreinFinnmark. Flora, Aarvak, T., Øien,I.J., Tolvanen, P. &Markkola, J.1999 Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2004:MonitoringofstagingLesser Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2003:Moultandautumnmigrationof Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2001:MonitoringofstagingLesser Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2000:MonitoringofLesser White- Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.1999:Monitoringandcatchingofstag- Aarvak, T., ØienI.J.,Syroechkovski Jr., E.E.&Kostadino- Aarvak, T., Øien,I.J.&Nagy,Lesser White- S.1996:The Aarvak, T., Timonen, S.,Øien,I.J., Tolvanen, P. &Markkola, Report no.1-2001: 45–47. & Norwegian OrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapportserie project. Annual report2000. – WWF Finland Report13 noscandian Lesser White-fronted Goose conservation Tolvanen, T., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.).Fen- population growthin Lesser White-fronted Goose.In: (In NorwegianwithEnglish summary). biology andgeology, University of Tromsø, report T-541 vegetation andbotanical protectionvalues.Instituteof Report no.1-1999:27–30. & NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapportserie project. Annual report1998.– WWF FinlandReport10 noscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.).Fen- candian Lesser White-fronted Goosepopulationinplace. Two piecesofthespringmigrationpuzzleFennos- serie no.1-2004:19–24. 20 &NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapport- project. Report2001-2003.– WWF FinlandReportNo Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation the years2001-2003.In: Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S.(eds.): White-fronted Geeseatthe Valdak Marshes,Norway, in Cons. Int.13:213–226. Anser erythropusmappedbysatellitetelemetry. –Bird non-breeding FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Geese Rapportserie Reportno.1-2001:17–22. Report 13&NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOF servation project. Annual report2000.–WWFFinland (eds.). FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goosecon- in 2000.In: Tolvanen, T., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K. White-fronted Geeseatthe Valdak Marshes,Norway, no. 1-2000:24–27. wegian OrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapportserie Report Annual report1999.– WWF FinlandReport12&Nor- dian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservationproject. nen, T., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.).Fennoscan- fronted Geeseatthe Valdak Marshesin1999.In: Tolva- Rapportserie Reportno.1-1999:22–27. Report 10&NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOF servation project. Annual report1998.–WWFFinland (eds.). FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goosecon- in 1998.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K. ing Lesser White-fronted Geeseatthe Valdak Marshes logical Society,. NOFRapportserie.ReportNo.5-1997. programme. Annual report1997.–NorwegianOrnitho- monitoring Goose Lesser White-fronted va, I.1997:The portserie. ReportNo.7-1996. 1996. –NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety. NOF Rap- fronted Goosemonitoringprogramme. Annual report Rapportserie Reportno.1-2000:32–33. Report 12&NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOF servation project. Annual report1999.– WWF Finland (eds.). FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goosecon- markings. In: Tolvanen, T., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K. in north-westernEurope–ananalysisfromindividual J. 2000:SpringmigrationofLesser White-fronted Geese Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project : Sulkava, P., Karvonen,R.& Tolvanen, P. 2009: Øien, I.J., Tolvanen, P., Aarvak, T. &Markkola,J.1999: Øien, I.J., Aarvak, T., Lorentsen, S.-H.&Bangjord,G. Øien, I.J., Aarvak, T., Ekker, M., & Tolvanen, P. 2009 Markkola, J.,Niemelä,M.,&Rytkönen, S.2003 Lorentsen, S.-H.,Øien,I.J., Aarvak, T. 1998:Migrationof Lislevand, T., Folvik, A. &Øien,I.J.2000 27 &NOFRapportserieReportNo1-2009:36–39. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport on theEuropeanmigrationroute.FinalreportofEU K. (eds.):ConservationofLesser White-fronted Goose in 2004–2008.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, White-fronted GooseinFinnishandNorwegianLapland the latespringstagingsitesandbreedingareasofLesser Goose. – Alula 5:18–23. Occurrence andidenti C, Cinclus19:69–76. Anser erythropusatastagingground.–Faunanorv. Ser. population monitoringofLesser White-fronted Goose 1996: Useofindividualdifferences inbellypatches Report No1-2009:12–18. 2009. – WWF FinlandReport27&NOFRapportserie route. FinalreportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005– Lesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conservationof implications forconservationpriorities.In: Tolvanen, White-fronted Goosebreedingpopulationwithprofound ping ofmigrationroutestheFennoscandianLesser spring staging-area.–Ecography26:705–714. tion oflesserwhite-frontedgeese Anser erythropusata vation 84:47–52. ropus mappedbysatellitetelemetry. –Biological Conser- Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Geese Anser eryth- servation SeriesNo. – Cambridge,UK:BirdLifeInternational(BirdLifeCon- rope: Prioritysitesforconservation.1:NorthernEurope. M.F. &Evans,M.I.eds.ImportantBird Areas inEu- Aarvak &Øien:Monitoring ofstagingLesserAarvak White-fronted GeeseintheInnerPorsangen Fjord, Norway, in2004–2008 fi cation ofLesser White-fronted : Norway. In:Heat, Monitoring of : Dietselec- : Map- 35 36 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 The FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goose( 1. Introduction Adult Lesser atWhite-fronted Goose the Tana River mouth,Finnmark, Norway. ©JariPeltomäki, June2008 Lapland in2004–2008 of Lesser inFinnish Goose White-fronted andNorwegian Monitoring ofthelate springstagingsites andbreeding areas Sulkava etal:Monitoring ofthelate springstagingsites andbreeding areas ofLesser White-fronted GooseinFinnish Lapland andNorwegian in2004–2008 and habitat loss (e.g.Madsen1996; UNEP/WCMC2003; Fox considered to becausedmostof all byhighhuntingpressure pairs (Väisänen &Lehtiniemi2004). The dramaticdecline is estimate fortheFinnish breedingpopulationis0–5 confi et al.2001).Sinceacon north-eastern partsEnontekiö andUtsjokimunicipalities(Øien there wereonlyacouple ofbreedingrecordsannuallyinthe continued untilrecent days. Duringthe1980´sand1990´s decrease ofthepopulation startedfromtheearly1900´sandhas dankylä andKittilä,that aresituatedintheborealzone. The in mountainareasofthemoresouthernmunicipalities ofSo- the mainbreedingareas,butscattered alsooccurred land, themunicipalitiesofEnontekiö,Utsjoki andInariwere twentieth century(Norderhaug&Norderhaug 1984).InFin- countries wasestimatedatca10,000individuals intheearly Sweden andNorway. The breedingpopulationintheNordic in sub-arctictundraandforest-tundrazones northern Finland, ropus, hereafter LWfG) population has traditionally bred widely rmed breedingrecords inFinlandandthelatestpublished 2 1 Pekka Sulkava WWF Finland, 10,FIN-00500,FINLAND,WWF Lintulahdenkatu email:[email protected]@gmail.com , Metsähallitus, Natural Heritage Services, Lapland, Peuratie Services, Metsähallitus, NaturalHeritage 15,FIN-99400Enontekiö, FINLAND, email:[email protected] 1 , Risto Karvonen , Risto fi rmed breedingin1995thereisno 2 &Petteri Tolvanen Anser eryth- 2 the LWfG areheadingtowards thebreedingareas inthemoun- Finnish Lapland. These arethe lastspringstagingsites before Utsjoki and Könkämäeno–Lätäseno inEnontekiönorthern bers forshortperiodson themarshesalongrivers Tana in 2004). Onthespringmigration LWfG are staginginlownum- staging LWfG intheareastill2003(Kaartinen&Pynnönen the 1990’s (Tolvanen etal.1998),andthereis anobservationof parts ofFinnmarkand/or northernmostFinlanduntiltheendof was a regular autumn staging area of LWfG breeding in eastern Peninsula (see Tolvanen et al.2009). The Varangerfjord area ful breeders migrate later, also for moulting(Aarvak&Øien2003,etal. 2009).Success- ninsula, KolgujevIslandor Taimyr Peninsulainnorthern Russia grounds alreadyintheendofJuneand Øien etal.2009).Non-breedingbirdsstarttoleave thebreeding wintering areasinGreecearestillonlypartially known(see birds inthevastpotentialbreedinggrounds FinnishLapland. have beenonlyfeworganised surveysinorderto LWfG LIFE-Natureproject1997–2000(Markkola2001)there potential breeding areas annually, but since the previous Finnish 2005, Jonesetal.2008).InFinland,LWfG arestillseencloseto The migrationroutesbetweenNordicbreeding groundsand fi rst towards east to the Kanin fl y easttotheKanin Pe- fi nd breeding ish Lapland, based on available recent information and reported ally (2005–2008) atleastonepotential breeding area inFinn- breeding season, ateamofonetothree personssurveyed annu- (Enontekiö) inlateMay forcatwoweeksannually. Duringthe valley (Utsjoki)andin the Könkämäeno-LätäsenoRivervalley of thelatespringstaging siteswascarriedoutinthe Tana River ing areasbasedonearlier data,asdescribedabove.Monitoring WWF-Finland. The surveysweredirected tothemostpromis- and NorwegianLapland withhelpofvolunteersorganised by surveys ofspringstaging aswellbreedingLWfG inFinnish pland NaturalHeritage ServicesofMetsähallitusimplemented During theLWfG EULife-Natureproject(2005–2009)theLa- 2. Materialandmethods spring hasbeenobservedatthe Valdak Marshes. seen inthe Tana Rivervalleyandthatlateronduring thesame tains, butthereisalsoobservationsofLWfG thathavebeen Table ofLesser 1.Surveys andobservations inFinnish Goose White-fronted Laplandin2004–2008. andNorwegian 08Autumn, 2008 Summer, Norwegian 2008 Summer, Finnish 2008 08Srn, nnei 6My19May 16May Spring, Tana River 2008 Spring, Enontekiö 2008 Autumn, 2007 Summer, Norwegian 21May 2007 Summer, Finnish 2007 20May Spring, Tana River 2007 Spring, Enontekiö 2007 Autumn, 2006 Summer, Norwegian 2006 Summer, Finnish 2006 Spring, TanaRiver 2006 Autumn, 2005 Summer, Norwegian 2005 Summer, Finnish 2005 05Spring, TanaRiver 2005 Summer, Norwegian 2004 Autumn, Monitoring 2004 Spring, TanaRiver 2004 area Season, Year Varangerfj core breeding area Lapland valley Varangerfj core breeding area Lapland valley Varangerfj core breeding area Lapland Valley Varangerfj core breeding area Lapland Valley core breeding area Varangerfj Valley Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project ord ord ord ord ord 8Ag30Aug 18 Aug u 12Jun 6Jul 2 Jun 11 Jun 2Ag3Sep 22 Aug 30Aug 15 Aug 29Aug 12 Aug a 0My1 a 16May 16May 20May 6 May 16May 2July 16May 6Jul 15 Jun 5Jun 9 Jun 16 May 16May 7June 30Jul 15May 30 May 10Jun 24 Jul 22 May 31Jul not surveyed 20 Jul 19 Aug 2 Sep 2Sep 19 Aug 3My3 a 9My29May 29May 30May 13 May not surveyed 21May 11 May started ended Monitoring Sulkava etal:Monitoring ofthelate springstagingsites andbreeding areas ofLesser White-fronted GooseinFinnish Lapland andNorwegian in2004–2008 observation First the sameindividual on16May Teppanansaari, Nuvvus,Uts- valley on15–16 May2006(15 ontheSirbmafi valley on29 May2005,onesub-adult birdinthe Tana River Lapland annually: two adult birds in fl LWfG were observed atthelatespringstagingsitesinFinnish 3.1. Monitoringofthelate springstagingsites 3. Results (see e.g. Tolvanen etal.1998). was arrangedannually (2005–2008)inthe Varangerfjord area ranged annuallysincethen.Inlate August, atwo-weeksurvey 2009) in2006,andthebreedingareasurveys havebeenar- tracking conductedbytheLWfG Lifeproject(seeØienetal. the LWfG. This areawasre-locatedasaresultofthe satellite Society, organised, incooperation withtheNorwegianOrnithological recent sightings. In addition, WWF-Finland and Metsähallitus fi atosrainTtlnme Age distribution Total number Last observation eld surveysoftheNorwegian corebreeding areas of – 43 12–16adpairs 24–32 – – – – – – 4 10–14adpairs 20–28 – 3 10–11adpairs+1 ca 21–23 – 1 – – – 2 – – ight inthe Tana River 2 adpairs one fl 2 ad+1subadin subad 1 subad 2 ad ock elds and elds 009 37 38 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 tion reasons. The mainemphasis inthesurveyswason locating exact location ofthebreedingarea is notpublishedforconserva- three rather separate loosecongregations ofbreedingpairs. The x 30km(i.e.ca600km2). Within thisarea thereappearstobe the LWfG pairs foundwerebreedingwithinanareaofca20 km sites locatedbythesatellite transmittersinthesummer2006,and The surveysoftheNorwegian corebreedingareacoveredallthe 3.2.2. Norway Bean Goose(Anserfabalis). area inFinland)sucha reportcouldbecon of LWfG werefound.Inonecase(intheKaldoaiviwilderness period andfi ing LWfG pairs/LWfG broods werereceivedduringtheproject by furtherdetailstobereliable. Also otherrumoursofbreed- in thearearecentyears. This reportcouldnotbecon area basedonanuncon a surveytripwasdirectedtotheformerFinnish corebreeding at leastuntil1995,noLWfG wereobserved.However, in2005 covering alsotheformercorebreedingareaused bytheLWfG In theannualsurveysofpotentialbreeding areasinFinland, 3.2.1. Finland 3.2. Surveysofthebreeding areas 8 individualsinKittiläon28May. in Utsjokion6May, twoindividualsinKolarion21May, and servations reportedbynon-specialistsin2007: twoindividuals four birdsfromEnontekiöinMay2006,andthreedifferent ob- LWfG werereportedinKarigasniemi(Utsjoki)May2005, ish LaplandwerereceivedintheLWfG Lifeprojectperiod:12 1). Inaddition,severaluncon in theSirbma fi joki), twoadultstogetherwithoneyoungbirdintheSirbma in the Tana River ontheborder between Finland andNorway. ©Petteri Polojärvi, May 2006 One ofthelate springstagingsites that theLesser Finnish Laplandisthe stilluseinnorthernmost Geese White-fronted Teppa Sulkava etal:Monitoring ofthelate springstagingsites andbreeding areas ofLesser White-fronted Lapland GooseinFinnish in2004–2008 andNorwegian elds, Tana Rivervalleyon16May2007,andtwoadultpairs eld surveysweredirectedaccordingly, butnosigns fi elds Tana Rivervalleyon16May2008(Table fi rmed report/rumourofaLWfG brood fi rmed LWfG observationsinFin- fi rmed toabroodof fi rmed 20 kmnorth-east oftheUtsjokivillage andtolesserextent the these sites(mainly theSirbma noscandian LWfG population, butthenumbers of LWfG visiting River Valley isapermanentlatespringstagingarea oftheFen- According totheresults ofthesurveysitseemsthat Tana 4. Discussion for theLWfG inthesouthernpartofarea. also traf 2008 survey, whenthere was stillquitealotofsnowcoverleft, torized traf reduce thedisturbance,itwouldbeimportant nottoallowmo- in 2006),becauseuseof4-wheel-drivecarswas permitted. To the disturbanceincreasedin2007(ascompared tothesituation of LWfG withinthesurveyarea. According totheobservations, the lakeshoreiscrossingoneofthreecore breedingareas LWfG breedinginthesouthernpartofarea,astrackto all-terrain vehicleswasobservedtocausedisturbance forthe there isanumberof pairs +5-7pairs)in2008. pairs +4–6pairs)in2007,and12–16 (5–6 pairs+2–3 northern partofthesurveyarea),10–14pairs (2–3pairs+4–5 pairs inthesouthernpart+3middle part +3–4inthe 2006–2008 (Table 1).In2006,10-11 pairswereobserved(4 tance fromsuitableelevatedpointswithgood view. The mainsurveymethodwasobservingbytelescopeatlongdis- LWfG andnottoapproachtheLWfG andtheirneststooclose. Extreme cautionwasexercisedinthesurveysnottodisturb levels ofpossiblepredatorssuchastheRedFox(Vulpes vulpes). from humanactivitiesandreindeerherding,thepopulation tential threatsforLWfG inthearea,especiallydisturbance the mostimportantsitesforLWfG, andonassessingthepo- There isalakeinthesouthernpartofarea, and bythelake In thesurveys,10–16breedingpairswerefound annuallyin fi c bysnowscooterswasobserved tocausedisturbance fi c inthearea beforeLWfG broodsare fi shing huts. Traf fi fi elds on theNorwegianside, ca c toandfromthelakeby fl edged. Inthe nansaari islet gian corebreedingareahasimprovedsigni Lehtiniemi 2004)stillvalid. Finnish populationestimateof0–5breedingpairs(Väisänen& confi ish breedingareas,andalsoontheregularlyreceivedbutun- observations inlatespringclosetopotential/historicalFinn- Thanks areduetoallthebirdwatchersthatcarried outthesur- 5. Acknowledgements gone extinct. Skjåholmen island)untiltheendof1990’s hasmostlikely of thepopulationthatusedtostageinthisarea (especiallythe fjord areain2004–2008,anditcanbeconcluded thatthepart surveys inthetraditionalautumnstagingarea inthe Varanger- importance fortheLWfG. of theRedFox(Vulpes vulpes al. 2009)forfurtherdetails. Also, annualandeffective control cessful breedingseasonforthewholepopulation(seeØienet This relatesalsotothenew for thecriticallyendangeredFennoscandianLWfG population. other humandisturbanceintheareamaybeaseriousthreat occurrences inthearea,andstressedthatoff-road traf nature managementauthoritieswithallthedataonLWfG However, theLWfG LifeprojecthasprovidedtheNorwegian of themanagementthishighlyvaluableareaaregivenhere. For conservationreasonsnosite-relateddetailsorproposals (2006) andthesubsequentannual LWfG Lifeproject,thankstotheresultsofsatellitetracking extremely dif the potentialbreedingareasinmountainarevastand side didnotresultinobservationsofLWfG. Ontheotherhand ansaari issituatedca65kmsouth-eastofthe Valdak Marshes. is situatedca100kmeastofthe Valdak Marshes,and Teppan- Valdak Marshes,PorsangenFjord,Finnmark,Norway. Sirbma Tana Rivervalley, andlaterthesamespring(18–31May)at was however, oneobservationofacolourringedadultLWfG that eas eitherontheNorwegianorFinnishside.In1999therewas, assumed thattheyarebreedinginthesurroundingmountainar- not known,butbasedonthelatespringobservationdatesitis species. The breedingareasoftheLWfG visitingthesesitesare are alsoknownasregularspringstagingsitesofothergoose of theKarigasniemivillage)areverylow. Bothofthesesites Teppanansaari islandontheFinnishside,ca45kmnorth-east Aalto, Pirkka veys and/orreportedtheirsightings,especially: Ari Aalto, Esa Fox, A.D. 2005: Lesser White-fronted Goose Fox, A.D. Anser erythropus. Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2003:Moultandautumnmigration 6. References the corebreedingarea. torate providedvaluablelogisticsupportforthe surveyteamsin and KenG.UglebakkenattheNorwegianState NatureInspec- Jyrki Pynnönen,MarkkuSaarinenandJuhaSihvo. RuneSomby Olli Osmonen,MattiPajunen,JariPeltomäki, PetteriPolojärvi, Pekka Komi,EskoLavikka, Aappo Luukkonen, PetriPiisilä, Eskelin, DickForsman,HeikkiHolmström,Jari Kangasniemi, Our knowledgeofthestatusanddistributioninNorwe- No observationsofLWfG weremadeintheannualautumn The surveysofthepotentialbreedingareasonFinnish rmed sightingsfromthebreedingareas,weconsider fi rst seen(14–17May)stagingattheSirbma In: Kear, J. (ed.).2005.Ducks,Geese andSwans. Volume Bird ConservationInternational 13:213–226. Geese Anser erythropus mappedbysatellitetelemetry. of non-breedingFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted fi Aalto, Matti cult coverby Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project Aalto, Esko Aikio, Jouni Aikio, Toni fi ndings ontheimportanceofasuc- fi eld surveys.Basedontheannual ) populationinthisareaisofvital fi eld surveys(2006–2008). fi cantly duringthe fi elds inthe fi c and Sulkava etal:Monitoring ofthelate springstagingsites andbreeding areas ofLesser White-fronted Lapland GooseinFinnish in2004–2008 andNorwegian Tolvanen, P., Pynnönen,J.&Ruokolainen,K.1998 Väisänen, R.A &Lehtiniemi. T. 2004:Birdpopulationesti- Tolvanen,P., T.& Anufriev, Aarvak,V. 2009: Lesser White- Øien, I.J., Aarvak, T., Ekker, M., & Tolvanen, P. 2009 Øien I.J., Tolvanen, P., & Aarvak, T. 2001:Statusofthecore UNEP World ConservationMonitoringCentre (WCMC) Norderhaug A. &NorderhaugM.1984:StatusoftheLesser Markkola, J.2001: The FinnishLesser White-fronted Goose Madsen, J.1996:International Action PlanfortheLesser Kaartinen, R.&Pynnönen,J.2004:Monitoringtheautumn Jones, T., Martin,K.,Barov, B.,Nagy, S.(compilers)2008: serie reportNo1-2009:12–18. 2009. – WWF Finland ReportNo.27&NOFRapport- route. FinalreportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject 2005– Lesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conservationof implications forconservationpriorities.In: Tolvanen, White-fronted Goosebreedingpopulationwith profound ping ofmigrationroutestheFennoscandian Lesser Wageningen,Netherlands. The servation status –BirdLifeConservation SeriesNo.12. Birds inEurope:population estimates,trendsandcon- mates andtrendsforFinland. In:BirdLifeInternational: No. 27&NOFRapportserie reportNo1-2009:40–43. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009. – WWF Finland Report on theEuropeanmigration route.FinalreportoftheEU K. (eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Goose tember 2008.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen, fronted GoosesurveyonKaninPeninsula,Russia, inSep- Finland ReportNo9:30–32. Goose conservationproject. Annual report1997.– WWF J. &Karvonen,R.(eds.):FinnishLesser White-fronted 1995–1997. In: Tolvanen, P., Ruokolainen,K.,Markkola, on Skjåholmen(Varangerfjord, Finnmark,Norway)in toring ofLesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus Rapportserie reportNo.1-2001:24–25. Report No.13&NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOF servation project. Annual report2000.– WWF Finland 2001. FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goosecon- In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.). breeding areaforLesser White-fronted GeeseinNorway. Cambridge, UK. White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus.UNEP–WCMC, 2003: ReportonthestatusandperspectiveofLesser – Swedish Wildlife Research/Viltrevy 13:171–185. White-fronted Goose Anser erythropusinFennoscandia. No. 1-2001:40–44. wegian OrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapportserie report nual report2000.– WWF FinlandReportNo.13&Nor- Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservationproject. An- Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.).2001.Fennoscandian EU Life/Natureproject1997–2000.In: Tolvanen, P., Commission. ternational, Cambridge,UK,onbehalfoftheEuropean White-fronted Goose(Ansererythropus).–BirdLifeIn- ety, NOFRapportseriereportNo.1-2004:27–28. Finland ReportNo20&NorwegianOrnithologicalSoci- Goose conservationproject.Report2001–2003.– WWF monen, S.(eds.):FennoscandianLesser White-fronted jord area,Norway, in2001–2003.In: Aarvak, T. & Ti- migration ofLesser White-fronted Goosein Varangerf- cal SeriesNo.36.Bonn,Germany. White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus.– AEWA Techni- vation ofthe Western PalearcticPopulationoftheLesser International SingleSpecies Action PlanfortheConser- 1:286–289. –OxfordUniversityPress,UK. : Moni- : Map- 39 40 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 LWfG onKaninPeninsulaalsospringmigration,butsolate Norway wasthereforeunexpected. Vinogradov (1995)reported tion fromthePorsangenFjordand Varangerfjord, Finnmark, of some800kmtoeastinthebeginningautumnmigra- south orsouth-eastfromthebreedinggrounds. A migrationleg noscandian LWfG would migrate in autumn directly towards assumed – based on little if any real evidence – that the Fen- the Shoinasettlement(seeLorentsenetal.1998).Earlieritwas the areaaroundmouthofMesnaRiver, ca15kmnorthof wegian breedinggroundsspentseveralweeksinSeptember viduals taggedwithsatellitetransmittersonFinnishandNor- Kanin Peninsula,north-westernRussia(Figure1).Fiveindi- hereafter LWfG) waslocatedonthe White Seacoastofthe Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Geese( In autumn1995,apreviouslyunknownstagingsiteof 1. Introduction Russia, inSeptember2008 Lesser Peninsula, onKanin survey Goose White-fronted Tolvanen etal:Lesser White-fronted onKaninPeninsula, Goosesurvey Russia,inSeptember 2008 and restricted entrance intheperiod 20August 2009 –20September(seeDiscussion). ©Satellite image, Earth Google Lesser inautumn1996isoutlined by Geese White-fronted red. The area outlined by bluealsorepresents the proposed area of hunting ban Figure 1.Aeriel viewofthestudy area. The area covered by of September 2008isoutlined by the survey blue, andthe core area used by the 3 2 1 Petteri Tolvanen The Institute ofEcological ProblemsThe Institute theUralBranchofRussianAcademy ofSciences, oftheNorth, Archangelsk, WWF Finland, Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500, Helsinki, Finland, 10,FIN-00500,Helsinki, WWF Lintulahdenkatu NOF -BirdLife Norway email: [email protected] 1 , Tomas Aarvak Shoyna River 2 & Vladimir Anufriev &Vladimir , Anser erythropus FINLAND, email:[email protected] Mesna River 3 leave theKaninPeninsula(seeLorentsenetal.1998). A part of theFennoscandianLWfG dividesintwobrancheswhenthey lite trackingstudieshaveshownthattheautumnmigrationroute an populationusethisareaasastagingsiteinSeptember. Satel- 1995. Itwasconcluded,thatpracticallythewholeFennoscandi- recorded, including two individuals colour ringed in Finland in gust –12September. Duringthesurvey, some80LWfG were 1996, Tolvanen 1998). The surveycoveredtheperiod26 Au- organized a leucopsis) isbreedingclosetothesurveyarea. of Fennoscandianorigin. A colonyofBarnacleGeese( ception thattheautumnstagingLWfG onKaninPeninsulaare Kanin Peninsula(Jonesetal.2008),andthissupportsthecon- Øien 2003).Nobreedingareas for theLWfG areknownonthe ern areasmigratingformoultingsitesfurthereast(Aarvak& in Junethatthiscouldhavebeennon-breedersfrommorewest- In autumn1996,theFinnishLWfG conservationproject fi eld surveyofthisarea (Luukkonen& Tolvanen KANIN PENINSULA KANIN 8,0 km USA RUSSIA, Branta of thesurvey teamon4September 2008,thewholecoastal survey ofthe samearea12years earlier. At thetimeofarrival serving them–wereconsiderably different fromthepreceding dawn whenitwastoodark toidentifythegeesebyspecies. was counteddaily. Major part ofthemorning to thefeedingsiteson the surroundingtundraandpalsamires roosting sitesonthecoastal meadowsaroundtheMesnaRiver the basecamp. The earlymorning larger areasthanwhatwaspossibletocover by telescope from and muddyconditions, it wasnotpossibletocoverconsiderably boat, but because of the fl area. The surrounding areaswerealsosurveyedbyfootand method provedtobethemosteffective waytocoverthestudy fore thesunriseandendedcahalfanhourafter thesunset. This day lightperiod. The dailyobservationstartedcaonehourbe- oculars andtelescopesfromthebasecamp,covering thewhole on thelaidameadownexttoobservationpoint. since theLWfG gathereddailytodrinkinthefreshwaterponds This provedtobethebestobservationpointin the1996survey, tion) on the southern side of the Mesna River (see Figure 1). southern edgeofthecoastalmeadows(so-called “laida”vegeta- via Mezen,andabasecampwasestablished near ahillonthe survey team 2008. The area covered by the survey is shown in Figure 1. The WWF-Finland. The surveycoveredtheperiod4–14 September, my ofScience, Archangelsk, Russia;Metsähallitus, Finland;and Problems oftheNorthUralBranchRussian Acade- Region, Russia;NOF-BirdLifeNorway;InstituteofEcological by theDirectorateofProtected Areas oftheNenets Autonomous In 2008,anewsurveyontheKaninPeninsulawascarriedout 2. Methods autumn migrationisending. the winteringsitesinNorthernGreecewherealsoEuropean Russian birdsinKazakhstan,turnwestand 2009) itseemsthattheFennoscandianLWfG dividefromthe tracking of three Norwegian LWfG in 2006–2007 (Øien et al. areas astheRussianbreedingpopulation.Basedonsatellite south tonorthernKazakhstan,anduseherethesamestaging crossing the Ural mountains to the Ob River valley and further the populationtakeasouth-easternroutefromKaninPeninsula further southtoNorthernGreeceforwinter. The otherpart of migration routetowardssouth-westtoHortobágy, Hungaryand most ofthefamilieswithjuveniles)takeEuropeanautumn of thepopulation(supposedlymorethanhalf,andsupposedly eiksS a Cygnus Bewick’s columbianus Swan bewickii – 1 Whooper Geese, Swan in 1– Unidentifi Branta total Unidentifi Canada Brent canadensis Barnacale Goose 10002300200040003000 Barnacale Goose Goose, Branta Goose, resident leucopsis migrating Branta – 400 leucopsis 1580 – Table 1.Dailycounts ofgeeseandswans duringthesurvey, 5–13September2008. Unindentifi Bar-headed Anser Lesser Anser White-fronted Goose indicus albifrons Anser Tunda White-fronted Goose 250700500450560400300 Species Scientifi fabalis Bean 1– 2 – Goose rossicus Goose Anser erythropus In 2008,thecircumstances forstaginggeese–andob- The mainsurveymethodwascontinuousobservation bybin- ed ed geese, Anser/Branta resident geese, migrating Anser/Branta ed grey geese Anser sp. fl ew totheareabyhelicopter from Archangelsk Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project at and very dif Branta bernicla Anser/Branta

Cygnus cygnus fl ight ofthegeesefrom 56789 10 11 12 13 c name fi cult terrain and wet fl ight tookplaceat fi nally endup at 1330 40205150590080204600334062005100 210 250270290360300350 0 010 02020 010 50 40100 50250200 20150 80 – 1 – 1 – – 2 – – 300 150 – 630 – 0020 0010 – 50 500 –1500 – – 10002500 September temperatures around8–12degrees Celciusandnightminimum pressures, westerly windsandovercast withdailymaximum more diffi completely different fromthesituationin 1996, madeitmuch and palsamires,toofar awaytobeobserved. This behaviour, of them stayed the whole daylight period feeding on the tundra grey geese(Anserspp. lack offreshwaterponds ontheouterpartsofmeadow, the meadow vegetationappeared fromunderwater. Becauseof the ally decreasedduringthe surveyperiod,andfreshgreencoastal supported bythefactthatwaterlevelon meadowgradu- some daysbeforethearrivalofsurvey. This assumptionwas probably duetoacombinationofspringtideand westerlystorm and tidalchannels. The fresh waterponds(towardsthesouthernedge ofthemeadow) “laida” meadows, brackish water ponds (closer to the river), In 1996,thesameareawasamosaicofextensive lowgrowth meadow southoftheMesnaRiverwas September 2008 the feeding areas onthesurrounding tundra. ©Petteri Tolvanen, Counting themorningfl ightofgeesefrom the coastal meadows to The weather duringthesurveyperiod wasdominatedby low cult toobservethegeese. Tolvanen etal:Lesser White-fronted onKaninPeninsula, Goosesurvey Russia,inSeptember 2008 ) didnotgathertodrink there,butmost fl ooding ofthemeadowin2008was fl ooded byseawater. 009 41 42 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 anceGoe Branta leucopsis Anseranser Brent Goose Goose Barnacle Greylag Goose were relatively lowandratherstable duringthewholesurvey (Anser fabalis rossicus) and White-fronted Geese(A.albifrons), of 9September. over thecoastalmeadow closetothebasecampinafternoon evening of5September, andtwoadultsin bird arrivingfromthe east toroostbytheMesnaRiverin (Table 1). LWfG wereobservedonlyintwo occasions:oneadult Seven speciesofgeese and twospeciesofswanswereobserved 3. Results and identi order toinformthelocalgoosehuntersabout theconservation lage, andameetingwiththelocalresidents was held therein frost inthenight7–8September. ber north-easterlywindsprevailed,andthere wasslightnight and thevisibilitywaslimitedduetomist.During 8–11 Septem- temperatures wellabove0degreesC.Inmany daysitwasrainy 200250 Anserindicus 802 Anseralbifrons Goose Bar-headed Anserfabalisrossicus Ansererythropus Lesser White-fronted Goose White-fronted Goose Tundra Goose Bean area inthe1996and2008surveys. Table 2.Maximumdailycounts ofstaginggeeseandswans inthe September, whenpatches ofthecoastal meadow vegetation to emerge the fl after hadstarted ood. © Petteri Tolvanen,September 2008 situated onthetriangularcapeleft. The river Mesna isvisibleas Aerial viewofthe”laida” meadows onthesouthernsideofMesnariver, facingwest. The pointofthe permanentobservation was survey Tolvanen etal:Lesser White-fronted onKaninPeninsula, Goosesurvey Russia,inSeptember 2008 500360 01 Cygnus columbianus bewickii Cygnus cygnus Branta canadensis Bewick’s Swan Whooper Swan Canada Goose The numbers of other grey geese, i.e. Tundra Bean Geese In theendofsurvey, avisitwasmadeintheShoinavil- fi cation oftheLWfG. Branta bernicla

6Ag–1 e 4–14Sep 26Aug –12Sep 202 300004000 1500700 1 fl ight towardswest 96 2008 1996 2 0 0 1 a curved watercourse onthebackground.a curved The picture September. Two BrentGeese(Brantabernicla migration ofsome2600BarnacleGeesewasobservedon8–9 to ca4000individualstowardstheendofperiod. Westwards creased fromca1000individualsinthebeginningofsurvey period, whilethenumbersofstagingBarnacleGeesein- one wolverine ( by thelocals. huts alongtheMesnaRiver, andthesehutsareregularlyused very fewcartridgecases werefound. There isacoupleof (supposedly goosehunters) wereheardinsomeevenings.Only seen duringthesurvey, and onlyafewveryremotegunshots in theareaduring survey wasverylow. Nopeoplewere these adultswas3.4(scale 1–6,asusedintheLWfG studies). and 97.8%adults.Mean abdominalscoreforasampleof28 one randomsampleof91BarnacleGeese,2.2 %werejuveniles ble tocollectonlyanecdotaldataontheageratio ofthegeese.In coastal meadowsclosetotheroostingsite,also feedingthere. Geese, contrarytothegreygeese,stayed whole dayonthe continued afterdusk.Roughlyhalftheamount oftheBarnacle only intheendofday. The evening but themainpartofgeeseturnedbackto theroostingsite started graduallytoturnbackthecoastalmeadows andponds, and palsamires.Duringtheafternoon, geese andpartoftheBarnacleGeesefl and endingcaonehourafterthesunrise,practically allgrey lar. Inthemorning,startingca45minutes beforethesunrise, was recorded. period. OnlyoneBewick’s Swan( cygnus) increasedfromca200tosome350during the survey dicus) wererecorded. The number of Whooper Swans (Cygnus canadensis) and one Bar-headed Goose ( Goose (B. Of mammal predators only two red foxes ( Human activityanddisturbance forthegeeseandotherbirds Because ofthediffi The dailypatternofthemovementsgeese wasregu- Gulo gulo cult observation conditions,itwaspossi- ) wereseen. Moresurprisingwas the C. columbianusbewickii ew tofeedonthetundra fl ight backto theroost fi rst Vulpes vulpes) and fl ), oneCanada ocks ofgeese istaken on14 Anser in- Anser fi shing ) 20 August –20September intheareade to restrictthe entrancetotheShoininsky Reserveinthe period proposal isto banhuntingof geese and otherwaterfowland also and anewmanagement planiscurrentlybeingdeveloped.Our of theShoininskyReserve isnowadayssituatedin Archangelsk, takes placeinvicinityof theShoinavillage. The administration the area,butmostof goosehuntingbythelocalpopulation ing inthereserve.Inpractice, thereisnohuntinginspectionin defi in 1997,buttheexactborders ofthereservehavestillnotbeen hunting refuge(zakaznik) wasof in thearea1997(Prokosch1997)isunclear. The Shoininsky nen 1998)–,thestatusofShoininskyReserve established observed duringthissurveyandalsointhe1996 survey(Tolva- – i.e.verylowifanyhuntingpressureandother humanactivity arctic geese. infl population. Obviouslythelatespringandcold summerin2008 present inthesurveyareaprobablybelongto localbreeding to themainbreedingareas,andmajorpart oftheBarnacles Kanin Peninsulamaystillhavebeenstaging in theeast,closer major partofthebirdsbreedingonRussian Arctic coastseastof – alsopartlybecauseofthewarmearlyautumn in2008:the fl counted 12 years earlier. We assume this was mainly due to the nacle GeeseandLWfG wereonlyaminorpartofthenumbers in autumn1996(see Table 2).Especially, thenumbersofBar- long asthehabitatissuitable. confi way. Inotherpartsofthe next autumnstagingsiteaftertheInnerPorsangenFjordinNor- Fennoscandian LWfG tend to use the Mesna River site as the staging areas. need formoresatellitetrackinginordertolocatetheunknown site wheretheymayfacethreatslikehunting,andthusthereis LWfG. Inyearslike2008theLWfG mayuseanotherstaging full controlontheSeptemberstagingsitesofFennoscandian now weare“onestepbackwards”knowingthatdon’t have them thisyear. due tothefl during the survey without being observed, and discovered that have passedbyandscoutedthearea(e.g.duringnighttime) survey. ItcannotbeexcludedthattheFennoscandian larger numbers of LWfG were not present in the area during the area forLWfG) wascomprehensiveenoughtoconclude,that rienced birdwatchers,coveringdailythewholesupposedcore migration timeduringthewholedaylightperiodbyfourexpe- vation effort (continuousobservationfortendaysinthepeak unknown stagingsite,insteadofthistraditionalsite. The obser- noscandian LWfG sion isthatinfl were dramaticallylowerthanexpected. A consequentconclu- The main 4. Discussion were recordedinNorwayduringthesurveyperiod. make sure that the LWfG had left from there, and no LWfG Norway, weresurveyedsimultaneouslywiththissurveyto 1996 and2008surveysisavailablein Appendix. notated checklist of the bird species observed in the area in the total absenceofarcticfoxes( ooding ofthecoastalmeadows,and–forBarnacleGoose Although theareaseemstobesafeforautumn staginggeese The numbersofstaginggeesewereconsiderablylowerthan However westillassume,basedonearlierrecords,thatthe This hasalsodirectimplicationsfortheLWfG conservation: The LWfG staging grounds in the Inner Porsangen Fjord, uenced thetimingofbreedingandsuccess ned. Itseemsthattherearenoeffective limitationsforhunt- ned tocertaintraditionalstagingand wintering sites, as fi nding ofthesurveywasthatnumbersLWfG ood onthemeadowsitewasnot suitable for ooded conditionslikeinautumn2008, theFen- Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project fl ock isapparentlyforcedtochooseanother fl yways, theLWfG areveryclearly Alopex lagopus fi cially established(onpaper) fi ned inFigure1. The ). A completean- fl ock may Vinogradov, V. G.1995 : Lesser White-fronted Gooseon No- Tolvanen, P. 1998:Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythro- Mar), Mr. Alexey Eruzhnets(interpreterofthe of Protected Areas oftheNenets Autonomous Region,Naryan sähallitus, Finland),Mr. Vyacheslav Evdokimov(Directorate nen (WWF Finland LWfG project), Mr. Petteri Polojärvi (Met- their effort andgoodcompanyinthe We wanttothanktheotherparticipantsofsurveyforall 5. Acknowledgements situation. and White-fronted Gooseispracticallynotpossibleinahunting the goosehuntingtoBeanGoose,becauseseparatingLWfG community inShoinatheendofexpedition–istodirect area –thatwebroughtupalsointhemeetingwithlocal Another practicalconservationproposalfortheLWfG inthis proposal isbasedonthecombined1996and2008surveydata. Øien, I.J., Aarvak, T., Ekker, M.,& Tolvanen, P. 2009 Prokosch, P. 1997: Detectedbysatelliteand protected within survey. The surveywas madepossiblewithfi we wanttothankalsoforgoodadvancearrangementsthe Ural BranchoftheRussian Academy ofScience, Archangelsk) Davydov (InstituteofEcologicalProblemstheNorth Mr. Vasili Eruzhnets.Mr. EvdokimovaswellMr. Alexander Luukkonen, J.& Tolvanen, P. 1996 Lorentsen, S.-H.,Øien,I.J., Aarvak, T. 1998:Migrationof Jones, T., Martin,K.,Barov, B.,Nagy, S.(compilers)2008: Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2003:Moultandautumnmigrationof 6. References Metsähallitus, Finland. Cooperation, theLWfG EULifeproject, WWF Finland,and through theprogrammeforNorwegian-RussianEnvironmental from theNorwegianDirectorateforNatureManagement(DN) terfowl Research GroupNewsletter 8:11–12. vaya Zemlya andtheKaninPeninsula. – Threatened Wa- Finland ReportNo9:33–35. Goose conservationproject. Annual Report 1997.– WWF J. &Karvonen,R.(eds.): FinnishLesser White-fronted Reserve. –In: Tolvanen, P., Ruokolainen,K.,Markkola, September, 1996,and theestablishmentofShoininsky pus expeditiontotheKanin Peninsulain26 August –12 Report No1-2009:12–18. –2009. – WWF Finland Report27&NOFRapportserie route. FinalreportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject 2005 Lesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conservationof implications forconservationpriorities.In: Tolvanen, White-fronted Goosebreedingpopulationwith profound ping ofmigrationroutestheFennoscandian Lesser – WWF Arctic Bulletin1997(1):16. 16 months:ShoininskiReserveestablished onKanin. September 1996.– WWF Arctic Bulletin1996(4):21. erythropus) expeditiontotheKaninPeninsula in August- tection joinforces.Lesser White-fronted Goose(Anser vation 84:47–52. ropus mappedbysatellitetelemetry. BiologicalConser- Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Geese Anser eryth- cal SeriesNo.36.Bonn,Germany. White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus.– AEWA Techni- vation ofthe Western PalearcticPopulationoftheLesser International SingleSpecies Action PlanfortheConser- Cons. Int.13:213–226. Anser erythropusmappedbysatellitetelemetry. –Bird non-breeding Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Geese Tolvanen etal:Lesser White-fronted onKaninPeninsula, Goosesurvey Russia,inSeptember 2008 : Speciesandspacespro- fi eld: Mr. RistoKarvo- nancial support nancial fi eld team)and : Map- 009 43 44 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 © János Tar can bewell appliedingrazing with nature purposes. conservation the various vegetation steppe andthat of thealkali iswhy types it The impressive, utilizes ancientHungarian Grey Cattle perfectly activities (Pullin&Knight2003,Sutherlandetal.2004).Based ated onlyiftheireffects arefollowedupbyregularmonitoring cess orfailureofconservationmeasures,however, canbeevalu- safe, hunting-freeareasofHortobágyNationalPark. The suc- number ofindividualsandthedurationtimeLWfG spendin provide anoptimalstagingsiteforLWfG andtoincreasethe of projectcoordinatorsSzabolcsLengyelandZoltánEcsedi. bágy NationalParkDirectorate(HNPD),andwiththeassistance sion ofJános Tar asprojectmanagerandwiththehelpofHorto- the taskscarriedoutduringLIFEprojectundersupervi- during thesepilotactivitieswasusedtodesignandimplement activities fundedbydifferent sources. The experiencegained had beenpreviouslytestedbeforetheprojectthroughvarious gion ineasternHungary. The practicalconservationmeasures erythropus, hereafterLWfG) LIFEprojectintheHortobágyre- within theframeworkofLesser White-fronted Goose( This articlepresentsthemainconservationmeasuresconducted 1. Introduction in2004–2008 in theHortobágy Conservation measures to protect Lesser Geese White-fronted Ecsedi etal:Conservation measures to protect Lesser White-fronted in2004–2008 GeeseintheHortobágy The primaryaimsoftheconservationmeasureswereto 3 2 1 Zoltán Ecsedi Department ofEcology, ofDebrecen,Department University NationalParkHortobágy Directorate, EnvironmentalHortobágy Association, 4060Balmazújváros, Esze Tamás u. 8., 1 , JánosTar 2 &SzabolcsLengyel HUNGARY HUNGARY 3 Anser dred hectares (ha)offi habitats for LWfG wasidenti long springstagingperiods inHortobágy. The idealmosaicof the projectareaduringtheir 6–8-weeklongautumnand4-week- long-term andwhichensures thatLWfG lessfrequently leave ment tasksthatprovide fortherequirementsofLWfG over the tifi knowledge ontheecological statusoftheprojectareaandiden- planned. bágy) onlymonitoring andawareness-raisingactivitieswere fi frequently usedbyLWfG (e.g. Virágoskúti, Elepi,Bivalyhalmi were concentratedinthecoreprojectarea.In areas thatareless cies otherthanLWfG. Habitatmanagementactions(seebelow) project alsocontributeslargely totheconservationofbirdspe- conservation importance(e.g.Crane project areaconsistsofhabitatspreferredby otherspeciesof ing theareaslong-termorisusedforextensive and ismanagedeitherbygrazingmowing byfarmersleas- the projectareaisownedbystateandmanaged byHNPD, a rangeof6kmtheFishponds(Figure1.).Most (ca.90%)of ing sites(marshes,meadows,grasslandsand croplands) within sites ofLWfG onHortobágyFishpondsandfeedingrest- National Parkandencompassesthemostimportant roosting for theprotectionofwetlands. most oftheprojectareabelongsunderRamsar Convention by BirdLifeInternational,aUNESCO World Heritagesiteand 2000 code:HUHN10002),anImportantBird Area designated ed undertheBirdsDirectiveofEuropeanUnion(Natura The entireNationalParkisaSpecialProtection Area designat- the projectareaas10,000hawithinHortobágyNationalPark. cal andrecentdatafromtheperiod1970–2006. We designated we studiedindetailthetraditionalstagingsitesusinghistori- neither huntingnorotherdisturbancesoccur. As a LWfG inprotectedareasofHortobágyNationalPark,where tained inthelong-term. We de address thesethreats,weexploredsolutionsthatcanbemain- human activities,e.g.agriculture,huntingandeco-tourism. To nally, thethirdthreatwasdisturbancearising fromvarious used bythespeciesforroostingandfeedingduringstaging.Fi- and poaching.Secondwasthelossdeteriorationofhabitats and mostimportantwasthemortalityofLWfG duetohunting species (Madsen1996),weexploredthreedistinctthreats.First ties. InlinewiththepreviousInternational Action Planforthe area usingexperiencegainedinpreviousconservationactivi- important threatstoLWfG duringtheirstagingintheHortobágy As afi 2. Conservationmeasures: designandimplementation LWfG inregularmonitoring(see Tar et al.2009). management actionsdescribedaboveandtheoccurrencesof on thisprinciple,wehavestudiedboththeeffect ofthehabitat shponds, Egyek-Pusztakócsmarshes, Tisza Lake,Kis-Horto- ed themostimportantconservationmeasures andmanage- After designatingtheproject area,wesummarisedavailable The projectareaislocatedinthenorthernparts ofHortobágy rst stepinthe designoftheproject,weassessedmost HUNGARY, email: [email protected] shponds maintained atlowwaterlevels, fi ed asonecomprising severalhun- fi ned ourgeneralgoalastokeep Grus grus ), therefore,the fi shery. The shery. fi rt step, rst of grasslands likelytobeusedby LWfG before theirarrivalto The aimof this action(actionD2) was toimprovethecondition 3.2. Managementbygrazing andirrigationtoprovide safe of LWfG feeding ontheselandsseveraloccasions. and wehavealsoobserved boththemain Greater White-fronted Geese( crops offered attractedCranes,GreylagGeese ( that year(e.g.sun annually intheKecskésarea,wherecrops otherwisegrown target landsandoffered themforgeeseon25–30hacroplands outside theNationalPark. We thentransferredthesecropstothe annually between2006and2008fromfarmers cultivatinglands project area. We purchased30tonnesofcrops(cornandwheat) on croplandstoattractgeesefeeding lands withinthe fl (and undisturbed)untillateNovember-early Decemberifgoose For example,farmersagreedtoleavetheircrops unharvested turbed useoftheselandsforLWfG andothergoosespecies. for continuedcultivationbythefarmers,which ensuredundis- gotiated andintroducedintheleasingcontracts additionalrules leased bylocalfarmerswithintheprojectarea (100ha),wene- these landsonseveraloccasions.InHNPD-managed lands in highnumbersandwealsohaveobservedLWfG feedingon age forgeese. These areashavebeenusedbyCranesandgeese grown cropsweremowedandleftinplaceonthelandsforfor- by HNPDineachofthreeyearsbetween2006and2008. The wheat) preferredbyLWfG andothergeeseon44hamanaged sub-actions. First,weextensivelycultivatedcrops(cornand ders ofHortobágyNationalPark. This activityincludedtwo ing-free feedingsitesforLWfG oncroplandswithinthebor- The aimofthisaction(actionD1)wastoprovidesafe,hunt- 3.1. Establishingsafefeedingsitesonhunting-free croplands 3. Results sults) duringtheproject. (actions D1,D2,D3,seeRe- habitat managementactions designed andimplemented all theserequirements,we area. Inordertoprovidefor on themwithintheproject able foodgrownoroffered such croplandswithavail- also importanttoprovide of othergoosespecies,itwas plands whentheyjoin LWfG occasionallyusecro- years ofdrought.Because and marshes,especiallyin of shallowfl intensively grazedshorelines is necessarytomaintainthe animal perha.Inaddition,it of nativegrazersreachesone grazing, wherethedensity by ecologicallysustainable The lattercanbemaintained in thespringandautumn. after daysofprecipitation grasses preferredbyLWfG lands withfreshgrowthof 100–200 haofshortgrass- ocks usedtheir landsforfeedinginOctober-November. Secondly, weoffered cropsgrownandpurchasedelsewhere feeding sitesonhunting-free grasslands ooded meadows Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project fl ower) would nothaveattractedgeese. The fl ocks Anser albifrons) inhighnumbers, eff the pairsofmanagedandcontrol sites monitored to evaluate theeffi Figure 1.Mapofthecore area project showing themajorlocations and ofhabitat management actions orts. fl ockandindividuals Anser anser ) and Kecskés chamomilla, Plantagotenui dovina andothergrasseshalophyteplants(e.g. LWfG intheHortobágyareaarenewshootsof the Hortobágyareainautumn. The mostimportantforageof 5 and6:2.5m dubium, Poabulbusa ophilaverna,Cerastium lia limosa,Festucapseudovina,Er (Kondás-pond: 5million m The target sitesforthisactionweretheHortobágy Fishponds sites wherewaterlevels areoptimalforLWfG andothergeese. The aimofthisaction (actionD3)wastoprovideroosting 3.3. Maintainingroosting sitesby f ooding after theproject. irrigation equipmentthatwillbeusedforLWfG conservation purchased fourmobileunitsofelectricfences and threeunitsof year. Forthesuccessfulimplementation ofthisaction,wehave cal statusofthesitesasassessedinJulyandto weatherineach The durationofgrazingandirrigationwasadjusted tothelo- growth afterthesummerinactiveperiodof the target plants. the temporarilyfenced-off areafor2–3weekstoinducefresh in eachyear(2006–2008),weirrigatedthe grasslands within at nocosttotheproject. farming companyandotherlocalfarmersprovided thisservice latter activitywasnotplannedintheoriginal projectandthe and meadowormarshshorelinezonesdepending onyear. The able, intensivegrazingbycattleon120–230 ha drygrasslands for theearlyspringmigrationbyallocatingecologically sustain- and 2008.Inaddition,weestablishedgrassland feedingsites (Dinnyés-lapos, CserepesandRókás)annually between2006 management wascarriedoutonatotalof70hainthreesites 4–5 weeksbeginninginmid-Julyuntiltheendof August. This temporary (mobile)electricfencesaroundthepreferredsitesfor allocated cattle-grazingonc.70halandfencedoff byinstalling growth ofthesespeciesbythetimeLWfG arrival,we m roosting sites intheautumnandon Dinnyés-lapos(0.2million we purchased watertokeepthetarget waterbodiesathalf water media andChenopodiumspp 3 After thegrazingended,inlate August andearlySeptember ), whichisalso importantinthespring. To achievethisgoal, Hortobágy fiHortobágy shponds Cserepes Ecsedi etal:Conservation measures to protect Lesser White-fronted in2004–2008 GeeseintheHortobágy 3 totalvolume),whichare primarilyimportantas shponds Rókás fromspringtoautumn,plusSpergularia f 3 ora,Myosurusminimus,Puccinel- ciency ofthehabitat management ciency watervolumeand . intheautumn). Dinnyés-lapos T o inducefresh fi Festuca pseu- shpond units shpond Matricaria fi rst 45 46 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 every year of the project, this action successfully provided un- exclusively used these managed sites for roosting in practically LWfG duringtheirspringmigration.BecauseLWfG almost nyés-lapos inFebruary-Marchtoprovidearoostingsitefor fronted Geese. ©János Tar achieved in the most preferred feeding sites of Lesser White- livestock enclosed there, conditions were short-grass rapidly With fences theapplication ofmobileelectric andby grazing pond evenforfeeding. LWfG. As aresult,onmanydays,LWfG didnotleavethe of thelakebed,whichprovedtobeapreferredfeedingsitefor early successionalherbaceousplantsonthedry, exposedparts 5 and6.Keepingwaterlevelshalfalsoinducedthegrowthof annually between 2005 and 2008 on Kondás or gained intheyears.Floodingwasconductedlatesummer levels, whichhasprovedoptimalforgeesebasedonexperience Table ofplannedandcompleted (fp. actions. conservation 1.Summary =fi Ecsedi etal:Conservation measures to protect Lesser White-fronted in2004–2008 GeeseintheHortobágy winter andearlyspring(2006,2008),wealso ing habitatforLWfG. Inaddition,inyearsofextremelydry the marsh,creatingaroostingsitethatwasalsopreferredfeed- so thatwaterhasalsofl D1 / 1 Goose food Goose grown on140haeach D1 /1 Plan Action 25 agae n riae ahya 0 agae,7 airgtd190hagrazed, 70ha EitherKondáspondorFishpond 300hagrazed, 70hairrigated D3 50hagrazed andirrigated eachyear D2 food Goose off ered on25haeach D1 /2 Dinnyés-lapos wasfi year regulated to optimalwater levels years) plusDinnyés-lapos (eachyear) fp.)units 5-6(Hortobágy (alternating year lled upinlatesummer2007and2008 ooded theshort-grass feedingsitesnear os odgono 4 aGoosefood grown on Goose food grown on140ha precipitation inDinnyés-lapos) level (enoughwater from fp.) regulated to optimal Kondás pond(Hortobágy 38.8 tons corn 37.8 tons corn off ered on44ha Results in2006 fi fi shpond units shpond lled upDin- fi sh- at theannual Hortobágymeetingof birds asits central theme. The project wasalsopresented twice of staging sites intheconservation oflong-distancemigrant 2008, weorganized ascienti is availableforfreetoall thosewhoareinterested.InNovember awareness-raising booklet on the project (1600 copies), which tional LIFE-project(kislilik.hnp.hu). We publishedageneral larly updatedawebsite fortheHortobágypartofinterna- nature conservation. As afi Fennoscandian population ofLWfG toallpeopleinvolved in conservation measures inHungary the maintenance ofthe vulnerability ofthespeciesandfundamental importanceof ists anddecision-makers. We specifi mented in this project and the results achieved to conservation- gered statusofthespecies,conservation measuresimple- conservation activities. identi conservation statusoftheFennoscandianLWfG population,the in theNimródhuntingmagazinewhichwe wroteaboutthe At thenationallevel,weapproachedhunters through anarticle A4-format informativelea this cooperationbypreparingandcirculating 1000 copiesofan hunts tofurtherreducetherisksLWfG. We have addedto of jointactions,e.g.releasinglocationsand timesofgoose- of LWfG intheHortobágyareaanddiscussedpossibility hunting season. We have presented our results on the space use meetings withthesehuntingassociationsbefore thestartof National Park.Beginningin2006,wehaveorganised several associations operatingaroundtheprojectareaandHortobágy species. Ourprimarytarget group,therefore,werethehunting tion statusofLWfG andtotheexpectedlocaloccurrenceof how to determine the species, to draw attention to the conserva- similar toonethatcanbelegallyhunted. We aimedtoteach is essentialtoinvolveintheprotectionofaspeciesthatvery present ourprojecttothehunters,stakeholdergroupthat this globallyendangeredspecies. to drawtheattentionofconservationistsanddecision-makers the LWfG tothisincreasinggroupofconservation‘stars’ and tions, articles,pressmaterialsandwebsite,westrivedtoadd than tomostspecies. Through ourawareness-raisingpresenta- for whichmuchgreaterattention,energy andmoneyisdirected spectacular large species (e.g. Great Bustard Otis tarda, Cranes) Eagle such asraptors(ImperialEagleAquilaheliaca other areasoflife,conservationalsoappearstohave‘stars’, sults intheprotectionofbirdsHungary. However, asinmost In thelastdecade,conservationistshaveachievedsigni 3.4. Awareness-raising activities areas ofHortobágyNationalPark. disturbed, protectedroostingsiteswithinthesafe,hunting-free shpond) Our secondtarget was topresentthecurrentcriticallyendan- The primaryaimofourawareness-raisingactivitieswasto fi cation ofthespeciesandpossibilitiesjoining Haliaeetus albicilla Haliaeetus regulated to optimallevel Dinnyés- andBocza-lapos fp.),6 (Hortobágy plus Kondás pondandunit irrigated off ered on63ha 140 ha Results in2007 rst step,we havepreparedandregu- or Saker Falcon fl et writtenexclusively forhunters. fi c workshopwiththeimportance cally aimedtohighlightthe fi eld ornithologists, twiceat Results in2008 regulated to optimallevel fp.) andDinnyés-lapos Kondás pond(Hortobágy irrigated 200 hagrazed, 70ha off ered on44ha 30 tons corn 140 ha Goose food grown on Falco cherrug ) or Falco , White-tailed fi cant re- preceding the project,wemoreoften observed LWfG oncrop- attracting LWfG. It has to be noted, however, that in the years site ortransferred tothesite,hasproved moderatelyeffective in drinking andrestingplaces. Offering crops, eithergrownon- on theintensivelygrazed shorelineoffered excellentfeeding, preferred, whereshallow waterandhalophyteplantsgrowing feeding sites. The southernendofDinnyés-lapos washighly ing inextremelydryautumns alsoprovedeffective inproviding the mainfoodsourcefor LWfG. Irrigation,coupledwith tant inmaintaininghalophyte plantassociations,whichprovide Ecologically sustainable grazingbycattlewasprimarilyimpor- resting sites around the roosting sites were similarly important. for boththemain for roostingandthesesitesservedasthemain centreofactivity and marsheswithlowwater-level wereusedalmostexclusively roosting sitesarecentraltothehabitatuseofLWfG. Fishponds actions (Table 1). The most important lessonslearnedwerethat achieve morethanplannedwithinthebudget allocatedtothe agement actionsasplannedandinseveralcases wecouldalso In summary, wecompletedeachofthethreemajorhabitatman- 4. Discussion:summaryandremaining threats conservation activitiestosaveLWfG fromextinction. favourable effect on thesupportandimplementationoffurther LWfG hasincreasedconsiderablyinHungaryanditwillhavea As aresult,awarenesstotheextraordinarythreatened statusof ested decision-makersand6000huntersinthe projectduration. our projecthasreachedcloseto2000conservationistsandinter- ing theawareness-raisingactivities,informationonLWfG and (e.g. thenationalnewschannelHírTV)inashorterform.Dur- in themostreadlocalnewspaper, andonseveralnewsportals was foundshotinGreece April 2008,wepublishedanarticle tures to university students. After an individually marked LWfG regional conservationconferencesandfourtimesininvitedlec- fi shponds. © Petteri 2008 Tolvanen ,October NationalPupils Park visiting the Hortobágy studying the information sign of the Lesser byWhite-fronted LIFE project Hortobágy Goose the Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project fl ock andindividualsofLWfG. Feedingand fl ood- Tar, J.,Ecsedi,Z.&Lengyel,S.2009 Sutherland, W. J., A. S.Pullin,P. M.Dolman, and T. M. Pullin, A. S.,and T. M.Knight.2003:Supportfordecision Madsen, J.1996:International Action Planforthe Lesser 6. References ing thisproject. torate (directorIstvánSándor)forsupporting us inimplement- We thankallourcolleaguesatHortobágy NationalParkDirec- 5. Acknowledgments which isthemosttraditionalstagingsiteofLWfG inHungary. term protectionofthespecies,especiallyin coreprojectarea, conservation measureswillneedtobecontinuedforthelong- management ofthewaterlevelsonnearbyroostingsites. These ures aimedforgeeseandcranescanbecoupled,alongwiththe goose speciesandcranes.Consequently, theconservation meas- Offering foodoncroplands,however, workedgreatlyforother offering food on croplands is more successful in certain years. lands thanduringtheprojectyears. Therefore, itislikelythat 27 &NOFRapportserie ReportNo 1-2009:48–52. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport the European migrationroute.Final reportoftheEU (eds.): Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on 2008. In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J. &Ruokolainen,K. White-fronted Geesein Hortobágy, Hungaryin2004– tion. – Trends inEcology&Evolution19:305-308. Knight. 2004: The needforevidence-basedconserva- proach. –JournalforNature Conservation11:83-90. making inconservationpractice:anevidence-based ap- Cambridge, UK. International, onbehalfoftheEuropeanCommission, White-fronted Goose(Ansererythropus). – BirdLife Ecsedi etal:Conservation measures to protect Lesser White-fronted in2004–2008 GeeseintheHortobágy : MonitoringofLesser 009 47 48 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 sign ofthemonitoring system(Lengyel etal.2009). The experi- in theHortobágy areaalsoprovided relevantinsightintothe de- tivities. Furthermore, adetailed analysis of LWfG occurrences the projecthadbeenpreviously testedthroughvariouspilotac- ellite-tagged individuals. The monitoringsystem establishedin LWfG inthe Hortobágyareaandtorecordcolour-ringed orsat- (ii) tocollectdetaileddata ontheoccurrencesandspaceuseof actions carriedoutinthe project(seeEcsedietal.2009)and gather informationonthe effectiveness of habitat management project. to monitoringactivitiesintheHungarianpart of theLWfG Life this principle,wehaveallocatedsigni tivities (Pullin&Knight2003,Sutherlandetal. 2004).Basedon only if their effects are followed up by regular monitoring ac- success orfailureofallconservationmeasures canbeevaluated tensity) monitoringactivitiesin2004arepresented here. The tobágy regionineasternHungary. Also resultsofthe(lowerin- (Anser erythropus , hereafterLWfG) EULifeprojectintheHor- ducted withintheframeworkofLesser White-fronted Goose This article presents the results of the monitoring activities con- 1. Introduction ©Pettericontinuous observation. Tolvanen, 2008 October János Tar, inHungary, themanagerofLIFE project sites for kept theLesser themostimportant inHortobágy under Geese White-fronted Hungary, in2004–2008 Monitoring ofLesser inHortobágy, Geese White-fronted Tar etal:Monitoring ofLesser White-fronted in2004–2008 GeeseinHortobágy The primaryaimsof the monitoringactivities were:(i)to 3 2 1 János Tar Department ofEcology, ofDebrecen,Department University EnvironmentalHortobágy Association, NationalParkHortobágy Directorate, 4024Debrecen, Sumenu. 2., 1 , Zoltán Ecsedi 2 &SzabolcsLengyel fi cant andconsistent effort HUNGARY HUNGARY 3 HUNGARY, email:[email protected] fi general project areaandtheneighbouring relevantareas (Elep Gábor Tihanyi, whoregularly studiedthegoose nithologists helpinghim wereHNP rangers Attila Szilágyiand Virágoskút (Hortobágy Fishponds, Cserepes, Ludas-rét, Dinnyés-lapos, ry. Jánoshaskeptthemost importantsitesofLWfG occurrence contribution ofotherornithologists fromHortobágyandHunga- and isbeingcoordinated byProjectManagerJános Tar withthe that havebeenstarted in theearly1990’s andwhichhasbeen have beenacontinuation andextensionofmonitoringactivities The monitoringactivitiesoftheLWfG LifeprojectinHungary 2. Methods gary. with thehelpofnumerousornithologistsinHortobágy andHun- project coordinatorsSzabolcsLengyelandZoltán Ecsedi,and National ParkDirectorate(HNPD),andwith theassistanceof János Tar asprojectmanager andwiththehelpofHortobágy and implementthemonitoringsystemunder supervisionof ence gainedduringthesepreviousactivitieswas usedtodesign shponds, Vókonya: A.Sz., Kecskésgrasslands andBivalyhal- fi shponds) undercontinuousobservation.Other or- fl ocks inthe marshes, Tisza LakeandBorsodiMez also extendedthemonitoringsystemtoEgyek-Pusztakócs and theresultsofspaceusestudy(Lengyeletal.2009),we document LWfG individuals.Basedonpreviousobservations servation towers,purchasedavideocameraandtele-lensto searching forandobservingLWfG, weinstalled contributed tothemonitoringsystem. To aidtheconditionsof Nature Protection Association andBirdLifeHungaryhavealso mi for LWfG basedonpreviousobservations(seeLengyeletal. wetlands andgrasslandsthathaveprovedthemostimportant in theHortobágyregionwasstudiedbyregularchecksof occurrence, control site(seeFigure1.forlocations)in2006. The general managed grasslandsandcroplandsasimilarnon-managed, project wasstudiedindetailbyweeklycensusesofallbirdson in 2008. Lesser grazing Geese White-fronted onthemudfl ats ofthe Kondás shpond. Asaactions resultofthe habitat bytheLIFE managementfi b a Managed Grassland Habitat Species censusesin weekly over 13weeks intheautumnof2006. control grasslands andcultivated vs. control croplands). Data are from pairsofmanagedvs. control sites (seeFig. 1for locations) collected Table 1. Mean (+ S.E.) number of individuals counted on and lands on managed similar,in the project non-managed control lands

Tar, September 2008 on thehardly visible pioneer plants growing onmudfl ats onthemargins ofthe shpond.fi Two oftheindividuals wear legrings. ©János project, Kondás isnot onlyaroosting site, butalsoafeeding site for the Lesser White-fronts. The geesecanstay thewhole day here, feeding

Cropland mean number of individuals observed on13occasions meannumberofindividualsobserved Wilcoxon matched-pairs test The effect ofhabitatmanagementactionstheLWfG LIFE fi shpond: GT).SeveralvolunteersfromHNPD,Hortobágy fl ock size, Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project fl Grus grus All geese Anser fabalis Anser anser All geese Anser fabalis Grus grus Anser anser Anser albifrons Anser albifrons ock and age structure of LWfG staging őség (“Kis-Hortobágy”) fi 692.8 ±1362.28 504.1 ±1374.39 353.6 ±1085.35 ve newob- 139.2 ±231.73 149.1 ±328.13 39.3 ±108.45 44.3 ±109.56 4.7 ±20.00 1.4 ±4.01 0.3 ±1.60 a Control non-managed controlareas. There wasan important differ- hosted morebirds,bothgeeseandcranes,thandidsimilarbut even inthefi The monitoringofthehabitatmanagementactionsshowedthat 3.1. Effectofhabitatmanagementactions 3. Results viduals thatoverwinteredinmilderweathersomeyears. autumn monitoring,althoughwecoveredalsothosefewindi- activity wasdividedintotwodistinctseasons,aspringandan constant, almostdailysurveillance.Obviously, the monitoring photograph/videotape individualbirdsforlateridenti juveniles separately, whenpossible),toreadcolour-rings orto of occurrence,toobtainanexactcountthebirds(adultsand tify theareasused,todeterminethreatspresentat 2009). The mostimportanttaskswereto Our mainaimwastokeepthemain,Fennoscandianfl 19.2 ±48.86 11.4 ±30.53 19.6 ±64.47 12.1 ±41.62 7.6 ±34.18 0.0 ±0.00 0.0 ±0.00 0.0 ±0.00 0.0 ±0.00 0.0 ±0.00 rst yearofhabitat management,managedlands a Z Tar etal:Monitoring ofLesser White-fronted in2004–2008 GeeseinHortobágy 292 0.004 -2.912 299 0.003 -2.979 202 0.042 -2.032 345 0.001 -3.405 330 0.001 -3.300 100 0.317 -1.000 327 0.001 -3.297 396 0.000 -3.976 202 0.039 -2.062 221 0.028 -2.201 b P fi nd thebirds,toiden- b ock under (grazed vs. fi cation. 009 49 50 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Table 3.Maincharacteristicsoftheautumnmigration ofLesser region, 2004–2008(fp. inthe Hortobágy Geese White-fronted =fi Table 2.Maincharacteristicsofthespringmigration ofLesser region, 2004–2008(fp. intheHortobágy Geese White-fronted =fi Tar etal:Monitoring ofLesser White-fronted in2004–2008 GeeseinHortobágy for themain(Fennoscandian) fl for themain(Fennoscandian) fl ock, project –alsoafeedingproject site. 2009 ©Satellite image, Earth Google fithe Hortobágy shpondsunitsis Kondás, which isthemain roosting site, but–asa oftheLIFE result ofthe habitat management actions Virágoskút fi shponds are roosting sites; Cserepes, Ludas-rét, Dinnyés-lapos are themain feeding areas. andlargest of The northernmost Figure sites 1.Locations for theLesser ofthemostimportant National Park: and intheHortobágy theHortobágy Goose White-fronted Preferred areas Last LWfG observation First LWfG observation flMaximum ocksize Duration ofstay First LWfG observation flMaximum ocksize Duration ofstay No. markedindividuals o fmre niiul 4 Preferred areas No. ofmarkedindividuals No. juveniles Last LWfG observation Tiszacsege a a Hortobágy fi Hortobágy 10 km a a ock, ock, shponds otbg p Kondás, fp.Hortobágy 4 31 5 weeks 2004 3 etme 8Spebr2 etme 1Spebr1 September22 September16 September21 September22 September 18 December 31 b Cserepes, Rókás fp.,Hortobágy Dinnyés-lapos, 59 2 weeks 2004 January 13 January April 12 b somefew individualsoverwintered). few individualsoverwintered). Cserepes Újszentmargita Rókás Ludas-rét b Dinnyés-lapos b Cserepes Bivalyhalmi fp.s, Virágoskúti & 3 33 8 weeks 2005 9 oebr2 December 22 November 29 oese oese 7 Noneseen None seen Kondás Kecskés, 31 5 weeks 2005 March 13 April 18 Hortobágy Kecskés Dinnyés-lapos, Virágoskúti fp., fp.,Hortobágy 2 22+11 6 weeks 2006 7 Kondás Dinnyés-lapos, Cserepes, Kecskés, 26 4 weeks 2006 February 22 February 5 Janurary 26 Janurary February 5 April 22 February 22 b Rókás Kecskés, Dinnyés-lapos, fp.,Hortobágy 6 54 6 weeks 2007 30 oebr2November 3 November 2 Máta Dinnyés-lapos, Rókás, fp.,Hortobágy 43 6 weeks 2007 April 26 Virágoskút fi Balmazújváros shponds Nagyhegyes Ludasrét Dinnyés-lapos, fp.,Hortobágy 4 33 7 weeks 2008 4 None seen Ludasrét Dinnyés-lapos, Rókás, fp.,Hortobágy 49 4 weeks 2008 April 15 shpond, shpond, a a

wintered inthefl bly originatingfromtheRussianbreedingpopulations,over- During the mild winters in 2004–2008, several LWfG, possi- 3.2.1. Spring 3.2. RegularmonitoringofLesserWhite-fronted Geese management actions. should enjoyhigherpriorityduringthedesignoffuturehabitat but notoncroplands. Therefore, themanagementofgrasslands management seemedmandatorytoattractgeeseongrasslands, important difference betweengrasslandsandcroplandsbecause therefore, itisworthcontinuingtheseactions. There wasan in attractinggeese,includingLWfG, andcranestothesites; management actionsoftheLIFEprojectwerehighlyeffective outside thecensusperiods. These resultssuggestthathabitat viduals wereobservedonthemanagedgrasslandsandcroplands bird censuses,boththemain observe LWfG onthemanagedsitesduringregularweekly such sitesthaninmanaged(Table 1.). Although wedidnot times onthe croplandsmanagedby theproject. Although crop- other goose speciesintheautumn, andtheywereseenseveral fi tion, LWfG often visitedagriculturallands(harvested corn- project, andthisareawas highlypreferredbyLWfG. In addi- of theKecskés-puszta grassland wasalsoirrigatedbytheLife al. 2009).Intheextremely dryautumn2007,thenorthernpart fed intheareasmanaged bytheLIFEproject(seeEcsediet 5–6 weeksintheHortobágy area. in Hortobágyuntiltheend ofOctober;thustheyspentgenerally success). The families groupedinthemain success) to30birds(in2007,ayearwithexcellent breeding juveniles rangedfromthree(in2004,ayearwith poorbreeding maximum number was 31 individuals (Table 3.). The number of cept in2007,whenitwas54individuals,and in 2004whenthe The maximumnumberwas33individualsin mostyearsex- number ofindividualswasusuallyreachedby earlyOctober. arrived in the area between 16–22 September. The maximum On theautumnmigrationin2004–2008, 3.2.2. Autumn to water(suchasedgesofalkalimeadows). project (seeabove),especiallyinareasofalkali grasslandsclose preferred toroostandfeedinthesitesmanaged bytheLIFE disturbance (e.g.fromhunting)threatenedthe birds. The as thelowestrecord(2005)(Table 2.).Duringthisperiod,no 59 individualsasthehighestrecord(2004)and 31individuals origin) oftenstayeduntilthe ally between16–26 April, butsingleindividuals(ofunknown ricultural croplandsveryrarely. The main Ludas-rét, Kecskés,Dinnyés-lapos)forfeeding,andvisitedag- the neighbouring partially used HortobágyFishponds(KondásandUnit6)forroosting cropland, however, theirnumbersweresigni (Table 1.).Incontrasttograsslands,geeseusednon-managed numbers were signifi 1.). Somecranesusedsuchnon-managedgrasslands,buttheir not observe any individual on non-grazed control sites (Table lands seemedtobetotallyunsuitableforgeesebecausewedid ence between grasslands and croplands. Non-managed grass- ary) fromtheirwinteringsitesinGreece. The main of March(exceptfor2006,whenthe scandian in 22December2006.Inthespringmigration,mainFenno- albifrons) staginginHortobágy, e.g.6individualsinHortobágy elds, freshlygerminating wheat)whentheyjoined During theautumnstaging, LWfG mostlyspenttimeand The maximumspring fl ock usuallyarrivedinHortobágythesecondweek Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project ocks ofGreater White-fronted Goose(Anser cantly larger on the managed grasslands fl ocksizeshowedsomevariationwith fl ooded grasslands (Cserepes, Rókás, fi fl rst weekofMay. ock ofLWfG andseparateindi- fl ock arrivedinlateFebru- fl ock lefttheareausu- fl fi ock usuallystayed rst LWfG families fi cantly lowerin fl ock mostly fl ocks of ocks fl ock Nomanclator CommitteeofBirdLifeHungary forveri Hortobágy region, the observations need to be reported to the have becomemorefrequent,albeitnotregular. Outsidethe river Danube),observationsofLWfG inlarger goose region westofriverDanube.IntheGreatPlains area(eastof where thespecieshadnotbeenreportedpreviously, suchasthe As aresult,observationshavebeenmadeeveninregionsfrom portant goose staging sites using high-quality spotting scopes. Since mid-1990s, ornithologists started to monitor the most im- in Hungarywasbasedonestimatesratherthanactualcounts. In thedecadesbeforemid-1990s,statusofspecies 3.3. LesserWhite-fronted Gooseoccurrences inotherpartsof later intheautumnwith Russian breedingpopulationsbecausethesebirdsusuallyarrive that mostoftheLWfG overwinteringinHungarybelongtothe hér-tó atKardoskút(SE) and Tisza Lake. We assume,however, Bihar-Sárrét (E),Lake Balaton(W),Fehér-tó atSzeged,Fe- and Kiskunságalkalilakes(S-central),Öreg-tóat Tata (NW), surroundings ofFertő-Lake(NW),Büdös-székatPusztaszer tance): Biharugra ing theLIFEprojectinfollowingareas(inorderofimpor- vations alsosuggestedthatLWfG occurredratherregularlydur- hu) andontheLWfG website(www.piskulka.net). These obser- published onthenationalornithologicalwebsite(www.birding. increased considerably. These observationshavebeenregularly effort tosearchforstagingoroverwinteringgeeseinHungary ornithologists fromalloverHungary. As aresult,themonitoring ness ofLWfG andtheassociatedconservationproblemsamong used the Virágoskút, ElepandBivalyhalmi dividuals havebeenspottedalloverHortobágy, but theymainly in mildwinters,someindividualsalsooverwintered. These in- These birdsusuallystayeduntilthe originate fromthewesternmainpopulationbreedinginRussia. appeared inthegoose fi also attractedLWfG sothatsometimestheydidnotleavethe in thebedoffi the freshgrowthofherbaceousplants(esp.Chenopodiumspp.) LWfG moreoftenpreferredgrasslandsforfeeding.Moreover, lands were important in the autumn (in contrast to the spring), tween 3–9 birds sojournedatPusztaszeri Büdös-szék.In the birds were laterseennearLakeFert late autumn intheKis-Balatonregion, andprobablythe same from thedifferent regionsofHungary. the projectpersonnelwere incontinuouscontactwithexperts gists ingeneralandfrom expertsongoosespecies. As aresult, interest inthespeciesand itsconservationbothfromornitholo- conservation efforts tosavethespecies,and therewasahuge tions andprovidedinformation inotherformsonLWfG and bágy area. The projectpersonnelhavegiven severalpresenta- been paidontodataprovidedbyobserversoutside theHorto- area foralongtime. larger goosefl observations arealmostexclusivelyfromsingle individualsin numerous occasionalobservationsfromdifferent areas. These Nagy-Sárrét and near Rétszilas. Apart from these sites, there are rare reportsfromthealkalilakesofKiskunság, theKisand er, LakeFert The specieshasbeenobservedinthefollowing areas:Pusztasz- LWfG inHungaryisbasedonaccurateandcredibleaccounts. Due tothisrequirement,theevaluationof currentstatusof shponds for days. In each year, newly arrived individuals During theLIFEproject,wemadeaneffort toincreaseaware- In thewinter2005–2006, three individuals were observedin From thebeginningofLIFEproject,extra attentionhas Hungary in2004–2008 ő, Biharugra,Lake Tisza, Öreg-tó(Tata). There are ocks, whichindividualsusuallydonotstayinthe shponds thatwerekepthalfdryinthisproject fi shponds andBegécsfi fl ocks, whichindividualsarelikelyto Tar etal:Monitoring ofLesser White-fronted in2004–2008 GeeseinHortobágy fl ocks ofGreater White-fronts. fi rst substantialfrosts,and ő. Inthesame periodbe- shponds (EHungary), fi shponds. fi cation. fl ocks 009 51 52 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 area When conditions arefavourablehere (shallow, large surface- staging LWfG intheHortobágy regionandeastern Hungary. actions andthecentral importanceofthecoreprojectareafor ing highlightedboththe successofthehabitatmanagement a resultofthehabitatmanagement actionsoftheLIFEproject. of theirtimespentineastern Hungary, andthishasbeenlargely staging intheHortobágy areausedsafe,hunting-freesitesmost and optimalhabitatrequirements couldbeguaranteed.LWfG all oftheirtimewithin thenationalpark,wheretheirsurvival Based ontheseresults,weestimatethatLWfG spentpractically sites outsidetheNationalParkwerealsointensively monitored. ing grasslands). This highratiowasfoundeventhoughother from thecoreprojectarea(HortobágyFishponds andsurround- borders ofHortobágyNationalPark,withmost observations main In everyLifeprojectyear, 96–98%oftheobservations 4. Discussion likely thatthesebirdsoriginatedfromtheRussian populations. were notfromtheFennoscandianpopulation. Rather, itappears tobágy orthosethatwereseeninthewinteroutside Hortobágy sites usedmakeitverylikelythatthebirdsarriving latetoHor- (winter ratherthanautumnandspring)the difference inthe served outsideHortobágy, thedifference inthetimeofstaging of LWfG. roosting andfeedingsitesusedbythemainFennoscandian of LWfG intheHortobágyusedareasdifferent fromthestable because thelate-arrivingsingleLWfG orfew-individual calendar-year birds. There wasalsoadifference inspaceuse tions fromlaterinthespring,andtheseweremostlyofsecond tions). InPusztaszerandnearLakeFert to mid-March(cf. Table 2and3fortheHortobágyobserva- of theobservationsoutsideHortobágywerefromlateOctober riods fortheobservationswithinandoutsideHortobágy:most 2004–2008. There wasacharacteristicdifference inthetimepe- tions ofindividuallymarkedLWfG outsidetheHortobágyin read thelegringsofLWfG. However, therewerenoobserva- fore voluntaryobserversenthusiasticallyspentextraefforts to colour-ringing andthe satellite-taggingprogramme,andthere- for individuallymarkedLWfG. The observersknewaboutthe were recorded. frosts inwintertheylefttheregionandnooverwinteringbirds largest at atotalof31individuals.InthevicinityLakeFert garian winterpopulationoutsidetheHortobágywasestimated Büdös-szék, Biharugrafi sighted atfourdifferent locations(LakeFert birds wererecorded vere weatherconditions,theymigratedonandnooverwintering ed totalnumberofatleastsome11 individuals,butduetose- pusztaszeri Büdös-szék,Biharugra at atimewerereportedfromthreedifferent areas(LakeFert country. altogether atleastsome8–12individualswerewinteringinthe Öreg near Tata, PusztaszeriBüdös-szék)atthesametime,and Hortobágy (LakeFert 30–33 LWfG werereportedfrom tering birdswererecordedthatwinter. most severewinterweathertheymigratedon,andnooverwin- Tar etal:Monitoring ofLesser White-fronted in2004–2008 GeeseinHortobágy Our dataandobservations collectedduringregularmonitor- The factthatnoLWfG markedinFennoscandiawereob- Most workbytheseotherobserverswasfocusedonsearching Inthewinterof2008–2009,3–13individualsatatimewere In theautumn/winterof2007–2008,respectively, 3–4LWfG In thelateautumn/earlywinterof2006–2007,altogether fi fl shponds; short-grass, somewhatwetgrasslands, more ock oftheFennoscandianLWfG weremadewithinthe fl ock for decadeswascounted(13birds).Duringsevere ő, Lake Tisza, Biharugra sh ponds,Lake Tisza), andtheHun- fi ve different areasoutsidethe fi sh ponds)withanestimat- ő, therewereobserva- fi sh ponds,Lake ő, pusztaszeri fl ocks ő the fl ock ő, Sutherland, W. J., A. S.Pullin,P. M.Dolman,and T. M. Pullin, A. S.,and T. M.Knight.2003:Supportfordecision Lengyel, S., Tar, J.&Ecsedi,Z.2009 : Spaceuseandexpo- Ecsedi, Z., Tar, J.&Lengyel,S.2009:Conservationmeas- 6. References tobágy Environmental Association andBirdlifeHungary. teered formonitoringtasks,mostofthemmemberstheHor- this project. We areparticularlygratefultothosewhovolun- leagues atHortobágyNationalParkforhelpingusimplement monitoring systemorbyprovidingdata. We alsothankourcol- who contributedtoLWfG monitoringbyparticipatinginthe We thank Attila Szilágyi,Gábor Tihanyi andnumerousothers 5. Acknowledgments Hungary isessential solution, awareness-raisingamonghuntersintheregionand which showsthattheremaystillbeslightrisks. As along-term ception fromthisruleinthenorthernHortobágyregion2005, several huntingassociationsappliedforandweregrantedanex- Although thismeasurecontributestotheprotectionofLWfG, scandian allowed beforeDecember1,bywhichtimethemainFenno- of river Tisza, becausegoose-huntinginthesecountiesisnot in thelegalregulationofhuntingthreecountieslyingeast (albeit withrestrictions).In2004,favourablechangesoccurred one ofwhichisverysimilartoLWfG, canbelegallyhunted protected agriculturalareas,wheretwospeciesofwildgeese, sites lookingforaforagingareaareverylikelytoendupinnon- as theirmainroostingsite.Geese goose speciesthatuseother remain longerinthewinterareamayjoin loss, anddisturbance)donotaffect LWfG duringtheirstay. main threatstothepopulation(mortalityduehunting,habitat during their6weeksofstaginginHortobágy. As aresult,the details aregivenabove),LWfG donotnormallyleavethisarea However, smaller tion. – Trends inEcology&Evolution19:305–308. Knight. 2004: The needforevidence-based conserva- proach. –JournalforNatureConservation11:83–90. making inconservationpractice:anevidence-based ap- 2009: 53–59. Finland Report27&NOFRapportserie No1- port oftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009. – WWF fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigrationroute. Finalre- & Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser White- Hortobágy region,Hungary. In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J. sure ofLesser White-fronted Geesetohuntinginthe No 1-2009:44–47. – WWF FinlandReport 27&NOFRapportserieReport Final reportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009. White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration route. I.J. &Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser bágy, Hungaryin2005–2008.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, ures toprotectLesser White-fronted GeeseinHorto- fl ock ofLWfG usuallyleavestheareaatlatest. fl ocks orsingleindividualsofLWfG that fi shponds (Virágoskút, Bivalyhalmi) fl ying outfromtheseroosting fl ocks ofother hunting in the Hortobágy region, Hungary hunting intheHortobágy Space useandexposure ofLesser to White-fronted Geese decades (Szomjas 1919, Tarján 1922,Nagy 1924). estimated by severalsourcesat10% ofallgeeseshotin these year. The proportion ofLWfG harvestedwas unambiguously goose hunts,withseveral tensofthousandsgeeseshoteach erature sourcesbefore the 1930’s attestthehighsuccessrate of offered excellentopportunitiesforgoose-hunting. Severallit- in combinationwithfavourable, cloudy, foggyautumnweather of marshes,fi of geesestaginginthe area onautumnmigration. The complex 20th century. Goosehunting wasbasedontheendless been traditionallyfamous forgoosehuntingsincetheearly Hortobágy areaineasternHungary. The Hortobágyareahas LWfG andtheirpastcurrentexposuretohuntinginthe the lowsurvivalofadults(Lampila2001, Tolvanen etal.2004). single mostimportantfactorinthepopulation declinehasbeen since mid-1900’s andseveralstudies supporttheviewthat ( activities (Tamisier etal.2003). The Lesser White-fronted Goose legal hunting)andindirectlybydisturbancecaused byhunting mortality maybein variation inthemortalityofadults(Sæther&Bakke 2000). Adult harvested maketheirpopulationdynamicsparticularly proneto The lifehistorytraitsofgeeseandthefactthat manygeeseare 1. Introduction National Park.Hortobágy The Dinnyés-lapos pondisvisibleonthebackground. Jostein ©Ingar Øien, November 2005. The Dinnyés-lapos steppes andtheadjacent are alkali oneofthemostpreferred feeding sites ofLesser inthe White-fronted Geese , hereafterLWfG) Anser erythropus hasbeendecliningatleast The aimofthisstudywastoevaluatethe spaceuseof 3 2 1 Szabolcs Lengyel Hortobágy EnvironmentalHortobágy Association, NationalParkHortobágy Directorate, ofEcology, ofDebrecen,Department University 4032Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1, shponds, alkaligrasslands andagriculturallands Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project fl uenced directlybyharvesting(legaloril- 1 , JánosTar 2 &Zoltán Ecsedi HUNGARY HUNGARY 3 fl ocks tify theareas mostfrequentlyused forfeedingandother activi- lysed these data inaGeographical InformationSystemto iden- to digitiseall reliablelocalitiesof LWfG observations. We ana- by contactingornithologists andpreviousliteraturesources as possibleonthespace usebyLWfG intheHortobágyregion wintering sitesinnorthern Greece(see Tar etal.2009). was evenhigherinHortobágy thanthenumbercountedat monitoring inthepresent LIFEproject,thenumberofLWfG the Europeanfl Hungary andhostsmore LWfG than anyotherstagingsiteson gion continuestobeoneofthemostimportant stagingsitesin to beimpossiblecollectduringthisstudy. The Hortobágyre- ever, exactdata(time,locality)onshootingofLWfG hasproved has beenobservedseveraltimes(FeketeP., pers.comm.).How- the early1990’s. Duringsomeofthese hunts,shootingofLWfG the nationalparkwerestillregularlyconducted asrecently Hortobágy NationalPark,butgoosehuntson Goose huntingwasthereaftergraduallyphased outintheareaof as 1966,between30and35LWfG wereshot(Sterbetz1972). icant evenafter World War II;forexample,evenasrecently decreasing numbersofLWfG, goosehuntingwasalsosignif- collapse ofLWfG populations(Kovács& Tar 2004).Despite ing intheearly1900’s hasprobably largely contributedtothe Hortobágy areaforstagingeveryyearbefore1930. Goosehunt- In thisstudy, wefi Sources alsoagreethatseveralthousandsofLWfG usedthe Lengyel etal:Space useandexposure ofLesser White-fronted Geeseto region, hunting intheHortobágy Hungary HUNGARY, e yway (Tolvanen et al. 2004).Duringextensive rst aimedtocollectdataas farbackintime -mail: szabolcs@delfi n.unideb.hu fi shponds within shponds 53 54 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Lengyel etal:Space useandexposure ofLesser White-fronted Geeseto region, hunting intheHortobágy Hungary 100 200 300 400 500 600 tions. When exactsiteswere the localities ofLWfG observa- aimed tomaximise accuracyof Information System(GIS). We digitise datainaGeographical the Spatial Analyst extensionto LWfG populations (Figure1.). lation anddeclinein the other the FennoscandianLWfG popu- period followingthecollapse of time periodcorrespondstothe 2006 (36yearsintotal). This on theyearsbetween1971and period, wefocusedourstudy early part(1905-1970)ofthe Due tohighunreliabilityofthe ornithologists (sincethe1970s). the specieshasincreasedamong more well-knownandinterestin the declineofLWfG hasbecome localities increasewithtimeas Data reliabilityandaccuracyof years between1905and2006. nearly 900recordsfromthe The totaldatabasecontains visiting theHortobágyregion. direct reportsofornithologists from bothliteraturesourcesand database containsinformation region sincethe1990’s. The liable LWfG observationsdatingfrom1905intheHortobágy Hortobágy Environmental Association hasbeencollectingre- this studybytheHortobágyEnvironmental Association. The Data onLWfG occurrenceswerecollectedandprovidedfor 2. Methods LIFE-Nature project(2005–2009). presents the developing furtherconservationmeasures. The presentarticle tant intheplanningandimplementationofotheractions and wherehuntingpressureishigh. This informationisimpor- data, weaimedtodeterminetheareasthatLWfG frequentlyuse been conductedintheHortobágyarea.Byanalysingspatial information onwhereandhowfrequentlygoose-huntinghad ties, includingnightroosting.Inthesecondphase,wecollected fronted isomitted for reported) Geese clarity. extreme outlierdatapoint from 1980(3500–4000Lesser White- region. Ahighlyunlikely,between 1971and2006intheHortobágy number ofLesser inanyWhite-fronted Geese fl ockineach year Figure 1.Average (±standard error) fl ocksize andmaximum 0 We used ArcView 3.2with

1971 1973

fi 1975 ndings obtainedinthe Action A5 oftheLWfG 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987

the Hortbágy region in east Hungary based on 840 observations between 1970and2006. basedon 840 observations region ineastHungary the Hortbágy Figure 2. The yellow dotsindicate localities where Lesser haveWhite-fronted Geese in beenobserved 1989 Maximum numbers Maximum Average flock size 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 pattern ofgoosehuntingbasedonsuchcomparisons.Fordata Hortobágy NationalParkanddrewconclusionsonthespatial county level. We overlaidonthepicturemapsoutlinesof as asurrogatefordataongoosehuntingmoredetailedthanthe maps publishedbytheaboveinstituteintheirannualreports licly availablecounty-leveldataforourpurposes. We alsoused Because moredetaileddatawerenotavailableweusedthepub- University, Gödöllő,Hungary(http://ns.vvt.gau.hu/adattar). tained bytheInstitutefor Wildlife ConservationatSt.Stephen the NationalGameManagementDatabaseofHungary, main- contacted unanimouslystatedthatalltheirdataareavailablein tacted fortheirownrecords. The huntingassociationsthatwere from severalsources.Localhuntingassociationswerecon- tional Park. the intensityofhuntinginareasneighbouringHortobágyNa- riod. We thenrelatedthesemeasureswithvariablesdescribing and easting(longitudinalcoordinate)valuesfromanygivenpe- the observationsandmeannorthing(latitudinalcoordinate) tions, theareasofkernelsincorporatingeither50%or95% such characteristicsweremaximumpolygonareaofobserva- describing thespaceusepatternsofLWfG. The mostimportant the Animal Movementprogramtocalculatevariousstatistics all (spring+autumn)observationsfromanyyear. We thenused for allautumnobservationsfromeachyearandathirdone datasets: oneforallspringobservationsfromeachyear, another 3.2 toanalysespaceusebyLWfG. We generatedthreedifferent (Hooge &Eichenlaub1997),afreeextensionunder ArcView km). We thenusedthe Animal Movement Analysis software was negligiblewhencomparedtothescaleofstudy(10–20 al errorindigitisinglocalitiesisestimatedat200–300m,which their exactlocationwithineachsiteandamongsites. The gener- sible andunnecessaryforourpurposesasLWfG oftenchange tised locality. A moreaccuratelocalitywouldhavebeenunfea- Fishponds), wetookthecentrallocationofsiteasdigi- available foranyrecord(e.g.Unit5ontheHortobágyCentral Data onthetimeandlocationofgoosehuntsweresought shift inLWfG stagingsites: parts ofHortobágyasstaging areas. tions suggestthatLWfG appeartohaveabandonedthesouthern tumn (Figure3B)thanin thespring(Figure3A). These observa- ponds (Figure3.). This difference wasmoremarkedintheau- from theCentralFishpondsandareasnorth ofthethese more recentyears,sincethemid-1990’s, mostobservationsare Nagyiván village,orintheCentralFishponds (Figure3.).In the south-westernpartofnationalpark, in thevicinityof observations weremadeeitherinmarshes or grasslandsin markedly inthe36years.In grasslands orfi and someweremadeintheneighbouringagricultural lands, Most observationsweremadewithinHortobágy NationalPark, were availablefromthetimeperiodbetween 1971and2006. A totalof840observationsLWfG intheHortobágyregion 3.1. LWfG observationsandspaceuseingeneral 3. Results the pastfewdecadesandatpresent. three personswiththenecessaryknowledgeongoosehuntingin tive dataongoose-hunting,wealsoconductedinterviewswith tional reportsoftheabovedatabase/institute. To obtainqualita- on huntingbags,weusedwhatcouldberetrievedfromthena- Aerial viewoftheDinnyés-lapos. National Park oftheHortobágy was successfully part This restored site inthenorthern in1999.©János Tar 2. Favourable changesinnorthern roostingsitesandgrass- 1. Decreaseddisturbance byhuntingintheCentralFishpond There areatleastthree potential reasonsforthenorth-eastern The spaceuseofLWfG intheHortobágyareahaschanged es andgrasslands. lands, and/or unfavourablechanges inthesouthernmarsh- area fromthe1960’s totheearly1990’s. shponds (Figure 2.). Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project fi rst partofthisperiod,most fi sh- term andintheperiodbetween 2001and2004(seebelow). the nationalparkboundaries. We found thisbothonthelong neighbouring areassince1990,mainlywestand south-westof ary-type habitats,goose-huntingappearstohave increasedin within thenationalparkareamongleastdisturbed, sanctu- unfavourable changes. the habitatsinsouthernpartofnational parkunderwent habitats openedtoLWfG inthesouthernareas,itisunlikelythat feeding androostingintheautumn1999. Although nosuchnew cessful habitatrestoration.LWfG startedtousethiswetland for nyés-lapos asgoosehabitatin1999wasagood exampleofsuc- vourable changesinhabitats. The reconstructionoftheDin- ing substantiallydecreasedinthenorthernareas after1990. south-west fromtheCentralFishponds),disturbance fromhunt- after themid-1990’s (e.g.Ohatiand Derzsi curred onthenearby, non-protected neighbouring areasbytheearly1990’s. Eventhoughhuntingoc- tions. First,huntingwaseliminatedontheCentralFishpondand dian breeding from onejointly migrating indicating that mostobservations afterthisyearwere likely variation in and 1988,thenbetween 1995and1997,in2002–2003. The scales. Forexample,there wereslightincreasesbetween1985 cline, theaverage in the36-yearstudyperiod (Figure1.).Besidesageneralde- Both theaverageandmaximum Finally, eventhoughthesouthernmarshesandgrasslands Secondly, thedecreaseinhuntingalsoco-occurredwithfa- Each ofthesehypothesesaresupportedbysomeobserva- 3. Increaseddisturbanceorhuntinginareasnearthesouthern Lengyel etal:Space useandexposure ofLesser White-fronted region, Geeseto hunting Hungary intheHortobágy marshes. fl ock sizealsodecreasedconsiderably since1981, fl ock. This fl ock size showed fl ock hasbeencon fl ock, mostprobably theFennoscan- fl ock sizeofLWfG decreased fl fi uctuations onshortertime shponds evenduringand fi rmed toconsistof fi shponds, 3-4km 55 56 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 for threehunting seasons(beginning in2001,2003and2004 re- Hortobágy National Parkwereavailable onlyintheformof maps bágy NationalPark(Figure 4.). place intheeasternpart ofthecounty, inareasborderingHorto- In Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county, mostgoosehuntingtakes goose huntingisexclusively conductedonornear Tisza Lake. the north-easterncorner ofthecounty, whereasinHevescounty, ing ismostlycon since theearly1990’s (Figure4.).InBékéscounty, goosehunt- ally lessimportantthan inHajdú-Bihar, buthasbeenincreasing Park. Intheotherthreecounties,goosehunting wastradition- ricultural areasjustoutsidetheborderofHortobágy National 2000. MostgeeseinHajdú-Biharcountyare harvestedinag- the huntingbagisslowlydecreasingdespite arecentpeakin lies, isofcentralimportanceingoosehunting in theregion,and Hajdú-Bihar county, wheremostofHortobágyNationalPark counties ofeasternHungaryaddressedbythis study (Figure4.). geese showedvariationbetween1970and2006 inthe White-fronted Goose( in recentyears,theBeanGoose( Two speciesofgeesehavebeenallowedforhuntinginHungary 3.2. Spatialpatternsofhunting may bemoredif lands inthesecondpartofautumstagingperiod, andLWfG do, theysometimesjoinothergoose is knowntoprefernaturalfeedingsitesmorethan theothergeese observations fromarablelands(Figure2and3). Although LWfG ing areas(grasslands).Itissurprisingthattherearerelativelyfew at roostingsites( individuals wereobserved.MostLWfG observationsweremade als) werefrequent:in250casesof840observations,6orfewer Observations ofsinglebirds,pairsorsmall distances unlesstheyaredisturbedorinlarger goose These observationssuggestthatLWfG arereluctantto same LWfG pairsonneighbouringroostingandfeedingsites. period, therewereseveralconsecutivedailyobservationsofthe ing grasslandforfeedingduringtheday. Evenearly inthestudy using acentralmarshor both onspringandautumnmigrationcouldbecharacterizedas observations ofcolour-ringed birds(Tar 2001). transmitters in1995(seeLorentsenetal.1998)andbyrepeated birds ofFennoscandianoriginbytrackingwithsatellite fromeither springorautumnofallobservations any given year. autumn migration estimates (B)inthetimeperiodbetween 1971and2006.Range (kernels) were calculated from in point observations Figure 3.Space useofLesser onthespringmigration region basedonobservations (A) intheHortobágy Geese White-fronted andonthe Lengyel etal:Space useandexposure ofLesser White-fronted Geeseto region, hunting intheHortobágy Hungary A Data onthe geographicallocation ofgoosehuntsinornear The spaceuseofthemainFennoscandian fi fi cult toobserveinsuchlarge shponds), andfewerweremadeinnaturalfeed- fi ned totheareaofBiharugra ne lirons). The huntingofwild Anser albifr fi shpond forroostingandaneighbor- Anser fabalis fl ocks feedingonarable fl ocks (4–6individu- fl ocks. ) andtheGreater fl ock ofLWfG fi shponds in fi fl ve focal y larger y fl ocks. ocks. there havebeen noobservationsfrom thisarea. has longbeen suspectedasapotential LWfG staging site,but western bank ofriver Tisza, veryclosetonorthern Hortobágy, extensive wetlands,grasslands andagriculturalareasonthe Zemplén county. The BorsodiMez attention tothepotential importanceofsitesinBorsod-Abaúj- than whenhuntingwas lessintense. This result indirectlydraws space usebyLWfG variedmorealonganeastern-western axis (Figure 6C).Inyearswhen huntinginthiscountywasintense, positively relatedtolongitudinal variationinLWfG space use (2000, 2003,2004and2006)(Figure6A,B). 250 geeseharvestedperyearinJász-Nagykun-Szolnok county the eastinthosefouryearswhenhuntingpressure wasabove because theareasusedbyLWfG shiftedtothenorthand sod-Abaúj-Zemplén county. The hunting pressureinJász-Nagykun-Szolnokcounty andinBor- use observedinthe36yearswascorrelated withincreasing Our analysessuggestthatthenortheasternshift inannualspace onted 3.3. RelationshipbetweenspaceuseofLesser White-fr 5.), whereLWfG alsoregularlyoccur. of theHortobágyregion(lowerrightcorner mapsinFigure the threeyearsnearBiharugra (Figure 5.).Finally, goosehuntingwasveryintensethroughout park boundaries(intheareaofNádudvarand Kaba)in2004 zoboszló andNádudvar),fartherawayfrom thenational ly withinthenationalparkitself(areasofNagyhegyes,Hajdús- years. Forexample,in2003,intensehuntingoccurredapparent- Areas towardsthesouth-easthadintensegoosehuntinginsome sively moreimportantingoose-huntingby2004(Figure5.). national park(areaofKarcagand Túrkeve) becameprogres- and 2004(Figure5B,C). The areasouthandsouth-westofthe (Tiszafüred-Kócsújfalu) andsouth(Nagyivánregion)in2003 of thenationalpark.Huntingwasespeciallyintenseinwest 5.). Goosehuntingwasalsointensealongthewesternborder is located,anddecreasedprogressivelyinlateryears(Figure the importantgooseroostingsiteof Virágoskút park (areaofBalmazújvárosandHajdúböszörmény),where intensity ofhuntingwasinitiallyhighnortheastthenational national parkboundariesin2001and2003(Figure5A,B). The tional park),withconsiderablehuntingpressurealsowithinthe the threeyearsin Tisza Lakeregion(westernpartofthena- spectively) (Figure5.).Goose-huntingwasintensethroughout Hunting intensityin Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén countywas B Geese andhuntingpressure fi rst relationshipwasmainly fi őség, anareaconsisting of shponds farthersouth-east fi shponds fact thatin2000extensiveareassouthernHortobágy werear- area (closeto60000ha,Figure7.). This canberelatedtothe extremely highandtheLWfG werealsospreadoutoveralarge these tendencieswastheyear2000,whenhunting pressurewas LWfG usedintheHortobágy(Figure7B).Oneexceptionfrom after thepeakof1982–1983resultedinanincrease inthearea (before 1990)arelessreliable,thedecreasing huntingpressure centrated insmallerareas. Although datafromtheearlyyears that inyearswhenhuntingpressurewashigh,LWfG werecon- observed andhuntingintensity(Figure7A),whichsuggests a negativerelationshipbetweentotalareawhereLWfG were was alsorelatedtohuntingpressure.Forexample,there present noimmediaterisktotheLWfG stagingpopulation. increasing sincetheearly1990’s (Figure4.),thisappearsto a consequence,althoughgoosehuntinginthiscountyhasbeen gests thatthisareaislessimportantthanothersforstaging. As this areawasnotcorrelatedwithanyaspectofspaceusesug- a possiblestagingsiteforLWfG. The most entirelyinthiscounty, hasbeenpreviously suspectedas Lake, acomplexofwetlandsandoxbowlakes,whichliesal- aspect ofLWfG spaceuse. This isinterestingbecause Tisza harvested inthehuntingseason of2001.Source:harvested Management National (http://ns.vvt.gau.hu/adattar). Database, Game Hungary (B).Eachdotonthemapindicateswhere oneindividualofGreater goosehunting ismostimportant ) albifrons White-fronted (Anser Goose Figure hunting measured intensity 4.Goose by huntingbagdata between 1971and2006(A) from thefi hu/adattar). park boundaries are shown ingreen. Source ofdata ongoosehunts: (http://ns.vvt.ga Management Database, National Game Hungary and 2004/2005 (C). Counties are as in Figure areas ofconcern 7B. are Goose-hunting shown inred and theapproximate location o locations where Greater wereWhite-fronted Geese (1dot=1individual)inthehunting harvested season of2001/2002(A), 2003/ Figure 5.Spatial pattern National asshown Park oftheintensity ofgoosehunting by inandnearHortobágy thege inEHungary Goose hunting bag The sizeoftheareawhereLWfG wereobservedinanyyear Surprisingly, huntinginHevescountywasnotrelated toany 1000 1200 200 400 600 800 A 0 9017 9018 9019 002005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project fi nding thathuntingin Jász-Na Heves co. co. Hajdú-Bihar co. Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Békés county B gy kun-Szolnok co. river Tisza isonlyallowedafterDecember1,bywhichtime considering thatsince2004,goose-huntingin theareaseastof within thenationalpark. This chanceisrathersmallatpresent, goose a slightchancethatLWfG getshotwhentheyaccompanylarge ing isgenerallydecreasinginneighbouringareas, thereisstill the Hortobágyarea.Eventhoughintensity ofgoose-hunt- plementing conservationactionsfortheprotectionofLWfG in The resultsofthisstudyareimportantfordesigningandim- 4. Conclusionsandconsequencesfor Lesser White-fronted uted totheeast-westvariationofspaceuseLWfG. sure inBorsod-Abaúj-Zempléncountyapparentlyhascontrib- south-western partofHortobágyNationalPark.Huntingpres- in areasofJász-Nagykun-Szolnokcountyneighbouringthe infl quently, gooseandduckhunterstotheseareas. which inturnattractedalarge numberofwaterfowl,and,conse- ing andfeedingsiteswereavailableinunprecedentednumbers, tifi cially inundatedaspartof These resultssuggestthatoneofthemostimportantfactors Goose conservation uencing changesinspaceuseisincreasinghuntingpressure fl ocks in theautumnandleavesafe,hunting-freeareas A Lengyel etal:Space useandexposure ofLesser White-fronted Geeseto region, hunting intheHortobágy Hungary Heves C fl ood controlmeasures,androost- ve counties ineastern Hungary Borsod-Abaúj- Zemplén Békés Nagykun -Szolnok Jász- ographical Hajdú- f national Bihar 2004 (B) B u. 57 58 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 ful huntspresent considerabledisturbance togeeseand other not recorded inanyof Finally, goosehuntssometimes gounsuccessfulandarethus individuals shotandidenti In theFigures4and5. weonlypresentnumbersandmapsfor 2003 and2004,respectively, inthefourcountiesaltogether). ed shoteveryyearby the hunters(440,439and278in2001, Hungary, still,considerable numbersofthisspeciesarereport- Geese areusuallyrare inmigratory exact identi location ofthehunt.Secondly, thereisoftenconfusionastothe manner, whichcanresultinconfusionovertheexacttimeand is regularpracticethatof be recordedintheof hunting bysinglepersonsorsmallgroups arelesslikelyto and manyoftherecordsareadmittedlywrong. Forexample, have beenrequiredtomaintainexactrecords onlysince2001, able estimateforwheregoosehuntingtookplace. Huntingclubs tions. Firstly, thedatashownonmapsmaynotbeahighlyreli- discussion onthepopulationdecreasethisparticular year). population between2000and2001(seeØien atal.2009fora contributed tothefurtherdeclineofFennoscandian LWfG in 2000easternHungaryandotherstaging sitesmayhave goose huntingbagshitrecordlevelsinseveral counties. Hunting as themid-1990’s andtherewasalso a highriskin2000,when period. There aresigns thatLWfG havebeenshotas recently uted tothesharpdeclineobservedinpopulation duringthis example, intensehuntingintheearly1980’s probablycontrib- the generaldeclineofFennoscandianLWfG population.For goose-hunting intheHortobágyregionmayhavecontributedto sites furthersouth.Ourstudyofthepast,however, showsthat most LWfG usuallyleavetheareatostagingoroverwintering Variance in easting per year Lengyel etal:Space useandexposure ofLesser White-fronted Geeseto region, hunting intheHortobágy Hungary It isimportanttoemphasisethatthisstudyhas somelimita- Mean northing value per year 100000000 120000000 140000000 20000000 40000000 60000000 80000000 796000 798000 800000 802000 804000 806000 808000 810000 fi cation oftheindividualsshot.For example,Bean 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0 0 40 300 200 100 0 A fi C cial booksthanhuntingbylarge groups.It fi cial format. However, even unsuccess- fi cial booksarenotupdatedinatimely Goose hunting bag fi ed asGreater White-fronted Goose. Goose hunting bag fl ocks ofgeeseineastern 2003 2003 2004 2004 1982 1982 2000 2000 2006 2006 0 the species through monitoring,both inrelationtotheplanned is alsoafurther needtocollectmore dataonthespace use of LWfG, bothonarablelands andongrasslands(Tar 2004). There to providingsaferoosting sitesandsafefeedingforthe bágy. These habitatmanagementactionsneed tobeextended appears toincreaseinareas aroundthesouthernpartofHorto- pose arethesitesin northernpartofHortobágyashunting of HortobágyNational Park.Especiallysuitableforthispur- keep themwithinsafe, non-hunting areasinsidetheboundaries are shotbycoordinating severalhabitatmanagementactionsto is thatitnecessaryto furtherreducethechancethatLWfG underestimated byconsideringonlyhuntingbag data. waterfowl, therefore,theeffect ofhuntingongeeseisprobably satellite tracked in2006–2007.©János Tar, September2008. Hortobágy. The bird withthecolour ringsisthemaleFinn that was roosting site oftheLesserimportant inthe Geese White-fronted growing on the mudfl Lesser grazing Geese White-fronted onpioneerplant community Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county. variation inspace ofhunting useperyear pressure asafunction in (A)more northern andmore eastern (B)locations. (C) Longitudinal in Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county, withhighervalues indicating Lesser ofhunting pressure asafunction Geese White-fronted south, A) andlongitudinal(east-west, ofspace useby B)aspects andhunting pressureGeese counties. incertain Latitudinal (north- Figure 6.Relationships between space use by Lesser White-fronted Mean easting value per year The mostimportantconservationimplication of theseresults 244000 246000 248000 250000 252000 254000 256000 258000 260000 262000 264000 0 0 0 0 0 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 B ats oftheKondás fi Goose hunting bag 2004 2004 sh pond. Kondás ismost 2003 2003 2000 2000 1982 1982 2006 2006 Øien, I.J., Aarvak, T., Ekker, M., & Tolvanen, P. 2009 Nagy, J.1924: A Hortobágymadárvilága: aHortobágy Lorentsen, S.-H.,Øien, I.J.& Aarvak, T. 1998:Migrationof Lampila, P. 2001: Adult mortalityasakeyfactordetermining Kovács, G.& Tar, J.2004: A kislilik(Ansererythropus).inZ. Hooge, P. N.&Eichenlaub,B.1997: Animal movementexten- 5. References described inanaccompanyingpaper(Tar etal.2009). LWfG fromextinction.Ourefforts inachievingthesegoalsare to theongoingefforts tosavetheFennoscandianpopulationof the generalareaneedtobeinformedandaskedcontribute not beenmonitoredregularly. Finally, huntingassociationsin Borsodi Mezőség)thatcanbeimportantinstaging,buthave of habitat-preference. This studyalsoidenti habitat managementactionsandalsotogainmoreknowledge withinayear.all observations Huntingbagdata were summedover thefi ofhunting pressurefunction (A) andby years (B). Total area was calculated asthearea oftheminimum convex polygon that inc Figure 7. Total area where Lesser area wereWhite-fronted intheyears Geese intheHortobágy between observed 1971and2006as Area (ha) 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Report No1-2009: 12–18. 2009. – WWF FinlandReport 27&NOFRapportserie route. Final reportoftheEULIFE-Nature project2005– Lesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropean migration P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, K.(eds.):Conservationof implications forconservation priorities.In: Tolvanen, White-fronted Goosebreeding populationwithprofound ping ofmigrationroutes oftheFennoscandianLesser 30–31: 272–288. gelzug –Diehierdurchziehenden Wildgänse). – Aquila ludak (Die Vogelwelt derPuszta:Hortobágyfür den Vo- jelent ropus mappedbysatellitetelemetry. Biol.Cons.84:47–52. Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Geese Anser eryth- Rapportserie ReportNo.1-2001:45–47. port No.13.&NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOF vation project. Annual Report2000.– WWF FinlandRe- tors. FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Gooseconser- 45–47 inP. Tolvanen, I.J.Øien,andK.Ruokolainen,edi- population growthinLesser White-fronted Goose.Pages Balmazújváros –Szeged,Hungary. tobágy NatureConservation Association) & Winter Fair, tobágy). –Hortobágy Természetvédelmi Egyesület (Hor- Ecsedi, editor. A Hortobágy madárvilága(BirdsofHor- age, USA. logical ScienceOf sion to ArcView, ver. 1.1.– Alaska ScienceCenter-Bio- 0 ősége amadárvonulásban– Az ittátvonuló vad- 0 0010 002500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project fi ce, USGeologicalSurvey, Anchor- Goose hunting bag fi ed someareas(e.g. : Map- Tolvanen, P., T. Aarvak, T., Øien,I.J.,& Timonen, S.2004: Tarján, T.1922: Adatok aHortobágy madárvilágához(Beiträge Tar, J.,Ecsedi,Z.&Lengyel,S.2009:MonitoringofLesser Tar, J.2004:MigrationofLesser White-fronted Goosein Tar, J.2001: The occurrenceandprotectionofLesser White- Tamisier, A., A. Bechet,Jarry, G.,Lefeuvre, J.C.&LeMaho, Szomjas, G.1919:MadártanihírekaHortobágyrólaz1918. Sterbetz, I.1972:1966–69.éviadatokaHortobágymadár- Sæther, B.-E.&Bakke,Ø.2000: Avian lifehistoryvariation ve counties inthestudyregion. 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 NOF Rapportserie ReportNo.1-2004. Report No. 20andNorwegianOrnithological Society servation project. Report2001–2003. – WWF Finland (eds.). Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosecon- Introduction. Pages14–18 in Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S. zur Vogelwelt desHortobágy). – Aquila 28:180–182. 27 &NOFRapportserie ReportNo1-2009:48–52. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009. – WWF FinlandReport the Europeanmigration route.FinalreportoftheEU (eds.): ConservationofLesser White-fronted Gooseon 2008. In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K. White-fronted GeeseinHortobágy, Hungaryin2004– 2004: 33–35. Ornithological SocietyNOFRapportserieReport No.1- project. – WWF Finland ReportNo.20andNorwegian noscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation Pages 33–35in Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S.(eds.).Fen- Hungary andprotectionoftheirHungarianstaging sites. 34–36. logical SocietyNOFRapportserieReportNo. 1-2001: – WWF FinlandReport No.13andNorwegianOrnitho- fronted Gooseconservationproject. Annual Report2000. Ruokolainen, K.(eds.).FennoscandianLesser White- 1996-2000. Pages34–36in Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.& fronted GooseinHortobágy, Hungaryinthe period Vie 58:435–449. review ofliterature.–Revued’Ecologie-La Terre EtLa Y. 2003:Effects ofhuntingdisturbanceonwaterbirds. A Puszta vonJahre1918).– Aquila 26:110–111. évből (OrnithologischeNachrichtenvonderHortobágy ve 1969–1970:33–52. gelfauna derPusstaHortobágy).–DériMúzeumÉvköny- világáról (AngabenausdenJahren1966–69überdie Vo- growth rate.–Ecology81:643–653. and contributionofdemographictraitstothepopulation 0 9018 9020 2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 Lengyel etal:Space useandexposure ofLesser White-fronted Geeseto region, hunting intheHortobágy Hungary Year orporated a 59 60 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 during 2005–2008intheframeworkofpresent LWfG LIFE country. provided usefulknowledgeaboutthespecies’ occurrenceinthe tion ofLWfG inGreeceincludedregularmonitoringandhave Nestos Delta(Figure1). Delta, and to lesser extent to Lake Ismarida (Mitrikou) and the and Thrace, morespeci is confi Greek mainland(Handrinos& Akriotis 1997),todaythespecies show thattherangeofspeciescoveredalarger partofthe by theHellenicRaritiesCommittee(inpress). ously consideredasarecordcount,hasrecentlybeen rejected 1964) which has been sited by numerous publications and previ- tion of1630LWfG attheEvrosDeltain1963(Hoffmann etal. Evros Delta(Johnson&Carp1973)whileanolderobserva- of observedLWfG inGreeceis487individuals1973atthe 2005, Kazantzidis&Naziridis1999). The historicalmaximum HOS &HBRC2008,Naziridispers.com, Vangeluwe 2004, birds duringthelastthreedecades(Handrinos&Goutner1990, ern Greece,withnumbersrangingfromca40tomorethan100 took placemainlyinLakeKerkiniandtheEvrosDelta. in Greecehavebeenintensi Lesser White-fronted Geese (Anser erythropus, hereafter LWfG) During thelast12yearsefforts formonitoringthewintering 1. Introduction Monitoring ofLesser inGreece Geese White-fronted Panagiotopoulou etal:Monitoring ofLesser White Fronted GeeseinGreece Figure 1.Mapofwintering sites ofLesser inGreece. Goose White-fronted The aim of this paper is to present monitoring data collected In thelast20yearsseveralprojectsaimingatconserva- Although historicaldatafromtheturnof19thcentury The LWfG is a rare but regular winter visitor in north-east- ned tothemajorwetlandsofcentralandeastMacedonia 3 2 1 Maria Panagiotopoulou Evros Delta Management Authority,Evros Management Delta email:[email protected] Authority, Management email:[email protected] Kerkini Lake str.Hellenic Ornithological Society, Kastritsiou 8, 54623, Thessaloniki fi cally toLakeKerkiniandtheEvros fi ed throughvariousprojects,which 1 , Yannis Tsougrakis GREECE 1 , Theodoros Naziridis Lake Kerkini 830 km for irrigationandfl belong totheNationalParkofEastMacedonia and Thrace level andtheyarelocatedatthenortheastpartoflake. tated alluvialareasrevealedbytheloweringoflake’s water mountains. The LWfG habitathereconsistsofsparselyvege- mouth, wetmeadowsand (N 40°52’, E 26°00’) is a protected area of 188 km tween Greeceand Turkey, andtheGreekpartofEvrosDelta according tothenationallegislation. Sites ofCommunityImportance(SCI)aswellNationalParks ignated asRamsarsites,SpeciallyProtected Areas (SPA) and the in cases when the wintering LWfG were not all concentrated in Evros DeltaandsecondarilyatNestosLakeIsmarida Monitoring ofLWfG tookplaceprimarilyatLakeKerkiniand 2.1. Sitedescription 2. Materialsandmethods picture ofthewinteringpatternLWfG inGreece. project andlinkittoolderdatainorderformulateabetter arti wintering habitatconsistsofsaltmarshesandnaturalgrassland. banks andisletsaswellwetdrymeadows. The LWfG reed beds,tamariskshrub,cultivations,riparianwoodland,sand- the lowerpartofEvrosriverwithcoastallagoons,saltmarshes, GREECE, email:[email protected], [email protected] c) LakeIsmaridaandtheNestosDelta:Both these wetlands a) EvrosDelta: The EvrosRiverformsthenaturalborderbe- b) LakeKerkini:Kerkini(N41°12’,E23°09’)isalarge, fi fi cial freshwater lake fed by the Strymonas River and is used rst twosites (Figure 1). All thesefourwetlandsaredes- 2 andapartfromthelakeitincludesriparianforest,river 2 &EleniMakriyanni Nestos Delta ood control. The sizeoftheprotectedareais fl Lake Ismarida ooded areassurroundedbyforested 3 Evros Delta 2 and includes the maximum numberofwintering LWfG in Greeceranged During the winters of2005– 2006, 2006–2007 and2007 –2008, 3.1. Wintering population 3. Results al. 2009). by datafromapairof satellite taggedindividuals(seeØienet varied from0.4to2.8km. als, juveniles and colour-ringed birds. The observation distance for every The LWfG wereobservedwith telescope 20–60Xand90X and LWfG wherenotpresentatLakeKerkiniortheEvrosDelta. monitored irregularlywhenneeded,i.e. someorallthe end ofthechapter3.1.).LakeIsmaridaandNestos Deltawere are notpresentedhereexceptforashortpreliminary noteinthe 2009; fortechnicalreasonstheresultsofwinter 2008–2009 winter periods(2005–2006,2006–2007,2007–2008 and2008– weekly basisbetweenmidOctobertoendof Marchforfour Lake KerkiniandtheEvrosDeltaweremonitored onanearly 2.2. Monitoring of wheat where therearelarge expansesoflowgrassland,andamosaic LWfG have only been observed at the eastern part of the delta and coastalsaltmarshesfreshwatermarshes totheeast. The the embankedriverNestos,sevencoastallagoons tothewest Ptelea lagoons. The NestosDelta(N40°50’,E25°05’)includes reservoirs northofIsmaridaandtheareasclosetoElos of theLakeandwheat the NestosDelta. The LWfG areusingthesaltmarshareaseast and somefewfreshwatermarshesextendingwestwardsuntil South ofthelakethereisaseriescoastallagoons,saltmarshes tivations andislocated3kminlandfromthe Thracian coast. 25°19’) isanaturalshallowfreshwaterlakesurroundedbycul- which covers an area of 950 km Figure annualcounts 2.Highest ofwintering numbersofLesser inGreece Geese White-fronted (1974–2008). 100 120 140 160 20 40 60 80 During thewinter2006–2007, themonitoringwasassisted 0 9418 9318 9518 9919 9519 9719 9920 0120 0320 0520 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1989 1988 1985 1984 1983 1982 1974 40 fi elds, naturalgrassland withpondsand fl ock werecordedpositionandnumber of individu- 2 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project 32 70 fi elds closetothelakeaswell 1 2 . Lake Ismarida (N 40°59’, E 116 142 2 0 fl ooded areas. 43 67 4 1999, 2005-2006, 2006-2007and 2007-2008LWfG wintered During where theystayuntil late February–midMarch(Figure5). From therethey November andstaythere untillateDecember–earlyJanuary. The LWfG arrive 3.2. Wintering period andmovements 2009. servation (ofatleast10 individuals)wasmadeon10February ringed birds,wasmade in27November. The lastconfi count of45individuals,including4juveniles and4colour viduals) wereobservedon3November, andthehighestdaily only atLakeKerkini. The of February2009werethatLWfG wereexceptionallyobserved ized (endofFebruary2009). The preliminaryresultsbytheend The monitoringwasstillongoingwhenthis report was Life projectwasextendedtocoveralsothewinter 2008–2009. from KerkiniandEvroswereobservedatLake Ismarida. (Figure 4).Inthewinterof1998–1999part thebirdsmissing period betweenJanuarytoendofFebruary, varyingeachyear from allmonitoredsitesinGreeceandthis happens withina LWfG aremissingfortwotomorethanfourweekseachwinter at LakeIsmaridahavedroppeddrastically. Evros delta. The wintering numbersatothersitesandespecially 2008 withLakeKerkinialwayshavinglower numbers thanthe to havebeenstablebetweenthewinters2003–2004and2007– wintering numbersatLakeKerkini and theEvrosDeltaseem LWfG atEvrosdeltainwinter1998)(Figures2and3). The (r=0.0073, p=0.8988)despitesomepeaknumbers(i.e.113 of LWfG appeartohavebeenstableintheperiod1974–2008 belly patchpattern,cf. Aarvak et.al2009), Wintering numbers (i.e. nottotalnumbersofdifferent individualsrecognizedbythe maximum dailycountsofindividualsobservedsimultaneously from 44to56individuals.Itisimportantnote,thattheseare The monitoringoftheLWfG inGreeceasapartoftheLWFG It isimportanttopointoutthat50–100%of thewintering 43 71 fi ve completemonitoring winters(1996-1997, 1998- 25 26 fl y ca250km furthereasttotheEvrosDelta fi rst atLakeKerkini inlateOctober–early 4 19 fi rst LWfG (a Panagiotopoulou etal:Monitoring ofLesser White Fronted GeeseinGreece single 52  site 50 fl ock of30–34indi- combined 41 44 49  rmed ob- sites 54 fi nal- 56 009 61 62 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Figure 3.Maximumcounts ofwintering Lesser numberspersite Goose andyearWhite-fronted (1974–2007). The year refers to the month, the dividuals) at LakeKerkinion4November. By the endof observed attheEvrosDelta (seealsoØienetal.2009). indicating ashortstop there, justonedayaftertheywerelastly from asatellitetagged LWfG wasreceivedfromLakeKerkini, and 6colourringedbirds. InthebeginningofMarch,asignal appeared attheEvrosDelta, including3juveniles,4adultpairs observed intheotherwetlands. IntheendofFebruary54LWfG from 4to10individulas attheEvrosdelta,andnoLWfG were December and mid-February, the numbers of LWfG ranged the individuals werepresentuntil21December. At theEvrosDelta was 42including4juvenilesand3colourringed birds,and31 By theendofNovembernumberLWfG atLakeKerkini October (signalofsatellitetaggedindividual) atLakeKerkini. on 27February. numbers decreasedgraduallyuntilthelast10 LWfG wereseen February. Later, 32 LWfG returned at the Evros Delta and the vidual thatwasobservedattheNestosDeltain thebeginningof Evros DeltaandLakeKerkiniwiththeexception ofoneindi- mid-February, allwinteringLWfG were missingfromboththe veniles, and 4 colour ringed birds. Between mid-January and later inmidJanuarytheybecame41individuals including9ju- als) arrivedattheEvrosDeltaon17December, andoneweek conditions withlimitedvisibility). The viduals wereobserved(probablybecauseof poor observation 30 individualswith4–5juvenilesandnocolourringedindi- on 1Novemberandstayedthereuntil6December. They were ing thewholewinteringseason. Lake KerkiniandtheEvrosDeltaweremonitoredregularlydur- it andvariouspatternshavebeenobservedinyearswhenboth of theLWfG inGreece,itseemsthatallthebirdsdonotfollow days attheEvrosDelta(Figure6). 62.6 (±23.8)dayswerespentatLakeKerkiniand80.820.5) in Greeceforanannualaverageof129days(±12.6),which Panagiotopoulou etal:Monitoring ofLesser White Fronted GeeseinGreece 100 120 140 80 20 40 60 In thewinter 2007–2008,LWfG were In thewinter2006–2007 In thewinter2005–2006LWfG arrivedatLakeKerkini Although thisisthegeneralpatternofwinteringschedule 0 fi rst fewLWfG wereobservedon26December. Between 22 9418 9318 9518 9919 9519 9719 9920 0120 0320 0520 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1989 1988 1985 1984 1983 1982 1974 40 fl ock had increased to 52 individuals including 32 70 fi rst LWfG wasrecordedon28 1 116 26 fi rst LWfG (38individu- fi rst observed(12in- 2 43 67 52 4 end ofFebruary 52individualswere observed,andthe viduals including 3adultpairsand upto12juveniles. At the ber. By mid-February the number ranged between 24–26 indi- the stayed atLakeKerkini until10February. IntheEvrosDelta 5 juveniles,1adultpair and3colourringedbirds.20LWfG 2005 provided by T. (pers. com.). Aarvak Vangeluwe, 3)Lesser LIFEproject,data Geese beforeWhite-fronted in Greece 1996–2008.References: 1) Theodoros Naziridis, 2)Didier Table ofcolour-ringed Lesser 1.Observations Geese White-fronted 16 Red-Orange R Red-Orange 2,3 3 16 Evros 2005 2006– –2008 2008 Red-White R 1 +Evros Kerkini +Evros Kerkini 15 L(Finn) Orange-Red 1,2 14 L Red-Black 2002 –2005 Evros 2002 13 1 Black-Red L +Evros Kerkini 1 12 2002,2003, R Orange-Yellow 11 L White-Green 2002 Kerkini 10 2000 Red-White L Kerkini 1 9 Black-Green R 2000,2002, Kerkini 8 Kerkini Black-Red L 2000 7 Black-White L Kerkini 6 L Red-Black 5 Kerkini Green-Black R 4 Yellow-Green L 3 e-lc-elwLKrii+Ers19,19 1 1996,1997 Yellow R +Evros Kerkini 2 Red-Black-Yellow L 1 35 fi rst LWfG (10 individuals) were observed on 29 Novem- 43 (Mánnu) (Máddu) (Nieida) Code 41 17 25 26 Evros 4 2 4 ekn vo 072,3 2007 +Evros Kerkini 2,3 2007 –2008 +Evros Kerkini 2002, +Evros Kerkini ekn vo 2000,2002, +Evros Kerkini Area 19 Kerkini 36 7 52 48 Ismarida 50 32 04–052 2004 –2005 2004 –2008 2004 2003 2005 –2008 2004, 05–072,3 2005 –2007 er Ref. Years 41 38 1 49 other 42 autumn. 1,2,3 1 1 1,2,3 54 fl ock 52 Evros Delta). Figure 5.Annualwintering periodofLesser inGreeceWhite-fronted Geese (Lake and Kerkini of regular monitoring (1998–1999*,2005–2006, 2006–2007,2007–2008).*1998–1999data from &Naziridis1999. Kazantzidis Figure 4.Fluctuations ofthenumberwintering Lesser at Geese LakeWhite-fronted Evros Kerkini, Deltaandotherwetlands during years Kerkini orat theEvrosDelta,of which 7different birds were of 50ringed inNorway(Table 1)havebeen observedinLake (T.Aarvak pers.com.). Intotal16colourringedindividuals out Colour ringedLWfG werefi 3.3 Observationsofcolour ringedindividuals individuals inEvros(1–3 December). separate wintering LWfG populationwasatleast56individualsin two LWfG were observed attheEvrosDelta. This winterthetotal they wereobservedat the EvrosDelta.Intotal3colourringed increased to54individualsby14March,which wasthelastday 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 1996/97 1998/99 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

14 15 SEP ‐ c 3‐ Oct fl ocks: 33 individuals in Kerkini and simultaneously 23 1998 15 NOV – Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project 1999 o 23 Nov

15 JAN ‐ KERKINI o 13 Nov

rst observedinGreece1996 15 MAR Evros ‐ e 2 Dec

15 OCT 2005–2006 EVROS Kerkini

‐ 15 DEC a 22 ‐ Jan

15 FEB ISMARIDA Greece a 11 Jan

15 SEP ‐ e 3 Feb 2006 of it,move to theEvrosDelta,but inJanuaryandFebruary the November–December. Later inwintertheLWfG most orallofLWfG winteringinGreeceareobservedduring their tering inGreecewas theorderof50birds.LakeKerkiniis During thewintersof 2005–2008 thenumberofLWfG win- 4. Discussion and threeattheEvrosDelta. observed intotal,three spentthewholewinteratKerkiniLake in winter2007–2008outofsixcolourringed birdsthatwere 15 NOV – 2007 fi rst stop-oversiteinGreecewhere,dependingon theyear, ‐ a 23 Mar 15 JAN

15 MAR ‐ Mar

15 SEP 2007–2008. Itisalsonoteworthythat at the Evros Delta in the winter LWfG in the same site was 100 days uous stayofanysinglecolourringed consecutive years.Maximumcontin- served at the Evros Delta for three 1). Oneindividualhasonlybeenob- 2002 orevensince2000(see Table been present in Greece annually since 2). project period(2005– 2008) (Table als wereobservedduringtheLIFE Lake Kerkiniofwhich6individu- ferent colour ringed individuals at there were29observationsof16dif- However intheyears1996– often foggy observation conditions. due tolongobservationdistancesand birds atLakeKerkiniismoredif observed. Recordingcolourringed 2008, ofwhich7individualswere at theEvrosDeltainyear2004– are 45observationsof11 individuals March 2008.Morespecifi observed betweenautumn2005to Some colourringedLWfG have Panagiotopoulou etal:Monitoring ofLesser White Fronted GeeseinGreece

15 NOV 2007–2008

15 JAN

fl 15 MAR ock, orapart cally there cally fi 2008 cult 009 63 64 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Aarvak, T., Leinonen, A., Øien,I.J.& Tolvanen, P. 2009: 5. References critically endangeredFennoscandian LWfG population. main challengesforfuture conservation-related research onthe help infi servations havebeenreportedfrombirdwatchers, whichmight or theycouldnotidentifythem.Inrecentyears someLWfG ob- Counts because observers were not especially looking for them been veryscarceduringtheannualMidwinter Waterfowl nithologists. Itisnoteworthythatobservations ofLWfG have also helpedinraisingawarenessaboutthespecies amongor- are needed(i.e.bellypatchanalysis,see Aarvak etal.2009). this, however, moreobservationsofindividuallyidenti number ofwinteringLWfG inGreece.Inordertodocument at theEvrosDeltainearlyspring,mightslightly raisethetotal birds observedinlateautumnatLakeKerkini donotshowup number of wintering LWfG in Greece. The fact that part of the of LWfG attheEvrosDelta,sometimessurpassingtotal is becauseinlateFebruary –early Marchweobservedapeak area inthebeginningofreturntriptoFennoscandia. This the EvrosDeltaalsoseemstoserveas counties. ing another unknown site(s) either in Greece or in neighbouring in January–Februaryindicatethatthemissingbirdsareus- sence ofLWfG inEvrosDeltaandLakeKerkinimostyears destruction. ing LWfG becauseofdisturbance,heavypoachingandhabitat we presumethattheareahaslostitssignifi have beenobservedattheLakeIsmaridawetlandcomplexand Evros. At present,however, despiterepeatedvisits,noLWfG ly playedaroleofregularstop-oversitebetweenKerkiniand 1990’s indicatethatLakeIsmaridaandtheNestosDeltaformer- and usepartlyunknownsites.Observationsfromthe1980’s and 2006–2007 hasneverbeenobservedatLakeKerkini. the Evros Delta during the winters 2004–2005, 2005–2006 and Delta, andontheotherhandonecolour-ringed birdobservedat birds observedatKerkiniwerenotrecordedlatertheEvros by thefactthatinwinter2007–2008threecolour-ringed (at leastdirectly)totheEvrosDelta,whichisfurthersupported an indicationthatallLWfG arrivingatKerkiniarenotmoving total numberofLWfG usuallydecreasesatbothsites. This is Yellow R per site andyear (October 2005–March 2008). Table of colour-ringed 2. Observations Lesser White-fronted Geese Panagiotopoulou etal:Monitoring ofLesser White Fronted GeeseinGreece oa bevdprst 0 2 3 3 + + 3 + + 6 2 4 4 0 Total peryear observed Total persite observed R “Mánnu” Red-Orange R “Máddu”Red-White Orange-Red + Black-Red L + L Orange-Yellow R Red-White “Finn” + L + + “Nieida” Monitoring ofLWfG inGreecetheyears1997–2008has In additiontobeinganimportantwinteringsiteforLWfG, Therefore, theobservedreducednumbersorcompleteab- It isassumedthattheLWfG on theEuropean migrationroute. Final reportoftheEU K. (eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Goose colour ringing. In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, White-fronted Goosebased onindividualrecognitionand Population sizeestimation oftheFennoscandianLesser nding the“mystery”wintering site,whichisoneofthe Kerkini Evros Kerkini EvrosKerkini Evros Kerkini 0520 2006–20072007–2008 2005–2006 + + + + + + + + + fl ock splitintosmallergroups fi rst springstaging 6 cance forwinter- fi ed birds 6 100 120 140 160 Vangeluwe, D.2005: The Dranamarshes(EvrosDelta,Greece), Vangeluwe, D.2004: The entireEuropean breedingpopula- Kazantzidis, S. & Nazirides, T. 1999 Johnson, A. &Carp,E.1973 Hoffmann, L.,Olney, P.J. &Swift,J.1964:IWRBNewsletter Hellenic OrnithologicalSociety, HellenicBirdRingingCen- Hellenic RaritiesCommittee,inpress: HRC: Annual report Handrinos, G.I.,&Goutner, V. 1990:Ontheoccurrenceof Handrinos, G.,& Akriotis, T. 1997: The BirdsofGreece. 2005/06–2007/08. wintering periodinGreece inthewinters 1996/97,1998/99and Figure 6.Average duration (days) ofLesser Geese White-fronted y 20 40 60 80 0 conservation management ofDranaLagoon” lished report of the Life Nature program “Restoration & ogy oftheRed breasted GooseBrantarufi Anser erythropuswith data onthe occurrence andecol- a questionofsurvival fortheEuropeanpopulationof serie reportNo.1-2004:53 20 &NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapport- project. Report 2001 – 2003. – Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation WWF Finland Report No ros Delta,Greece?In: Aarvak, T. &S. Timonen (eds.): tion ofLesser White -fronted GoosewinteringintheEv- Protection ofPrespa. Greece, HellenicOrnithologicalSociety, Societyforthe naeus 1758).LIFENatureProjectB4 3200/96/499. WWF the Lesser White-fronted Goose(AnsererythropusLin- via, January1973.– IWRBBull.35:47– 57. census inGreece,withobservationsItalyand Yugosla- 17/18:32–33. 1982– 2008). tre, 2008:Midwinter Waterfowl CensusDataBase(years 2008. J. Orn.131:160– 165. Lesser White Helm A. andC.BlackLtd.,London,336p. 27 &NOFRapportserieReportNo1-2009:71–75. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport 129 Greece ( ± 12.63) -fronted Goose Anser erythropusinGreece. 80.8 : IWRBMidwinterwaterfowl Evros – 54.  ( ± 20.55) : National Action Plan for 62.6 collis. Unpub- collis. Kerkini  ( ± 23.8) Goose inGoose Greece Public awareness campaignfor theLesser White-fronted ous problems inidenti to avoidthem. Furthermorethecampaign addressedthe seri- of themost importantthreatsfor the speciesandpossibilities of thereasonsforglobally threatenedstatusoftheLWfG, and farmers. on theEvrosDeltaarea, anditsmaintarget groupswerehunters activities startingin2005. The campaignwasmainlyfocusing place from August 2006untiltheendof2008,withpreparatory The publicawarenesscampaign oftheLWfG LIFEproject took 2. Aims andtargetgroups in thecontextofLWfG LIFE-Natureproject(2005–2009). This articlepresentsthepublicawarenessactions implemented LIFE-Nature projectsthatwereeitherspecies orsitesoriented. that followed more such actions were included in subsequent Curlew (Numeniustenuirostris) intheEvrosDelta.Inyears cusing ontheconservationofLWfG andtheSlender-billed as thelate1980swhenaposterandlea , hereafterLWfG)(Anser erythropus startedinGreeceasearly The publicawarenessactionsoftheLesser White-fronted Goose 1. Introduction November 2008 Visitors to National theKerkini Park studyingtheinformation at ©Petteri signoftheLIFEproject Mandraki. Tolvanen, Lake K The keyobjectiveswere tomakehuntersandfarmersaware 2 1 Yannis Tsougrakis Evros Delta Management Authority,Evros Management Delta email:[email protected] str.Hellenic Ornithological Society, Kastritsiou 8, 54623, Thessaloniki Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project fi cation (especially separating LWfG and 1 , MariaPanagiotopoulou fl et werepublishedfo- 1 &EleniMakriyanni objectives. On theotherhand,this periodwascharacterised by certain agri-environment schemes withwildlifeconservation of theLWfG intheprotected specieswhichcan betargeted by mission (EC). Among others,ourproposalsincludedthelisting ment Planthatwaseventually approvedbytheEuropeanCom- stage andhavethemincluded intheMRDF’s RuralDevelop- proposals forthenew agri-environmentschemesatanearly work 2007–2013. This provided us the opportunity to submit preparing thestrategyfor theforthcomingEU Greek MinistryofRural Development and Food (MRDF) was The periodofthecampaign coincidedwiththeperiodwhen 3.1. Farmingissues 3. Results both localandnationallevel. ganisations aswellwithof geese, etc.)andcommunicationwithhunters andfarmersor- tems, existingagri-environmentmeasures,crop damagesby situation atEvrosDelta(e.g.existingcrops and farmingsys- the EUagri-environmentmeasuresfavourable fortheLWfG. GWfG), aswelltoprovideguidanceforimplementation of the Greater White-fronted Goose( GREECE, email:[email protected], [email protected] Preparatory activitiesincludedanassessment ofthefarming 2 Tsougrakis etal:Public awareness campaignfortheLesser White-fronted GooseinGreece fi cialsofcompetentauthoritiesat ne lirons,hereafter Anser albifr fi nancial frame- nancial erkini, erkini, 009 65 66 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 The LWfG male Mánnubeingreleased colour after ringingat the Valdak Marshes, Finnmark, inMay Jostein Norway 2006.©Ingar Øi tifi colour illustrationsanditmainlycoveredtheproblemsofiden- their annualhuntingpermit. The articlewasonthreepageswith hunters inNorthernGreece(ca.55,000copies)togetherwith ing manual2006”(320pages)thatwasfreelydistributedtoall by theLWfG LIFEprojectpublishedinabookcalled“Hunt- very successfulasin August 2006wehadanarticleprepared The kick-off ofthecampaigntargeting thehuntingissueswas 3.2. Huntingissues regional TV stationsontheeveningnews. to thelocalnewspapersmeetingwascoveredbyatleasttwo imposed byboththeECandMRDFwasevident.Inaddition discussion veryfruitful,theirpessimismabouttheprocedures Although theinterestofaudiencewasveryhighand forthcoming schemesinordertopromotethematalocallevel. the agriculturesectorofareaandtoupdatethemabout planned agri-environmentschemestokeypeopleinvolvedin present theproblemsofLWfG andthebene NGOs andtheMRDF. The mainobjectiveofthemeetingwasto palities, farmers’ andlivestockbreeders’ unions,environmental cials fromlocalpublicservices,theprefectureandmunici- of theEvrosdeltanationalpark. The participantsincludedof ros Delta,withtheco-operationofmanagementauthority the farmingissuesinrelationtoLWfG conservationattheEv- ing bytheendof2008. plementation oftheagri-environmentschemeswerestillpend- sion’s sideandasaresultallthenecessarydecisionsforim- long delaysbothfromtheMRDF’s andtheEuropeanCommis- Tsougrakis etal:Public awareness campaignfortheLesser White-fronted GooseinGreece cation ofLWfG andseparatingitfromtheGWfG.However, In June2007weorganised atrainingmeetingfocussingon fi ts ofproperly fi - Park andveryclose(ca.700m)totheregularfeedingareaof cember, insideanon-huntingzonewithintheKerkiniNational the area,anditwasfounddeadonlytwodayslater, on12De- kini. Mánnuwaslastobservedaliveon10December2007in northern NorwayinMay2006,wasfounddeadatLakeKer- ring-marked bytheLIFEprojectclosetoitsbreedingareain An adultmaleLWfG namedasMánnu,individuallycolour- 3.3. TheMánnucase for thehuntersofthiscriticallyimportantareaLWfG. at EvrosDeltaemphasizingontheproblemofitsidenti the EvrosareawherewepresentedsituationwithLWfG to arrangeameetingwiththemostimportanthunters’ clubof obstacles intheco-operationatnationallevel,wemanaged for monitoringandintensiveguarding.Nevertheless,despitethe Evros Deltaaswelltheestablishmentofajointalertnetwork of atrainingmeetingforhuntersandjointbagcontrolsatthe proposals includedspeci the proposalsbyLWfG LIFEprojectforco-operation.Our to befruitlessaseventuallyinNovember2007theyrejectedall require theirapprovalandstartedalengthydialoguethatproved co-operation withanylowerlevelhunters’ organisation would al andlocal,beingsubordinatetoit. The HHCinsistedthatany top levelhunters’ organisation inGreecewithallothers,region- Hunters Confederation(HHC)wasinvolved. The HHCisthe ers’ organisations becameverycomplicatedastheHellenic tives andactions. conservation statusandabouttheLIFEprojectitsobjec- it alsoprovidedgeneralinformationaboutthespeciesandits Unfortunately, soonafterthat,theco-operationwithhunt- fi c activitiessuchastheco-organising fi cation en term constant effort andagreat dealofpatience. competent authorities. All thesebythemselvesrequire along- agri-environment schemes amongfarmersbutalsothe efi both intermsofthespecies conservationandthefarmersben- of theMRDFand EC, verycarefulplanningofmeasures offi edge ofthespecies’ habitatrequirements,intensivelobbying of handled byaprojectteam onitsown.Itinvolvesgoodknowl- involves manyfactorsmost ofwhichareexternalandcannotbe cated andextendsbeyondthetimelimitsofa LIFE projectasit campaigns. lessons thatshouldbeusedinfutureefforts formoreef important fortheconservationofspecies, but alsotaughtus Despite theobstaclesencountered,campaign ledtoresults 4. Discussion website. signed andarehostedasaspecialsectionforthe LWfG inHOS quarterly magazineOionos.Furthermore,web pageswerede- 30-pages longspecialsectiondevotedtotheLWfG intheHOS newspapers andecologicalmagazinesaswell asanextensive manual 2006’ severalarticleswerepreparedandpublishedin on theprojectwebsite. hunters’ federations. All thematerialwasalsomadeavailable They werealsomailedtoselectedhunters’ localclubsandtoall tional parksandtohuntersattheEvrosDeltaduring information centresofbothEvrosDeltaandLakeKerkinina- distributed atthemeetingswithfarmersandhunters, 1,500 copiesandtargeted mainlythehunters. They wereboth public. The posteronidenti It targeted primarilythehuntersandfarmersbutalsowider its actions,agriculturalissuesandsatellitetrackingofLWfG. threats tothespecies,identi as inEuropeandGreece.Further, thebookletfocusedon species’ distributionandconservationstatusgloballyaswell was printedin5,000copiesandincludedinformationonthe tion bookletandanidenti The mainprintedmaterialofthecampaignwereaninforma- 3.4. Publishedmaterial ties orfromtheEC. did notreceiveanyreplytoourappealsfromtheGreekauthori- der fortheperpetratorstobetraced.Untilendof2008we wrongdoer andtheinitiationofpreliminaryinvestigationinor- at thecompetentprosecutordemandingindictmentofany The HellenicOrnithologicalSociety(HOS)lodgedacomplaint SCI) sitessothatpoachingwillnotthreatenendangeredspecies. tering sites,andalsoinsafeguardingtheseNatura2000(SPA, Directive Annex Ispecies)effectively attheknownmain win- should fulfi main pointintheappealletterswasthatGreekauthorities sent tocompetentauthoritiesinGreecebutalsotheEC. The LIFE project,i.e.FinlandandNorway. Letters of appealwere by mediainothercountries,forwardedthepartnersof ternational and WWF International. There wasalsocoverage level thenewswaspublishedonwebsitesofBirdLifeIn- also coveredbyradioand TV atprimetime. At theinternational in newspapersandmagazineswerepublishedthenewswas awareness campaign. At nationallevelinGreecemanyarticles gun andthistriggeredanimportantpartoftheproject’s public Authority Eviracon the LWfG. The autopsyperformedbytheFinnishFoodSafety ts. Inaddition itrequiresandaverygoodpromotionofthe Regarding thefarmingissuessituationis verycompli- Besides theaforementionedarticleincludedin the‘Hunting cials oftheministriesand localservices,lengthyprocedures l theirobligationsinprotectingLWfG (anEUBirds Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project fi rmed that thebirdwaskilledwithashot- fi cation poster. The 24-pagesbooklet fi fi cation issues,theLIFEprojectand cationwasprintedat33x48cmin fi eld visits. fi cient tional andinternationallevelitisin sincere andproductiveinmostcasesbutasit shiftstothena- At thelocalandpersonallevelco-operationwith thehuntersis tions whilethestatehuntingcontrolispractically non-existing. ing forceagainstpoachingistheonerunbyhunters’ federa- the speciesbutalsobecauseinGreeceonlyeffective guard- the LWfG notonlybecauseofthepossiblemisidenti Goose LIFEproject Goose the bird diedofinternal bleeding. © The Lesser White-fronted that isvisibleonthelegpenetrated several internal organs, and Mánnu, shotat Lake inDecember Kerkini 2007. The shotgun pellet ofthebodyLesserRadiograph male Goose White-fronted activities, e.g.byreporting theirobservationswithoutdelay. and thiswaystimulate their activeparticipationinconservation case itisimportanttoprovide themknowledgeandinformation are oftennotincludedin awarenesscampaigns. As wesawin our ple, suchasbirdwatchers andconservationistsingeneral. They that thepresenceof satellitetaggedLWfG pairinGreece. es, namelytheaforementionedMánnucaseand oneyearbefore good coveragemainlywhenwetookadvantage oftwosuchcas- linked witha‘hot’ newsitem.Inourcasewemanagedtoget did notrespondpositivelytopressreleases unless theywere also hastobetargeted bysuchcampaigns. The mediainGreece the HHCwhichchosenottoco-operate. case, theLWfG issueprobablywasahotpotatointhehandsof which mayinturnfacilitateanapproachathigher level.Inour working togetherlocallycanbuildmutual trust andrespect proach ofbothsidesinGreeceandalsosome othercountries; problem inquestion.Perhapsthisshowsusthe waytotheap- con- huntingpoliciesthatinhibitthetreatment oftheparticular The co-operationwiththehuntersisessentialforcaseof Last butnotleastisthe target groupofthealreadyawarepeo- Apart fromthespeci Tsougrakis etal:Public awareness campaignfortheLesser White-fronted GooseinGreece fi c keytarget groups,thegeneral public fl uencedbygeneralpro-or fi cationof 67 68 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 activities such ashunting,agriculture, livestockfarming, als havebeen observedduringthe lastwinters.Severalhuman the Dimitriadi andthePaloukiasites, whereupto54individu- the LWfG, the twomostimportantsitesintheEvrosDelta are dangered, suchastheLWfG (Goutneretal.2005).Concerning year; about30%ofthem arecharacterizedasthreatenedoren- bird speciesusethisarea atleastforaspeci The EvrosDeltaisawell-known wetland,andmorethan300 2. MaterialandMethods in theMediterraneanregion. Before thepresentstudy, thereisnotasinglereportonthistopic about thedietofLWfG winteringintheEvrosDelta,Greece. ment purposes.Inthisstudy, wereportsomepreliminaryresults species inGreekwetlandsduringwinterespecially formanage- scienti & Black1990). Thus, itisofvitalimportancetobroadenthe to bepreparedforthetripbacktheirbreeding areas(Owen withstand theharshweatherconditionsduring winterandalso mented thatfoodplaysamajorroleforbirdspecies inorderto on LWfG dietinsouthernEuropeduringwinter. Itiswelldocu- at arelativelylowlevel.However, thereisalackofknowledge egory fortheLWfG, whereasconsumptionofdicotyledonswas kola etal.2003).Grasseswerethemostimportant foodcat- autumn (Aarvaketal.1996,Niemelä&Markkola 1997,Mark- LWfG innorthernEurope,mainlyduringspring,summerand Vangeluwe 2004). in Greece(Lorentsenetal.1998,Kazantzidis&Naziridis1999, main winteringareasaretheLakeKerkiniandEvrosDelta central EuropeandtheBalkans(seee.g.Jonesetal.2008). The cated innorthernmostNorway, andtheyusually winterineast- known breedingareasoftheFennoscandianpopulationarelo- total populationintheNordiccountries(Jonesetal.2008). The of extinction.Itisestimatedthatabout20pairscomprisethe 2008). The Fennoscandianpopulationhowever, isontheverge tion sizeisestimatedat28,000–33,000individuals(Jonesetal. LWfG) isagloballythreatenedspecies,anditsworldpopula- The Lesser White-fronted Goose( 1. Introduction Droppings ofLesser Goose.White-fronted ©MariaPanagiotopoulou, December 2005 wintering intheEvros Delta,Greece A note onthedietofLesser Goose White-fronted Karmiris etal:Anote onthedietofLesser White-fronted Goosewintering intheEvros Greece Delta, There issomeknowledgeaboutthedietcomposition ofthe fi c knowledgeaboutthedietcompositionofwildfowl 2 1 Ilias Karmiris Hellenic Ornithological Society, [email protected] National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF), Forest Research Institute, GR57006, Vassilika, Thessaloniki, [email protected], [email protected] 1 , Savas Kazantzidis , hereafter Anser erythropus 1 &MariaPanagiotopoulou fi c periodofthe fi shing Gross 1982). Eachplantspecieswas assignedtooneofthe fol- by thetotal numberoffrequencies forallspecies(Holechek & addition procedure, i.e.dividingthe frequencyofeachspecies tissue). Dietcomposition wasdeterminedusingthefrequency disregarded (unlessthey wereattachedtoidenti twenty systematicallyselected per dropping,andthe particle frequencywasexaminedfrom propriate preservation). Fivemicroscopeslideswereprepared (one ofthedroppingswas excludedfromanalysisduetoinap- LWfG wasdetermined bymicroscopicanalysisof9droppings slides wereprepared for reference. The diet compositionof species presentatthesetwositeswerecollected andmicroscope lected 10freshdroppings.Inaddition,themost commonplant disturbance andwhenthebirdsleftsitewe wentandcol- in thePaloukiasite. We watchedthemcarefullywithoutcausing early winter2005–2006,whena woody specieswhichgroweithersolitaryorin smallgroups. constitute onlyaminorportionofvegetation composition) and trefoils), forbs(withagreatdiversityofplant species,butthey may encounterinthesesitesarelegumes(mainly medicsand in casesoffoodlimitation.Othervegetation categories, which petitive interactionsamongtheseherbivoresfor foodespecially et al.2008). Thus, there ishighpossibilityofemerging com- ) arethegrasses(Papachristou fronted Goose(Anseralbifrons cattle, feralhorses,BrownHare( ties (Karmirisetal.2008).Inaddition,themain dietaryitemsof mammalian andavian,usemoreintensivelythe grasscommuni- Delta, sincethemajorherbivoreassemblagesinthisarea,both bellidifolium Halimioneportulacoide Salicornia europaea, nant speciesinthislandscapeandthemostcommononesare the qualityofwater, salinityetc.Halophytesarethedomi- mosaic duetomanyinvolvedfactorssuchasthepresenceand nities, halophyteandgrass-forb,formingatemporaldynamic period annually. (animals arefreetograzewherevertheylike)fora7–9month area iscattle.Livestockgrazingperformedwithoutshepherds trefoils foranimalfeeding. The mainlivestockspeciesinthis crops arecereals(mainlywheat,barleyandmaize)also and tourismtakeplaceintheEvrosDelta. The mostimportant We hadtheopportunitytocollectfreshdroppings ofLWfG in This areaisdominatedmainlybytwovegetationcommu- 2 . GrassesarethemostvaluableplantsinEvros fi elds. Hairsandtrichomeswere fl Lepus europaeus) and White- ock of38individualsarrived GREECE, e s andLimonium -mail: fi ed epidermal ed Petteri Tolvanen, November 2006 Cattle grazing onthe Dimitriadigrasslands, which are preferred alsoby theLesser wintering Geese White-fronted intheEvros move longerdistancesbetweenavailablesites (Demment &van are expectedtospendlesstimeinaspeci is limited,herbivoreswithsmallbodysize,such astheLWfG, searching forpreferablefooditems.Hence,when availablefood quire lessfeedingtimethanlarge ones,andspendmoretimein herbivores (Stuth1991).Small-bodied usuallyre- fl tion andlivestockdevelopment).Propergrazingin- ment ofthesehabitatsformultiplepurposes(gooseconserva- such studiesmightrevealvaluablesolutionsforthemanage- terrestrial habitatshavenotbeenstudiedindetail,eventhough for livestock. The interactionsbetweenLWfG andlivestockin surrounding Greekwetlandsareusuallyusedasgrazingsites throughout thewinteringperiod.However, terrestrialhabitats communities, inordertoensuredietaryneedsoftheLWfG centrate primarilyontheprotectionandenhancementofgrass improving thewinteringconditionsofLWfG shouldcon- ity levels,regulationofsedimentdeposition,etc.)aimingat (livestock grazingmanagement,controlofwaterandsalin- LWfG intheEvrosDelta.Hence,appliedmanagementefforts Grasses werebyfarthemostimportantfoodcategoryof 4. Discussion composition, wereconsumedinlowproportion. for LWfG. Halophytes,despitetheirdominanceinvegetation 5.4 %.Legumesandotherforbswereofsecondaryimportance others) werealsoconsumedbyLWfG, andtheirproportionwas belonging tothegenera in theforagingareas.Othermonocotyledons(i.e.species the factthatgrasseswerenotdominantplantspecies The importanceofthegrassesisfurtherunderlinedby tuted uptothreequartersofthetotaldietLWfG. diet. Thus, wildandcultivatedgrassestogetherconsti- grasses (mainlywheat)constituted6.9%ofthetotal (Figure 1). Their proportionwasupto68%.Cultivated Wild grasseswerethemainfoodcategoryofLWfG 3. Results (Holechek etal.1984). diet compositionwithoutdisturbanceforthestudiedanimals crops. This techniquehasthedistinctadvantageofestimating other forbs,halophytes,woodyvegetationandagricultural lowing forageclasses:grasses,othermonocotyledons,legumes, uences boththedietbreadthandmovementbehaviorof Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project Carex, Eleocharis,Scirpus fi cfeedingsiteandto , and monocotyledonae Legumes 1,7% Other Crops 5,4% age resourcesbylivestockandgeese)leadstoamoreef ing nichesare.Foodpartitioning(i.e.partitionofavailablefor- order tofavourtheLWfG isconnectedtohowsimilartheirfeed- cess. The useofgrazinglivestockasa‘habitatmanipulator’ in ability duringwinterandfortheupcomingreproductionsuc- Both oftheseresponsesaredisadvantagesbothforthesurvival with anincreasedmortalityriskduetohigherhuntingpressure). ing areasandalsotousemoreoftensub-optialsites(e.g. may beforcedtospendmoreenergy lookingforfavorablefeed- of thefoodLWfG, islimited,thenitverylikelythatgeese Soest 1985).Ifavailabilityofgrasses,whichconstitutethebulk in theEvros Delta. Figure 1.Majorfood categories oftheLesser White-fronted Goose 6.9 %ofthetotaldietLWfG consistedofcultivatedcrops hunting isnotallowed),therearenowheat light. Inthesesites(andinallpartsoftheEvros Deltawhere exclusively attheDimitriadisandPaloukia sites duringday- cases oflimitedavailabilityresources. and ultimatelytheircoexistencewouldbeatrisk,especiallyin age resources),negativeinteractions(competition)mayemerge ecosystems. Otherwise(i.e.ifthesespeciestarget thesamefor- use oftheavailableresourcesandtomorestableproductive

(mainly It isimportanttonotethatLWfG hasbeenobservedtoforage t b F Oth 6,9% 4,8% er

F wheat) or b s Halophytes Karmiris etal:Anote onthedietofLesser White-fronted Goosewintering intheEvros Greece Delta, 2,6% Woody 0,1%

vegetation Grasses 68,0% fi elds. The factthat Unidentified 05% 10 Delta. © fi , 5% cient 69 70 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Delta. This hasalready beenshownfor Wigeon ( Lake Kerkinimaybequitedifferent fromtheirdietintheEvros resources atdifferent sites. As anexample,thedietofLWfG in individuals ofthesamespeciesmayrelyupon different food human disturbance,etc. Therefore, thereisapossibilitythat e.g. huntingpressure,protectionofadverseweatherconditions, foraging strategytomanytemporalandspacevariantfactors, tic species,suchasthemajorityofwaterfowl,abletoadjustits level ofthewaterbody, etc. The LWfG maybeanopportunis- linity, waterdepthandturbidity, lightandtemperature,nutrient as acombinedresultofmanyenvironmentalfactors,suchsa- food maybequitedifferent betweenMediterraneanwetlands, The abundance,accessibilityandnutrientcontentofpotential Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S.(eds).2004:FennoscandianLess- 5. References tion efforts atthestagingandwinteringsites. result inapplicationsof vitalimportanceforLWfG conserva- wetland conservationmore realizable. This knowledgemight goose communitiesmorereliable,andconsequently theholistic LWfG wouldmakeourpredictionsonthedynamicsofplant- standing themechanismsthatde tion areaconsequenceoffoodavailabilityand quality. Under- and especially, towhatextentthedifferences indietcomposi- ores; ifthereisspatialvariationintheLWfG dietcomposition; are theirinteractionswithgrazinglivestock and otherherbiv- research inordertounderstandhowtheLWfG behaveandwhat (Papachristou etal.2008). several otherdabblingducksandCoot( in north-westernEuropeandithasalsobeen documentedfor principal factorsin mortality riskduetohunting. because ofenergy spendingand,aboveall,becauseofincreased ments outsideoftheprotectedareaisariskforLWfG, both raises animportantconservationimplication,sincesuchmove- (e.g. forroosting,becauseofdisturbance,etc.).However, this limited inDimitriadisandPaloukiasites),orforotherreasons (which seemsverypossible,sinceavailabilityofwildgrassesis unknown iftheLWfG visitthesesitesmainlylookingforfood hunting freezone)too,possiblyatnight. At themoment,itis (wheat), showsthattheLWfG visitotherplaces(outsidethe 2006 fronted intheEvros Geese Delta.©Petteri Tolvanen, November The Paloukia grasslands are alsopreferred by theLesser White- Karmiris etal:Anote onthedietofLesser White-fronted Goosewintering intheEvros Greece Delta, The The availabilityandqualityoffoodareconsideredtobethe No. 1-2004. gian Ornithological Society, NOF Rapportserie report 2001–2003. – WWF FinlandReport No20andNorwe- er White-fronted GooseConservationProject. Report fi ndings inthepresentstudygiveanincentiveforfuture fl uencing thesiteselectionofwaterfowl. fi ne theselection ofsitesbythe Fulica atra Anas penelope ) inGreece ) Vangeluwe, D.2004: The entireEuropeanbreedingpopula- Stuth, J.W. 1991 Papachristou, T., Platis,P., Kazantzidis,S.&Karmiris,I. Niemelä, M.&Markkola,J.1997 Markkola, J.,Niemelä,M.&Rytkonen, S.2003:Dietselec- Lorentsen, S.-H.,Øien,I.J.& Aarvak, T. 1998:Migrationof Kazantzidis, S.&Naziridis, T. (compilers)1999 Karmiris, I.,Platis,P., Kazantzidis,S.&Papachristou, T. Jones, T., Martin,K.,Barov B.&NagyS.(compilers)2008: Holechek, J.L., Vavra, M.&Pieper, R.D.1984:Methodsfor Owen, M.&Black,J.M.1990 Holechek, J.L.&Gross, B.D.1982 Gοutner, V., Alivizatos, C., Vangeluwe, D.,Rigas,G.& Atha- Demment, M.W. &vanSoest,P.J.expla- 1985:Anutritional Aarvak, T., Øien,I.J.&Nagy,Lesser White S.1996:The serie report No. 1-2004:53–54. 20 &Norwegian OrnithologicalSociety, NOFRapport- project. Report2001–2003. – WWF Finland ReportNo Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goose conservation ros Delta,Greece?In: Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S.(eds.): tion ofLesser White-fronted Goosewintering intheEv- perspective. – Timber Press,Portland,Oregon. Stuth, J.W. (eds.)Grazingmanagement: An ecological search Institute. Thessaloniki, Greece.(InGreek). wetlands. FinalReportMADF-NAGREF Forest Re- 2008: Dietselectionofgamewaterbirdsandlivestock in man &Hall,New York. spring stagingarea.–Ecography26:705–714. tion oflesserwhite-frontedgeese Anser eruthropusata vation 84:47–52. ropus mappedbysatellitetelemetry. –BiologicalConser- Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser eryth- Protection ofPrespa. Greece, HellenicOrnithologicalSociety, Society forthe 3200/96/499. – Word Wide FundforNature– WWF erythropus Linnaeus,1758).LIFENatureprojectB4- Action planoftheLesser White-fronted Goose(Anser Greece, pp.173–178.(InGreekwithEnglishsummary). Rangeland Conference,1-4October2008,Leonidio, in EvrosDelta.–Proceedingsofthe6thPanhellenic 2008: Habitatusebycattle,feralhorses,hares,andgeese cal SeriesNo36,Bonn,Germany. White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus.– AEWA Techni- vation ofthe Western PalearcticPopulationoftheLesser International SingleSpecies Action PlanfortheConser- Press, Boulder, Colorado. oping StrategiesforRangelandManagement.– Westview Brotnov J.,Burch,B.,Fairfax,S.&HueyB.(eds).Devel- overlap ofrangeherbivorediets.In: Van Dyne,G.M., determining thebotanicalcomposition,similarity, and – JournalofRangeManagement35:721–723. calculation proceduresformicrohistologicalanalysis. WWF FinlandReportNo9:43–44. Goose Conservationproject. Annual Report1997.– In: Tolvanen etal.(eds.)FinnishLesser White-fronted ing areaof Tömppa seashore meadow, Hailuoto,Finland. white-fronted geese Anser erythropus inthespringstag- and DevelopmentCentreofEvrosS.A. Delta”. –OIKOS–ManagementofNaturalEnvironment and ConservationManagementofDranaLag 2005: LIFE00NAT/GR/7198nasiadis, A. “Restoration nant herbivores.– American Naturalist,125:641. nation forbody-sizepatternsofruminantandnonrumi- Ornithological Society, Klæbu. 1996. –NOFRapportseriereportNo.7-1996,Norwegian fronted GooseMonitoringProgramme. Annual report : Foragingbehavior. In:Heitschmidt,R.K.& : Waterfowl ecology. –Chap- : DietselectionoftheLesser : Evaluationofdifferent οon inEvros : National 1998 onwards theywerealsovideo recordedthroughspotting Finnmark, Norway weredrawnon readymadesheetsand from Since 1990allthespring stagingLWfG atthe Valdak Marshesin 2. Methods further tothe Valdak Marshes(Aarvaketal.1999). 75% ofthegeesestaging attheBothnianBayCoastmigrated nian BayCoastinFinland. This analysis showed thatroughly photos anddrawingsmade duringthesamespringonBoth- Valdak Marshesinspringwere comparedforthe this methodinsubsequentyears. in latesummer, allindividualscannotbereliablyidenti changing annually(toavariableextent)inthe completemoult to drawingthebellypatches.Because patchpatternis eo shot,throughaspottingscope(“videoscoping”) inaddition Later onwestartedtorecordtheindividualsalso ondigitalvid- more, themethodwouldnothavebeenapplicable inpractice. of LWfG atthesitehadbeeninorderofsomehundredsor be notedthatthemethodisratherlaboriousand ifthenumber dividuals intheareaduringwholestaging period.Itshould for apreciseestimateofthetotalnumberdifferent LWfG in- revealing theturnoverofgeeseatsiteas wellasallowing of practicallyalltheLWfG presentonadailybasis,andthereby Barnacle Goose( the Estonianspringstagingareaof much. This iswelldemonstratede.g.at even ifthedailycountsdonotvary at thesametimeasotherswouldarrive, will arrive,stageforsomedaysandleave i.e. asthemigrationproceedsomegeese the continuousturnoverofindividuals; this methoddoesnottakeintoaccount at thetraditionalstagingsites.However, mated simplybydailymaximumcounts hereafter LWfG) atanysitewasapproxi- White-fronted Goose( the estimationofnumbersLesser In theearly1900’s anduntilthe1990’s 1. Introduction and colour ringing Lesser basedonindividualrecognition Goose White-fronted Population size estimation oftheFennoscandian sheets inthe The bellypatchesofeachindividualweredrawn onreadymade fi observed LWfG areindividuallyidenti- way developedamethodwhereallthe for acoupleofdays. ally stayingintheareaonaverageonly horn (2008)singleindividualsareactu- weeks inMay, whileaccordingtoEich- or lesssimilarinaperiodofcouple numbers ofstagingbirdsremainmore edbasedontheirblackbellypatchpattern(Øienetal.1996). In 1998thebellypatchdrawingsandvideomaterial fromthe In 1990–1991NOF–BirdLifeNor- 2 1 Tomas Aarvak WWF Finland, Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500, Helsinki, Finland, 10,FIN-00500,Helsinki, WWF Lintulahdenkatu NOF –BirdLife Norway, Sandgata30B, N-7012, Trondheim,NORWAY, email:[email protected], [email protected] fi eld. This methodallowedindividualidenti Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project Branta leucopsis Anser erythropus, 1 , Ari Leinonen, Ari ): the 2 , IngarJ.Øien Marshes, Norway, June2008 belly patch pattern. The videocamera ismounted onaspottingscope. Ekker, ©Morten Valdak The Lesser are Geese White-fronted recorded ondigitalvideoinorder to analyse theindividual fi rst timewith 1 &Petteri Tolvanen fi fi cation FINLAND, ed by ed Aarvak etal:PopulationAarvak size estimation oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebasedonindividualrecognition andco email: [email protected], [email protected] recorded. In general,theshareof thestagingindividuals that tensively monitored andmostof the LWfG were alsovideo important sites(Estonia, Finland,andNorway)havebeenin- used datafromtheyears 2001–2008,inwhichperiodallthree site. way, SwedenandFinland) beforetheymovetothebreeding LWfG population thatisbreedingintheNordiccountries; Nor- breeding population(i.e. thepartofFennoscandianwild majority oftheremaining NordicpartoftheFennoscandian annually since1990and thesitehasbeenbelievedtohold Norway. This isbecausethissitehasbeenmonitoredintensively the springmonitoringdatafrom Valdak Marshes,Finnmark, erwise stated. data fromNorway, FinlandandEstoniawereusedunlessoth- son. Intheanalysesofbellypatchdataandvideo material,only for eachspringwereanalysedconsecutively by thesameper- intensifi in HungaryandtheEvrosDeltaGreece, and theworkwas tapes havealsobeencollectedintheHortobágy NationalPark the EU-Lifeproject(fromspring2005onwards) somevideo Finnish BothnianBaycoastandinwestern Estonia. Through was extendedtobeutilizedalsoatthespringstaging sitesonthe ter andallowedforamorepreciseanalysis.In 2001thismethod the zoomofvideocameraitrevealed belly patchesbet- combined magni scope inordertoimprovetheindividualidenti To standardise theanalysesofvideomaterialwe only In thepresentarticleresultsareanalysed on thebasisof ed inEstoniaandFinland. All thetapesanddrawings 2 fi cation ofthetelescope(20–60xeyepiece)and fi cation. With the lour ringing 71 72 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 10 20 30 40 50 60 variates were includedinthemodelling. The estimate reported the program Mark(version5.1,Cooch & White 2008). No co- were included intheanalysis. The analysiswascarriedoutwith in theyears1995–2008, ofwhich28individualsringedasadults gether 50 LWfG have been colour ringed at the Valdak Marshes to estimateresightingprobability ofcolourringedLWfG. Alto- ry). We usedthespringmigrationperiod fromMarchtoMay Bay Coast(Finland),western EstoniaandHortobágy(Hunga- monitoring sites: the Valdak Marshes (Norway), the Bothnian data ofcolourringedLWfG duringspringmigrationfrom four share hasbeenpossibletorecordinEstonia. 100% inNorwaywhileaconsiderablylowerand morevariable is recordedeitherondrawingsorvideorecordings iscloseto according to where theindividualhasbeenidentifi ed–eg. eitheronlyin “Norway” orinallthree diff erent countries “No+Fi+Es” withinone Table 1. Total numberofindividuallyidentifi ed (No),LWfG inNorway Estonia (Es)and Finland (Fi) inthe years 2001–2008,categorized andon15May at(on theleft), the Valdak Marshes, (ontheright). Norway Captures ofthedigitalvideomaterial from spring2007:thesamemaleLesser recorded Goose White-fronted on28April Estonia inHaeska, etal:PopulationAarvak size estimation oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebasedonindividualrecognition andcolour ringing erNra Fnad soi N+iE N+i oE F+s sum Fi+Es 2008 No+Es 2007 5 3 8 4 –49 2 1 2006 14 37 220 No+Fi 6 4 2005 18 2 4 2 – 8 – 15 36 2004 No+Fi+Es 2 1 4 2 – 9 2003 35 53 Estonia –2 2 9 2002 27 12 2 54 Finland 7 – 2 3 – 2001 31 43 – 4 2 3 – 2 46 35 Year Norway – 8 5 – 28 41 year. Noindividuallyidentifi ed LWfG willappear inmore thanone ”site” inthetable. Estonia intheyears 2001–2008. patches andvideoduringspring migration inNorway, Finland and Figure 1. Total numbersof LWfG identifi ed by analyses ofbelly 0 To further improvetheanalysisweincorporatedresighting 0120 0320 0520 072008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 creased to46.1%. Lookingattheshare ofindividualsidenti in Norway, while inthelastfouryears (2005–08)thisshare de- an averageof66.6% theindividualswereexclusivelyseen er years(2005–2008).In the decreased withlessLWfG beingseenonly in Norwaythelat- Marshes, Norway(Figure 2, Table 1).However, thispercentage Of these,ameanof56.4% wereexclusivelyseenatthe Valdak (range 36–54,Figure1) eitherinNorway, FinlandorEstonia. was identi p=0.10, forfurthertrend analyses,see Aarvak &Øien2009). of birdsdecreasedonaverageby3.4%annually (CV=0.1225, (mean 21.8,se=0.12,n=8). Within thistimeperiodthenumber as manybirdsthemaximumdailycountsfor thesameyears Marshes was39.5individuals(se=1.7,n=8). This was1.9times the meanspringstagingpopulationsizeof LWfG atthe Valdak Based onanalysisofthebellypatchesinyears 2001–2008, 3.1. Analyses ofbelly patches 3. Results survival andrecoverycannotbedistinguished). tion (i.e.notincludingthoseringedinthelast year becausethen the survival/recoveryestimationforyearinterval(s) inques- was defi ing allmodelswithDeltaQAICc rate), themodelaveragingprocedureshouldbe appliedinclud- (varying orconstantsurvivalandvarying recovery is notclearlydifferent fromallthethreeotherpossiblemodels by theMedianc-hatmethod(QAICc)incaseswheremodel rion (AICc). The model should be adjusted for overdispersion best, e.g.themodelwithlowest Akaike informationcrite- here istheonecalculatedbymodelthat A meanof44.9 individuals(adultsandnon-adults)peryear ned as the number of marked individuals contributing to fi ed inthesamestudyperiodbybellypatches fi rst fouryearsofthestudy period, ≤ 2.Inallcases,samplesize fi tted thedataset fi ed to 120.5%(in2005,when53different individualswereidenti- to belearntsincethispercentagevariesfrom 66.7%(in2007) in Estonia, Finland and/or Norway. However, there is still much of thewinternumbersareobservedduring springmigration good wintercountsinGreece),asmuch91.1% (onaverage) ing thepreviouswinterforyears2003–2008 (i.e.yearswith and Norway)withthenumberofLWfG observedinGreecedur- LWfG observedduringspringmigration(inEstonia,Finland last fouryearperiod(2005–2008). 7.2% inthefi Valdak Marshes(Norway). This percentagehasincreasedfrom observed in Estonia, Finland and Norway were not seen at the to 86.8%(2005–2008). Thus, onaverage10.2%ofallpairs year. This percentage hasdecreasedfrom92.8%(2001–2004) Valdak Marshes,ameanof89.8%allpairswereseeneach all pairswereseenonlyatthe Valdak Marshes(Table 2). At the 16.4 pairsperyear)revealsasimilarpattern,where52.8%of 2004) to16.0%inthelastfour-year period(2005–2008). has increasedfrom7.1%inthe were notobservedatthe Valdak Marshesatall. This percentage in Norway. Inotherwords,11.6% oftheidenti cluded ascomparedtomonitoringonlyatthe Valdak Marshes spring migrationwhendatafromFinlandandEstoniaarein- seen elsewhere. years therehasbeenobservedLWfG inFinlandthatwerenot percentage wasaslow4.4%,andonlyinthreeoutofeight all identi second halfofthestudyperiod.InEstonia,amean10% from 92.9%inthefi accounts onaveragefor88.4%. This proportionhasdecreased fi at the Valdak Marshes from the total pool of individuals identi- according to where thepairshave beenidentifi ed–eg. eitheronlyin “Norway” orinallthree diff erent countries “No+Fi+Es” withinone year. Table 2. Total numberofidentifi edadultpairsof (No),LWfG inNorway Estonia (Es)and Finland (Fi) inthe years 2001–2008,categorized erNra Fnad soi N+iE N+i oE F+s sum 4 Fi+Es 2008 No+Es 2007 2006 No+Fi 6 1 1 2 – 4 2005 – 14 5 1 1 3 1 7 2004 – No+Fi+Es 18 – 1 2 1 –4 2003 23 15 Estonia 5 1 –1 1 4 13 2002 Finland 2 – 1 1 – – 2001 12 16 – 2 1 –1 18 13 Year Norway 2 – 4 – – – 13 19 None ofthepairswillappear inmore than one”site” inthetable. and Finland (Fi) intheyears 2001–2008. The ed eitherinNorway, FinlandorEstonia,the Valdak Marshes identifi period. This ismostlikely aconsequence of Estonia andFinland towards theendof Estonia orFinland). Note however, that the share ofthebirds recorded onlyinNorway Interestingly, whencomparingthetotalnumberofidenti Performing thesameanalysisonlyforadultpairs(ameanof On average11.6% moreindividualsareobservedduring largest isthebirds group that (ontheleft) more eff ective recording ofindividualsin were recorded (butnotin onlyinNorway decreased considerably duringthestudy ed LWfG (No), inNorway Estonia (Es) Figure 2.Distributionofindividually fi edgeesewereexclusivelyseenthere.InFinlandthis rst fouryearperiod(2001–2004)to13.2% inthe Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project rst halfofthestudyperiodto84%in study period. – fi rst four-year period(2001– – 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 0,0 fi ed individuals ed

% % % % % % % % % owyFnadEtnaN+iE oF oE Fi+Es No+Es No+Fi No+Fi+Es Estonia Finland Norway fi ed 2 Aarvak etal:PopulationAarvak size estimation oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebasedonindividualrecognition andcolour ringing ing periodof6.1days(daysbetweenfi LWfG were observed in a mean of 4.7 days out of the stag- for 3.5and5.2daysrespectively. At the Valdak Marshesthe Marshes) fromeachother, thegeesewereabsent(notobserved) nian BayCoast)and590km(BothnianCoastto Valdak that aresituated680km(Western EstoniatoFinnishBoth- land andNorwayrespectively(Table 3).Betweenthesesites, pairs stagedonaveragein8.3,3.5and6.1daysEstonia,Fin- left leg). years (afemalewithayellowcolourringon These son, andoutofthese,onepairwasrecorded in threedifferent records ofadultpairsusingallthreesiteswithinthesamesea- in thenorthremaintobeuncovered.Since2001wehave15 on thewhereaboutsofLWfG, andmorespringstagingsites season. This showsthattherearestillbiggapsintheknowledge served atallsites(Estonia,FinlandandNorway)withinaspring Only 11.6% ofalltheindividuallyidenti 3.2 Stagingtimeandmissingspringstagingsites individual recognition. are delimitedtomaximumdailycountswithoutcomprehensive has tobenoted,however, thatforGreece(andHungary)we (see eg. Aarvak & Øien 2009, Panagiotopoulou et al. 2009). Is count of44individualsduringtheprecedingwinterinGreece fi even larger discrepancy withonly4.9observationdays. The dif- staging timeismuchlonger, 8.3daysonaverage,butwithan proving thattheyuselittletimethere.InEstonia theestimated tion) andnumberofdaystheindividualsareactually observed, between thestagingtime(days only aftertheclutchisfull).InFinlandthere is littledifference before returningtothefeedingsite (the LWfG startincubating it isassumedthatthefemalegeesemostprobably layanegg feed onthe Valdak Marsheslater(oftenintheevening),and for the breeding sites during night/early morning and return to This hasbeenattributedtotheobservationthat theLWfG leave ed duringspringmigration as comparedwith the highest daily 2 1 rst andlastobservation). 1 fi rst andlastobserva- fi ed LWfG wereob- 10 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 009 73 74 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 would be50 individuals(range31–64 individuals). timated Nordic part of the Fennoscandian breeding population (estimated range3–18). their resightingratewould besimilar to theadult resightingrate ing spring.Inaddition there areapproximately14non-adultsif an estimateof18adult pairs(witharangeof14–23pair)dur- alive (colourringresighting estimate) Valdak) or FinnishBothnianBaycoastonspringmigration, butnotat spring (meantotalnumberof39.5individuals) i.e. 22–36pairedadultbirds)andameanof10.7 non-adultsin numbers fromtheyears2001–2008: mate aFennoscandianbreedingpopulationwith thefollowing times higherthanobserved. tion, thefi the estimatethatisbasedoncomprehensiveindividual recogni- multiplying theobservedmaximumdailycount by2.5.Using observed evenwhenstillalive).Inshort,this correspondsto 1.167 (16.7%ofindividualswithinanygiven yearwillnotbe sively atothersitesduringspring)andlastly multiplythisby then multiplythisby1.116 (11.6% ofLWfG observedexclu- ver coeffi seen atthe Valdak Marshesduringthespringby1.9(theturno- lation. OnecouldmultiplythemaximumdailynumberofLWfG the sizeofNordicpartFennoscandianbreedingpopu- Based ontheaboveresultstherearevariouswaystoestimate 3.4. SizeoftheFennoscandianpopulation nia, FinlandorNorwaywithinanygivenyear. were nottobeseenduringspringmigrationinHungary, Esto- 83.3%. This meansthatonaverage16.7%ofallLWfG alive >17). The estimatedresightingprobability(recapturerate)was =133.1903, ofwhichthesecondbestmodelwithDelta AICc the onewithconstantsurvivalandrecapturerate(AICc 07 8 0 0 2 8 5 7 11 8 11 2 3 2 3 nia, Finland and Norway the model that fi 3 Based onobservationsofcolourringedLWfG in Hungary, Esto- 3 3.3. Analyses ofcolourringresightings different sites. 10 4 ference ismostlikelyduetothebirdsspreadingoutinmany 10 6.14.7 Mean 1 3.5 2008 5 3.5 3.3 3 8 2008 53 2 1 8 8 2007 5.2 7 5 0 15 4 2007 6 YL 2 8.34.9 3 2 5 0 5 4 2006 4 5 (days) 114 85 observed 5 2006 3 YL 5 2 2 0 5 2006 2 9 4 123 2 2 2005 unlocated 2 2 2 5 3 6 (days) observed 2005 YL 7 2 2 7 8 7 2003 8 7 3 134 3 days when 65 2002 3 staging period 1 unlocated 8 8 periodwhen 1 2001 3 3 1 6 (days) observed days when WGL 5 5 3 2001 3 2 staging period 135 85 8 1 2001 15 1 1 period when 1 6 10 6 rings nb. 2 2001 2 days when 7 8 staging period 105 4 11 3 Pair 6 12 210 105 4 Colour 3 11 Year 32 9 4 3 Location years 2001–2008. The lengthofstagingperiodat asite istheperiodfrom thefi day day. rstobservation until thelastobservation Table 3.Stagingtimesfor thosepairsthat were withinasinglespringinallthree observed countries (Estonia, Finland inthe andNorway) etal:PopulationAarvak size estimation oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebasedonindividualrecognition andcolour ringing • Thus, in late spring just before the breeding season, the es- • All this together, rounded to closest ”round • Adding 2.6pairsduetobirdsnotbeingseenbut are still • Adding 1.4pairs(i.e.thatarerecordedinEstoniaand/ • A meanof13.9adultpairs at Valdak (range11–18 pairs, Then, againbasedonthe Valdak data,itispossibletoesti- cient derivedfromthe individual recognitiondata), nal estimate(forthe Valdak Marshes)wouldbe1.3 egto Nme f egto Lnh f ubro Lnh f egto Numberof Lenght of Lenght of Numberof Lenght of Lenght of Numberof Lenght of Estonia Estonia Unknown Finland Finland Unknown Norway Norway Norway Unknown Finland Finland Unknown Estonia Estonia tted the data best was fi gures” makes gures” pared with the presentsituation,where thecriteriais used on out differently when these populations are used as units com- Bird Area (IBA)forLWfG (Heath& Evans 2000)wouldturn staging orwinteringarea asaBirdLifeInternationalImportant teria thathasbeenapplied asathresholdvalueforde smaller thanformerlybelieved. The ”1% of apopulation”cri- the populationsofLWfG asmanagementunitsinreality are and forthemanagement andconservationofthespeciessince 2004). This hasconsequencesbothforthe researchpriorities exchange withtheother breedingpopulations(Ruokonenetal. agement unitwithinthe westernpopulation,withlittlegenetic candian subpopulationshowsevidenceofbeing adistinctman- plication ofIBA criteria(Heath&Evans 2000). The Fennos- on theverge ofextinction. 60–80 individualsintheautumn. The populationisatpresent small withanestimateof14–23breedingpairs inspring,or spring stagingsitealone.Despitethis,thepopulation isvery on countdatafromthe Valdak Marshesoranyotherindividual tion isslightlylarger thanwhatwouldbeestimatedbasedonly the presentNordicpartofFennoscandian breeding popula- patch patternandrecoveriesofcolourringed LWfG showsthat The presentanalysisofindividualrecognition based onthebelly 4. Discussion in August afterthebreeding. adult individuals)inspring,andca70–90individuals altogether pression ofanaccurateestimate)20–30breedingpairs(40–60 of thepopulationwouldresultin(roundedfi Adding thistotheabovecalculatedestimateforNordicpart (see Timonen and Tolvanen 2004)could be5breedingpairs. ’guesstimate‘ basedonverylimitedtheavailableinformation the populationcanonlybeguessed,andamoderateminimum lation ontheRussianKolaPeninsula. The sizeofthispart population includes also the very poorly studied breeding popu- ing populationanalyzedaboveindetail,theFennoscandian adult pairs. wild LWfG breedingpopulationisestimatedtoconsistof14–23 tion. after the breeding season, but before onset of the autumn migra- 24.5 juvenilesproduced,totaling60-80individualsin August adults +15–20%ofsubadults(5–10individuals)onaverage The presentestimatehassigni In addition to the Nordic part of the Fennoscandian breed- In conclusion, the present Nordic part of the Fennoscandian • The correspondingroughautumnestimatewouldbe 28–46 fi cant consequencefortheap- gurestoavoidim- fi ning a ning gaps intheknowledgethatneedstobe breeding area(seeSulkavaetal.2009). breeds incompletelyotherareasthantheNorwegiancore Marshes. This impliesthatthispartofthepopulationprobably served in spring in Estonia and/or Finland but not at the Valdak posedly moreeasterly)springmigrationroute. the Valdak Marshesalongadifferent, completelyseparate(sup- riod). A possibleexplanationforthisisthatthesebirdsarriveat individuals eveninthesecondhalfofeightyearstudype- Valdak Marshes,Norwayisstillveryhigh(almosthalfofthe tion (see Aarvak &Øien2009). albicilla due toincreaseddisturbanceby White-tailed Eagles( land, lesscompletecontroloftheLWfG atthe Valdak Marshes (especially duringtheLWfG LIFEproject)inEstoniaandFin- a combinationofbettercoverage sively atthe Valdak Marshes,Norway, ismostlikelyaresultof be includedintheIBA list. proved to breed apply to the BirdLife IBA criteria, and should the breedingareasinFennoscandia,allwhereLWfG is protected. Further, byfollowingthislineofthinkingalsofor (>5) individualsshouldhavethestatusasIBAs,andbe all staging areas that are regularly used even by some very few dian population at present numbers only 25–30 breeding pairs, 3,000–7,800 individualsinFennoscandia.SincetheFennoscan- current 30–78thatimpliesanunrealisticautumnpopulationof the thresholdvalueforEuropeshouldbec.20birdsandnot the total world population. Tolvanen et al. (1999) argued that the videotapes; inparticularJyrki Pynnönen,HeikkiHolm- fi We are very gratefultothelarge numberofmainly volunteer 5. Acknowledgements simply thebestdataset availableforconservation. And, aboveall,forsuch acriticallyendangeredpopulation,itis simple analysesandcertainly guidingresultsandconclusions. teers areanywayuseful insuchawaythattheycanbeused between years. age orsexeffects, nor variationinrecapture(orsurvival)rate ror estimatewillbelarge, anditwillnotbepossibletolookat from thepopulation. With sofewbirdsinthesample,er- never resightedafterwards,possiblybecause theyemigrated were notadultsatthetimeofringingandsome ofthemwere these anumberhadtobeexcludedfromthisanalysis sincethey years only50LWfG havebeencaughtandcolourringed,of is theestimateonrecapturerateinthis study. During14 to minimizesamplingandinferenceerrors. An exampleofthis problem withattainingstatisticallylarge enoughsamplessizes in allprojectsworkingwithrareandthreatened speciesisthe have uncertainties that are diffi late. able to nation withthetechniquesdescribedhere,we willhopefullybe further useoflightweight GPS satellitetransmittersincombi- ing sitesfurthersouthalongtheEuropeanmigrationroute. With analyses needstolookatsimilargapsofdatabetweenthestag- belly patchdrawingsmustbeextendedandthenextstepin between FinlandandNorway? The useofvideocameraand Finland? Where arethegeesewhentheyabsentfor3.5days LWfG whentheyareabsentfor5.2daysbetweenEstoniaand eld workerswho havecarriedoutthe laboriousrecording of The presentanalysisshowsclearlythattherearesigni On theotherhand,some10-15%ofpopulationareob- However, theshareofindividualsseenexclusivelyat The observeddecreaseintheshareofindividualsseenexclu- However, these laboriously collected data by many volun- Lastly, itisworthnotingthatalltheresultspresentedhere fi ) andeffects oflatespringsinthetimingmigra- ll intheremaininggapsknowledge beforeitistoo Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project cult to circumvent. Inherited fi eld workinrecentyears fi lled. Where arethe Haliaeetus fi cant Aarvak etal:PopulationAarvak size estimation oftheFennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosebasedonindividualrecognition andcolour ringing Timonen, S.and Tolvanen, P. 2004 : FieldsurveyofLesser Sulkava, P., Karvonen,R.& Tolvanen, P. 2009:Monitoringof Ruokonen, M.,Kvist,L., Aarvak, T., Markkola,J.,Morozov, Panagiotopoulou, M., Tsougrakis, Y., Naziridis, T. &Makriy- Øien, I.J., Aarvak, T., Lorentsen, S.-H.&Bangjord,G. Cooch, E.& White, G.(eds.)2008:ProgramMARK.”A Gen- Heath, M.F. &Evans,M.I.(eds.).2000:ImportantBird Areas Eichhorn, G.2008: Travels inachangingworld.Flexibility Aarvak, T., Øien,I.J., Tolvanen, P. &Markkola,J.1999: Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2009:MonitoringofstagingLesser 6. References Vangeluwe and Thodoros Naziridis. János Tar, EleniMakriyanni,MariaPanayotopoulou,Didier ström, RistoKarvonen,Maire Toming, Ouluareavolunteers, Rapportserie reportno.1-2004:30–32. Report 20&Norwegian OrnithologicalSociety, NOF servation project.Report 2001–2003.– WWF Finland (eds.): Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goosecon- ern Russia,inJune2001. In: Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S. White-fronted Goose on the Kola Peninsula, north-west- 27 &NOFRapportserie ReportNo1-2009:36–39. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009. – WWF FinlandReport on theEuropeanmigrationroute.Finalreport oftheEU K. (eds.):ConservationofLesser White-fronted Goose in 2004–2008.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen, White-fronted GooseinFinnishandNorwegian Lapland the latespringstagingsitesandbreedingareas ofLesser erythropus). –ConservationGenetics5:501–512. conservation ofthelesserwhite-frontedgoose (Anser and Lumme,J.2004:Populationgeneticstructure V.V., Øien, I.J.,Syroechkovsky Jr., E.E., Tolvanen, T., 27 &NOFRapportserieReportNo1-2009:60–64. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport the Europeanmigrationroute.Finalreport of theEU (eds.): Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on in Greece.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K. anni, E.2009:MonitoringofLesser White-fronted Geese C, Cinclus19:69–76. Anser erythropus at a staging ground. – Fauna norv. Ser. population monitoringofLesser White-fronted Goose 1996: Useofindividualdifferences inbellypatches 793 pp. phidot.org/software/mark/docs/book/pdf/mark_book.zip, tle Introduction”.7thEdition. Available athttp://www. tion SeriesNo.8). bridge, UK:BirdLifeInternational(BirdLifeConserva- in Europe:Prioritysitesforconservation.2vols.Cam- goose. PhDthesis,UniversityofGroningen.237pp. and constraintsinmigrationandbreedingofthebarnacle report no.1-1999:27–30. & Norwegian Ornithological Society, NOF Rapportserie project. Annual report1998.– WWF FinlandReport10 noscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Fen- candian Lesser White-fronted Goosepopulationinplace. Two piecesofthespringmigration puzzleoftheFennos- 2009: 28–35. Finland Report27&NOFRapportserieNo1- port oftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009.– WWF fronted Goose on the European migration route. Final re- Ruokolainen, K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser White- Norway, in2004–2008.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.& White-fronted Geese in the Inner Porsangen Fjord, 009 75 76 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 ment projects suchasthisone. ideally elaborated inthecontextof conservationanddevelop- veyed intonational plansbyallthe rangestatestothespecies, Project. AEWA encouragestheinternational plan tobe con- nia, FinlandandNorway intheframeworkofthisLWfG LIFE tion plansfortheLWfG havealreadybeendevelopedin Esto- activities outlinedinthis internationalplan.Newnationalac- creasingly befocused on theimplementationofconservation tries wherethespecies regularly occurs. tists, andnon-governmental organisations inatleast22coun- ers tothespecies,includinggovernments,user groups,scien- for internationallyagreedconservationaction by thestakehold- or historicallyexisting supplementation of populations and their introduction into new ciples andmeritsofconservationinstruments, suchasonthe several yearsofnegotiationandpoliticaldebate abouttheprin- Madagascar, inSeptember2008. The adopted planconcludes Waterbird(AEWA)can-Eurasian Agreement in Antananarivo, at theFourthSessionofMeetingParties tothe Afri- fronted Goose(Ansererythropus, hereafterLWfG) wasadopted tion ofthe Western PalearcticPopulationsoftheLesser White- The InternationalSingleSpecies Action PlanfortheConserva- 1. Introduction Martin: The international ofthe planfortheconservation singlespeciesaction Western Palearctic population oftheLesser White-fronted Goose Lesser White-fronted Goose Lesser White-fronted ofthe conservation Western Palearctic population ofthe The planfor international the singlespeciesaction In thecomingmonthsand years,internationalefforts willin- Secretariat oftheAfrican-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10,53113Bonn,GERMANY Martin Kirsten fl yways. Itnowprovidesaframework three years. and updated distributionmapscould beincludedoverthe past such asSyria, IraqandLithuania, a wealthofnewinformation LIFE project(2005–2009), andnewobservationsincountries of itsrangestates. Thanks tothecontributions bytheLWfG tion, andwhereavailable knowledgeissummarisedforeach line informationisassessed andconsolidatedforeachpopula- International Action Planconsistsofthreemajorparts: neither ofthesesub-population declining. least 1,000individualsfortheFennoscandian population,with least 25,000individualsforits Western mainpopulationandat a benchmarkindicator, itaimstosecureapopulationsizeofat the populationsofLWfG toafavourableconservationstatus. As tion ofthewildpopulations. in SwedishLapland.Itspriorityhoweverremains theconserva- population derivedfromcaptive-bredbirdsused forrestocking or forcomparisons. The Action Planalsotakesintoaccountthe ion MemberStatearea,itisonlymentionedin aglobalcontext lation occursbeyondthe AEWA Agreement andEuropeanUn- the Western main population. Given that the Eastern main popu- LWfG populations,namelytheFennoscandianpopulationand The International Action Planaddressestwoof the three wild 3. A frameworkfor action oechkovskiy etal.2005). Eastern mainpopulationsofLWfG (Jonesetal.2008;Syr- is availableontheexacttrendsforeither Western mainor good progressmadeinrecentyears,littledetailedinformation kola etal.2004;Norderhaug&1984).Inspiteof mented (e.g. Tolvanen etal.2004; Aarvak &Øien2004;Mark- dian populationandacontractionoftheirrangeiswelldocu- ing risetofearsthatthespeciesmaybecomeextinct. ranges isadditionallycontinuingtoaffect allpopulations,giv- of 1998–2008.Fragmentationoccurringwithinthebreeding a populationdecreaseintherangeof30%to49%forperiod the middleof20thcentury. BirdLifeInternational estimates lany &Scott2006;MorozovSyroechkovskiy2002). tions aregenerallyconsideredtobedecreasinginnumber(De- knowledge andobservation,bothEastern Western popula- estimate appearstohaveincreased,dueanimprovementin of 25,000–30,000(Lorentsenetal.1999). Although theglobal lished estimates of 22,000–27,000 (Delany & Scott 2002) and 2006). This globalestimateiscomparablewithpreviouslypub- 28,000–33,000 individuals(Delanyetal.2008;Delany&Scott gether, thesecombinetoformaglobalmid-winterpopulationof 20,000 LWfG formaseparateEasternPaleacticpopulation. To- timated toconsistof8,000–13,000individuals. An estimated Currently the Western PalearcticpopulationoftheLWfG ises- 2. Globalpopulationstatusandtrends I. A section onthestatusofspecieswherebiological base- Similar tootheractionplans forindividualspecies,theLWfG The International Action Plan’s ultimateobjectiveistorestore A drop in the number of individuals within the Fennoscan- The globalpopulationofLWfG hasdeclinedrapidlysince affknown. isnot thespeciesbutextent ects ing slow butsignifi cantdeclines(10–20%/10 years); Low causing =factor =factor uctuations; causingnegligible Local=factor Unknown declines; fl caus- =factor causingrapiddeclines(20–30%/10years); =factor Medium rapiddeclines(>30%/10years); High causingvery Index: =factor Critical limitations (e) Knowledge (d) Potential geneticintrogression ofDNAfrom othergoosespecies ing thecontinueddeclineinnumbersandfragmentationof populations arecategorisedinthe Table 1. sumptions (Madsen1996; WCMC 2003),thethreatstoLWfG egorises them by their level of impact. Compared to earlier as- identi (c) Factors causinghabitatloss/degradation/conversion (b) Factors causingreduced reproductive success (a) Factors causingincreased adultmortality Threat Table 1.Relative ofthreats importance to wildsubpopulations ofLesser (from Goose White-fronted Jonesetal. 2008). Lake National Kerkini Park inGreece. Jostein ©Ingar Øien,May 2006 researchconservation ofthespecies. Later on,Mánnuwas shotdeadinthe Norway. Colour ringingandsatellitetools inthe are tracking important released catching after andcolour ringingat the Valdak Marshesinnorthern Lesser Mánnu(male)andMáddu(female) Geese White-fronted being There is strong evidence that the most important factors driv- II. A sectiononthethreatstoLWfG alongtheir wetland drainage ofdamsandotherriverConstruction regulation infrastructure, into wildpopulation scrub/forest encroachment) Land abandonment(lossesingrain ofhay production, meadows, Over-grazing Climate Change Agricultural intensifi Genetic impoverishment Predation Pollution ofwetlands /waterbodies Human disturbance Human disturbance Poisoning Hunting fi es and describes the key challenges to survival and cat- Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project cation cation fl yway, which Martin: Martin: The international ofthe planfortheconservation singlespeciesaction Western Palearctic population oftheLesser White-fronted Goose Local? Medium udmna as udmna as Fundamental gaps Fundamental gaps Fundamental gaps Low Formerly H nnw oa High LocalUnknown Medium? Medium? Locally high Unknown? Unknown? oeta ikeit Ptnilrs xss ? Potential riskexists Potential riskexists Unknown Local Local Local? rtcl Critical Critical ensada etr an Eastern main Western main Fennoscandian Local Unknown? Unknown? Unknown? Local are ofsignifi the breedingrangehavefailedtodetectanyadverseimpactsthat rily on the staging and wintering grounds, given that studies in grown birds(UNEP/WCMC2003). These factorsoperateprima- populations), arethosethatcausehighmortalityamongfully range oftheLWfG (boththeFennoscandianand Western main g;nwLwr H igh; now Lower cant magnitude to explain the population crash. cant magnitudetoexplainthepopulationcrash. Local Medium Unknown Unknown High High Unknown? Unknown? High Unknown Unknown igh High Local ? Unknown High Unknown? Unknown? Unknown 009 77 78 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 2.), arethebasis forrangestatesand stakeholderstowork onits ties, together with a list of principles for implementation (Table (period 2009–2012) orongoingimplementation. These priori- ‘essential’ and/or inneedofimmediate(i.e.2009),short-term (i.e. timescale)forexecution. Priorityresultsarecategorisedas for theirachievement,are listedherebyimportanceandurgency required results,conservation measuresandactivitiesnecessary underestimated. clines andrangechanges duringthe20thcenturyshouldnotbe grown birds.Itssignifi to beanimportantbutsecondary threat tothesurvivaloffull- loss anddegradationofsuitablehabitatiscurrently considered most importantthreatthatthis Action Planhastotackle. The considered tobetheprimarycauseofmortality andthesingle Table 2.International Lesser Plan–ResultsFramework. Action Goose White-fronted Martin: The international ofthe planfortheconservation singlespeciesaction Western Palearctic population oftheLesser White-fronted Goose grammes isminimised captive breeding pro- released birds from gression from already releases andDNAintro- as aresult offurther wild populationoccurs goose speciesinto the sion ofDNAfrom other Result 4:Nointrogres- edge gapsfi Result 5:Keyknowl- cooperation maximised Result 6:International success ismaximised Result 3:Reproductive prevented loss anddegradation is Result 2:Further habitat are reduced rates Result 1:Mortality Result III. The ‘backbone’ oftheplanis theactionframework. The Although thespeciesisformallyprotectedby law, huntingis lled cance asalikelydriverforhistorical de- 2. Apparent hybrid geeseare 1. Any future release ofcaptive-bred 3. National Action Plansare3. NationalAction 2. The InternationalLesser White- 1. AllLesser Goose White-fronted populations. noscandian and Western main reaches 25–30%for bothFen- Five-year runningmeanofjuveniles VerifiObjectively Knowledge gaps fi lled by 2015 1. Monitoring 1. &expedition reports gapsfiKnowledge lled by 2015 able Conservation Status’.able Conservation with theaimofachieving ‘Favour- Goose are protected andmanaged key sites for Lesser White-fronted Bird Areas andother All Important monitored springstaging sites number ofindividualsatregularly A 5-year moving average ofthe introduced fl to fi subject ock, removed from existingfree-fl reared stock. from wild-caught birds involves onlyindividuals ings ofafeasibility study. tional Working Group.tional Working progress isshared viatheInterna- established, implemented and and operates eff isestablished (and itssub-group) fronted Goose Working Group agreements. key international conservation to the States areRange parties able Indicator Means of Means Verifi able Indicator ectively. ying nd- 3. Papers publishedinpeer-reviewed from International 2. Reports Working from governments.1. Nationalreports 3. Reports andassessmentsissuedby 3. Reports 2. Progress by theAEWA reports Secre- listsissued Party 1. StatusofContracting October. in Kazakhstan Estonia andnorth-west Counts ofautumnflMatsalu Bay, ocksat 5. Long-term future ofcaptive breeding 4. Reviewandevaluationofexisting 2. Papers publishedinpeer-reviewed 3. Periodic independent assessments 2. Nationalgovernment to the reports with 1. Natura 2000databaseup-dated spring. in and inKustanay oblast/Kazakhstan jord/Norway, intheEvros Delta/Greece Bay/Estonia,at Matsalu atPorsangerf- Counts offl ocksatHortobágy/Hungary, scientifi cjournals. group). Group sub- (andcaptive-breeding established) the International Working Group (once tariat. by relevant agreements. Group. group oftheInternational Working programmes isreviewed by asub- expert. byconducted independentscientifi studies onthespecies’ genetics is scientifi cjournals. of theirIBAmonitoring. carried outby aspart BirdLife partners Conventions. EC, CMS,CBD, AEWA, andBern Ramsar monitoring data. are notparties to AEWA, yettheir governmentshaveformally stan, Ukraine andUzbekistan. A number oftheserangestates Federation, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Turkmeni- Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,Romania,Russian Greece, Hungary, Iraq,Islamic RepublicofIran,Kazakhstan, and include: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,Estonia, Finland,Germany, countries. They areidenti Within the AEWA region, LWfG regularly occur in at least 22 4. InternationalCooperation a needforsuchplanshasbeenexpressed. of countrieswiththeelaborationnationalaction planswhere ties fortheLWfG, andtoassistindividualcountriesorgroups international collaborationonpracticalimplementation activi- operation. The AEWA Secretariatiscommittedtosupporting an cation fi ed as‘LWfG PrincipleRangeStates’ c tion risk) (avoid extinc- Essential years) decline in20 (avoid <20% Medium years) decline in20 (avoid >20% High tion risk) (avoid extinc- Essential years) decline in20 (avoid >20% High tion risk) Timescale (avoid extinc- Essential Priority (2009–12/ctd.) Ongoing / Short (2009–19) Long (2009 –12) Short (2009–14) Medium (2009–19) Long (2009–14/19) long Medium / grammes tofi and progresswiththese measures; tality of LWfG caused by hunting, and regularly report on status by the AEWA Secretariat, toassesstheef conservation; lack either forces inrangestates of importancetotheLWfG, butwhich agement, andassessthe overallprogressoftheactionplan; tivities, andparticularlyalongthespecies’ conservation measures,includingthefundraising forsuchac- 60–61 oftheplan). Accordingly, eachrangestateshould: activities canbeputintopractice(foracomplete list,seepages tional Action Plan,givefurtherguidance onhowinternational laborative implementation. already established a functional working environment for col- projects, scienti from arangeofNGOs,governmentrepresentatives, dedicated plan, theconsultationswithtechnicalandpolitical contributors together (Nagy&Burfi national organisations anddifferent usergroupsworkclosely shown tobeeffective onlywhengovernments,NGOs,inter- Previous actionplanscarriedoutforthisandother specieshave 4.1. Successfulimplementation objectives. and thusultimatelyinachievingitsjointlyagreedconservation major responsibilityintheimplementationofactionplan, tion ofthisplan. The governmentsofthesecountriessharea contributed theirinformationtotheconsultationsand Ekker,© Morten November 2006 the border between Greece and Turkey wintering site oftheFennoscandian isthemostimportant Lesser popul White-fronted Goose The team LIFEproject studyingafeeding site oftheLesser intheEvros Geese White-fronted DeltaNational Park, Greece. The Evros Deltaon maintainandfurtherdevelop research andmonitoringpro- - instigateurgent measurestargeted toreducethehighmor- - - participate inan international working group, established - assistininitiatingimplementationschemes ornationaltask- - support thedevelopment ofprojectsand‘on-the-ground’- The ‘PrinciplesforImplementation’,outlined intheInterna- fi nancial meansorpoliticalmomentumfornature ll knowledgegaps,informappropriate siteman- Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project fi c specialists,andconservationexpertshave eld 2006).Inthecaseofthisaction fi fl ciency ofconserva- yway; fi nalisa- Martin: Martin: The international ofthe planfortheconservation singlespeciesaction Western Palearctic population oftheLesser White-fronted Goose able development context. dle Eastand Central Asia in abothconservation andsustain- for wetland conservation betweencountries inEurope,the Mid- to promotestronginternational cooperation and buildcapacity countries. The LWfG can,however, beseenasa into accounttheneeds and differing priorities intherespective will be to bridge a general shortage of et al.2008). A challengeforLWfG conservation intheseregions in countrieslike Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iraqand Iran(Jones Russia, migratesacross severalCentral Asian statesandwinters Yet thelargest part ofthePalearcticLWfG populationnestsin United NationsStatisticsDivision,seehttp://unstats.un.org). locked developingcountries’ and/or‘transitioncountries’ bythe Federation, Ukraine and Uzbekistan are categorised as ‘land- activities (Azerbaijan,Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, theRussian bility, alsoinalackofpoliticalmomentumforconservation nature conservationand,suchasinthecase of politicalinsta- (UNDP 2008)oftenresultsinashortageoffi some countriesintheCentralandSouth-Western Asian regions graphic backgrounds. The economic and political situationin differing economic capacities, and diverse cultural and geo- fl serve theLWfG. Inordertoaddressconservationactionsata recommendations forrangecountriesandorganisations tocon- In essence,theactionplanfunctionsasanoverall checklistwith 4.2. Discussion plan forthespecies. ing astakeintheLWfG; ing conservation,research,usergroups,development,allhold- within thespecies’ rangeandanumberoforganisations includ- Ideally, thisworkinggroupwouldencompass governments transparency andaccountabilitywhilsteffecting theactionplan. tion activities and regularly share information in order to ensure yway scale,theplansimilarlyappliesto countriesofhighly - prepare, ifpossiblebytheendof2010,anationalaction - fi nancial means,andtake nancialmeansfor fl agship species ation. 009 79 80 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 has alreadysigni work andresultsarerefl the developmentofthisactionplan. The factthattheproject’s ment –willneedcontinuoustracking,updating andrevision. getting underway, thisplan–justasanyotherplanninginstru- mendations intopractice. As activities foritsimplementationare governments anddiverseorganisations areputtingtherecom- implementation. Itsusefulnesswillneedto be provenwhen ried outbetweennowand2014. considered asthe‘roadmap’ forinternationalactionstobecar- drastic declinesinthenumbersofthisspecies. Itcanthusbe formally committedthemselvesinordertohalt andreversethe tions andrequiredresultstowhichtherange countrieshave LWfG’ providesacomprehensive listingoftherecommenda- The ‘International Action PlanfortheConservationof 5. Conclusion alternatives. tourism”, mayberequiredinordertodevelopviablehunting lation, ortothelocaleconomyinformof“sporthunting goose huntingcontributestothesubsistenceoflocalpopu- no effective regulations,anassessmentintothelevelatwhich veloped areaswherethereisoftenserioushuntingpressureand and economicscales.Forexample,inmarginalised andlittlede- of tasksthatwillrelyonactivitiesacrossdifferent institutional with politicianstostrengthenandreviselawsisacomplexset causes forhuntingofLWfG indifferent locations;andlobbying ness-raising ofthespecieswithhunters;identi dressed bythecountries.Continuedengagementandaware- migration orwinteringstages. where hugenumbersofgeeserestforseveralweeksduringtheir tion, andenforcementofregulations. This iscriticalinkeyareas include thetrainingofrangers,protectionfromdrainage,pollu- protection ofthe‘network’ ofthesitesusedbyLWfG can Aarvak, T. &Øien I.J.2004:Monitoring ofstagingLesser 6. References shared issuesofconcern. orative projectsbetween thecountriesinvolvedinaddressing and on-the-groundactivities. Itparticularlyencouragescollab- and stakeholdersincarrying outnationalconservationplanning plan, the AEWA Secretariatisreadilysupportinggovernments on thetundra upinthemountains.Ekker, ©Morten May 2006 Valdak Norway. Marshesinnorthern The breeding sites are situated transmitter (visibleonthebackofbird) andreleased at the A Lesser hasbeentaggedwithasatelliteWhite-fronted Goose Martin: The international ofthe planfortheconservation singlespeciesaction Western Palearctic population oftheLesser Wh The LWfG LIFEprojecthasplayedaninstrumentalrolein Yet thisdocumentisofcoursenoguaranteeforsuccessful Hunting isthemostcomplexandurgent problemtobead- For example,jointworktoassureadequateandeffective Acknowledging theurgent needforimplementationofthis in theyears 2001–2003.In: Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S. White-fronted Geeseatthe Valdak Marshes, Norway, fi cantly advanced itsexecution. ected throughouttheactionframework fi cation oftheroot ite-fronted Goose UNEP World Conservation MonitoringCentre (WCMC) United NationsDevelopment Programme 2008:Humande- Tolvanen, P., Aarvak, T., ØienI.J.& Timonen, S.2004:In- Syroechkovskiy, E.E,Jr, Litivin,K.&Morozov, V. 2005 Norderhaug A. &NorderhaugM. 1984: StatusoftheLesser Nagy S.&Burfi Morozov, V.V. &Syroechkovskiy Jr, E.E.2002:Lesser White- Markkola, J.,Luukkonen, A. &Leinonen, A. 2004 Madsen, J.1996(compiler):International Action Planfor Lorentsen, S.-H.,ØienI.J., Aarvak, T., Markkola,J.,von Jones, T., Martin,K.,Barov, B.,Nagy, S.(Compilers) 2008: Delany, S.,Dodman, T., ScottS.,Martakis,G.&Helmink, Delany, S.&ScottD.2006: Waterbird PopulationEstimates Cambridge, UK. White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus.–UNEP–WCMC, 2003: Reporton thestatusandperspective oftheLesser New York,U.S.A. by theHumanDevelopment ReportOf velopment indices: A statisticalupdate2008.–Published serie ReportNo.1-2004: 14–18. 20 &NorwegianOrnithological Society, NOFRapport- project. Report2001-2003. –WWFFinlandReportNo. Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Gooseconservation troduction. In: Aarvak, T. & Timonen, S.(eds.).2004. 31 March–2 April 2005. tion oftheLesser White-fronted Goose,Lammi,Finland, Russia. –Paperpresentedtothe Workshop ontheprotec- Status andconservationofLesser White-fronted Goosein – Swedish Wildlife Research/Viltrevy 13:171–185. White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus inFennoscandia. Of Stationery – The Stroud D.A.(eds.).2006. Waterbirds aroundtheworld. Species Action Plans.In:BoereG.C, GalbraithC.A.& birds: lessonstobelearnedfromimplementing European 8:233–276. (InRussianwithEnglishsummary). fronted Gooseontheverge ofthemillennium.–Casarca ety, NOFRapportserieReportNo.1-2004:14–18. Finland ReportNo.20&NorwegianOrnithologicalSoci- Goose conservationproject.Report2001–2003.– WWF nen, S.(eds.).2004.FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Bay coast,Finlandin2001–2003.In: Aarvak, T. & Timo- migration oftheLesser White-fronted GooseonBothnian European Commission. BirdLife International,Cambridge,UK,onbehalfofthe the Lesser White-fronted Goose(Ansererythropus).– search Institute,Rönde,Denmark.Pp.144–161. ningen, theNetherlands&NationalEnvironmentalRe- tional PublicationNo48. Wetlands International, Wage- A reviewofstatusanddistribution.– Wetlands Interna- A.D. (eds.)Goosepopulationsofthe Western Palearctic. Anser erythropus.In:Madsen,J.,Cracknell,G.&Fox, E., & Tolvanen, P. 1999:Lesser White-fronted Goose Essen, L.,Farago,S.,Morozov, V., Syroechkovskiy Jr, cal SeriesNo.36.Bonn,Germany. White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus.– AEWA Techni- vation ofthe Western PalearcticPopulationoftheLesser International SingleSpecies Action PlanfortheConser- erlands. Draft). – Wetlands International, Wageningen, theNeth- Waterbirds inthe Agreement Area (FourthEdition,Final T. 2008:ReportontheConservationStatusofMigratory Netherlands. (4th edition).– Wetlands International, Wageningen, the Rapportserie ReportNo.1-2004:19–24. Report No.20&NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety, NOF conservation project.Report2001–2003.– WWF Finland (eds.). 2004.FennoscandianLesser White-fronted Goose eld I.2006:SavingEurope’s mostendangered fi ce, Edinburgh, UK. fi ce ofUNDP, : The spring : The : veniles, commenced moultinthe breedingareas,andthereby in 2008isthat adultLWfG thatdidnotsucceed inraisingju- lower ifnocullingofRed Foxeshadbeencarriedout. nile productionin2008 wouldprobablyhavebeensigni tors afterapopulation crash oflemmings.However, thejuve- weather conditionsand highdepredationofjuvenilesbyrap- poor juvenileproduction in2008wasmostprobablyduetobad tion is26juveniles(cf. Table 4in Aarvak &Øien2009). The the period2004–2008 fortheFennoscandianLWfG popula- is alowjuvenileproduction, asthemeanannualproductionin juveniles distributedinthreeclutches,therest being adults. This LWfG wererecorded(Aarvak&Øien2009).Ofthese,13 was confi Red Foxdenswerealsocontrolled,andno Foxbreeding 2009), andnoRedFoxeswereobservedinthe area. All known core breedingareaintheperiod02–12June(see Sulkavaet.al period 15 April –7May. The LWfG Lifeprojectmonitoredthe and theStateNatureInspectorateculled71 Red Foxesinthe In 2008,thefollowingyear, thecullingeffort wasintensi for LWfG inFinnmark,Norway, inorder toreducenestlosses. agement startedcullingofRedFoxesinthecore breedingarea ter LWfG). In2007,theNorwegianDirectorateofnatureman- Fennoscandian Lesser in2008 Geese White-fronted The eff also forLesser White-fronted Geese( ground-nesting birdspecies,andthishasproved tobethecase The RedFox( Lesser Ekker, Goose.White-fronted ©Morten Finnmark, Norway, May 2006 The expansion oftheRedFox intheFennoscandian mountain areas hasaff many ected species, arctic includingthecriticallyendangered The mostimportant effect of the successfulculling effort During autumnmonitoringinthePorsangenFjord in2008,41 NOF –BirdLife Norway, Sandgata30B, N-7012, Trondheim,NORWAY, email:[email protected], [email protected] &TomasIngar JosteinØien Aarvak rmed in2008. ect ofRedFoxect cullinginthecore breeding area for Vulpes vulpes Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project ) isasignifi Anser erythropus, hereaf- cant eggpredator for fi cantly fi ed, incubation (i.e reducedproduction andreducedadultsurvival cubation. Due tothedoublenegative effect ofthelosses during 2000, probably duetohighlossof nests toRedFoxesduring in- 2008 (Figure2). than expectedfromthe monitoringdatafromtheyears1994– number ofadultsobserved inautumn2008wasmuchhigher becomes evenmoreevident. The dataclearly showsthatthe of RedFoxeshadthedesired effect. expected (28ind.),which isastrongindicationthattheculling served numberofadultLWfG in2008wastwiceashigh as adults presentshouldbeonly14individuals in 2008. The ob- on theobservednumberofjuveniles,expected numberof duced andthenumberofadultLWfG present(Figure1).Based nifi 2009). birds migratingthroughRussiaandKazakhstan (seeØienetal. ing pressurewhichincreasestheirsurvivalrate ascomparedto pean routeisthattheywillbeexposedtoamuch lowerhunt- breeding season. depredation, butlosttheirjuvenilebroodsata laterstageinthe breeders in2008didnotlosetheireggclutches duetoRedFox Greece (seeØienetal.2009). This indicatesthatunsuccessful chose theEuropean,moresecureautumnmigration routeto The latestyearwithverypoorjuvenileproduction wasin When thedataiscorrected forthepopulationsize,picture During autumnstaginginthePorsangenFjord thereisasig- The signi cant positivecorrelationbetweennumber ofjuvenilespro- Øien & Aarvak: Øien &Aarvak: The eff ofRed ect Fox cullinginthe core breeding area for Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Geesein2008 fi cance ofaffecting theadultstomigrateEuro- 81 82 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 Sulkava, P., Karvonen,R.& Tolvanen, P. 2009:Monitoringof Øien, I.J., Aarvak, T., Ekker, M.,& Tolvanen, P. 2009 Aarvak, T. &Øien,I.J.2009:MonitoringofstagingLesser References years. the populationdevelopmentfromnegativetopositiveinafew with securingofkeyareasonmigrationandinwinter,) canturn that continuedRedFoxcullinginthecomingyears(combined or lessstablebetweenthelowreproductionyears,weexpect candian LWfG population.Sincethepopulationhasbeenmore tant actioninordertoturnthenegativetrendFennos- in thecorebreedingareaisnowprobablyanextremelyimpor- noscandian LWfG in2008.FurtherintensiveRedFoxculling Fox cullingprobablypreventedasimilarsituationfortheFen- with veryhighdepredationoneggclutches. The successfulRed likely thatthepopulationreductionsmostlyhappensinyears during thenextwinteringjourney;seeØienetal.2009),itis Jostein© Ingar Øien,25May 2007 Aerial viewofthecore breeding area oftheLesser inNorway.White-fronted Goose 71RedFoxes were culledinthisarea inspring2008. Øien &Aarvak: The eff ofRed ect Fox cullinginthe core breeding area for Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Geesein2008 27 &NOFRapportserie ReportNo 1-2009:36–39. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport on theEuropean migrationroute. Final reportoftheEU K. (eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Goose in 2004–2008.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen, White-fronted Goosein FinnishandNorwegianLapland the latespringstaging sites andbreedingareasofLesser Report No1-2009:12–18. 2009. – WWF FinlandReport27&NOF Rapportserie route. Finalreportofthe EULIFE-Natureproject2005– Lesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conservationof implications forconservationpriorities.In: Tolvanen, White-fronted Goosebreedingpopulationwith profound ping ofmigrationroutestheFennoscandian Lesser 2009: 28–35. Finland Report27&NOFRapportserie No1- port oftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009. – WWF fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigrationroute. Finalre- Ruokolainen, K.(eds.):ConservationofLesser White- Norway, in2004–2008.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.& White-fronted GeeseintheInnerPorsangen Fjord, : Map-

square. spring population) inautumn. The year 2008ismarked withared Valdak juveniles Marshesinrelation ofobserved (of to proportion population at the Valdak inautumnat the Marshes)observed Figure ofadultLesser 2.Proportion (ofspring Geese White-fronted Proportion of adults in relation to 1994–2008, where 2008ismarked withared square. inthePorsangen observed Geese White-fronted Fjord intheperiod Figure 1.Correlation between numbersofjuvenile andadultLesser Adults

spring population 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 100 120 20 40 60 80 102030405060700 0

% % % % % % % 0,0

%10,0 Proportion

%20,0

of

juveniles

%30,0 Juveniles

in relation

%40,0

to

y spring y

%50,0 =

=

1,121x R²

1,6212x R²

=

population

= 0,8537

0,7498 ‐

%60,0 0,4707 ‐ 0,0391

% in Finnmark, Norway. Ekker, ©Morten May 2008 one ofthekey inprotectingtheLesser actors White-fronted Goose Torkjell MorsetfromState theNorwegian Nature Inspectorate is working group chairedbyMorten Ekker(DN)wasestablished nature management (DN)astheresponsible nationalpartner. A ated aspartoftheLIFE projectonLWfG withDirectorate of In 2005,theNorwegian National Action Planprocesswasiniti- 2. The National Action Planprocess the jointeffort torestoreaviablepopulation ofthespecies. strength thatisnecessary toensurethatNorwaydoesourpartof allocate work-load,and de plan fortheLWfG inNorwayaimstogiveallpartiesatool to defi In Norway, theuseofnationalactionplansarewidelyusedfor population decrease,andslowlyturnthesituation fortheLWfG. better opportunitytotarget effective measurestowardsastopin gives bothmanagementauthoritiesandother stake-holdersa end ofadramaticincreaseininterestthelatest fewyears. This and broadscaleeffort toaffect thepopulationpositively. governments andstakeholderswillhavetomake acoordinated population backfromtheabyss.Oncontrary, severalstate is notpossibletosingleoutonelineofaction that willbringthe different partsofthe year-round areasforthe geese. Therefore it use, andincreaseddisturbance.Different causesarepresentin or theirvalueisdiminishedduetochangesin thegeneralarea cases previouslyimportantareasarenotavailable tothegeese, These cannotbeaddressedonebyandrecti which haveresultedinthepresentstatusof thepopulation. areas inNorway. There areamultitudeofunderlyingcauses in alarge numberofpreviouslyimportantbreedingandstaging national andinternationalscale. The speciesisnownon-existent and itisclearthatfurtherefforts areneededbothonthelocal, tions, theFennoscandianbreedingpopulationisstilldeclining, hereafter LWfG) isuncertain.Despitevariousmanagementac- The fateoftheLesser White-fronted Goose( 1. Introduction inNorway Goose White-fronted New National Planfor Action theLesser Luckily, thepopulationofLWfG has beenonthereceiving ning andfocusingmanagementactions. The nationalaction SHORT NEWS Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project fi ne theadministrativeandeconomic Anser erythropus, fi ed. In several ordinated effort toachieveour common goals,andthis willbe Finland. The Nordiccountries have ahistoryofclose andco- and especially betweenNorwayand SwedenandNorway and nating andfacilitatingmultilateral approaches. Waterfowl(AEWA)under African-Eurasian Agreement coordi- plan alsostronglysupports thenecessityofastrongsecretariat a multilateralapproach betweenrangestates. The Norwegian tion PlanfortheLWfG asthemaindocumentandguidelines for and supportsthevalue oftheInternationalSingleSpecies Ac- population. The nationalactionplanofNorway fullyrecognizes joint effort tohinder afurtherpopulationdecline,andrestorethe alone. The take thecostsofthoseactions. knowledge. The management authoritiesinNorwaywillhaveto tinuously adjustedaccordingtomonitoringresults andscienti the LWfG instagingandbreedingareas wild Fennoscandianpopulation sible establishmentofacaptivepopulationfor restockingofthe breeding grounds and ofhistoricalvalue be carriedout. The mainfocuswillbeon: cal, regionalandnationalinvolvementofbodies,intasksto mented andplannedarecomprehensive,bothwithregardtolo- of managementactionsinothercountries. The actionsimple- actions tobecarriedoutirrespectivelyoftheimplementation way hasatthemoment. The planalsogivesspeci in Fennoscandia,theplanclearlystatesresponsibilityNor- brought backtoaminimumof1000individuals. perspective. Inalongerperspectivethepopulationshouldbe in thepopulation. This shouldbeachievedwithina5-year The planhasanoverallshorttimeaimtostopfurtherdecline 3. Contentsoftheplan subsequently publishedinNOFReportseries. pleted byNOFinJune2008andthenhandedovertoDN background documentfortheNorwegian Action Planwascom- arranged inEstoniaNovember2007. The paring thenationalactionplansinNorwayandEstoniawas versions ofabackgrounddocument. were involvedintheplanningprocessbycommentingondraft was heldin Vadsø, FinnmarkinMarch2007. All institutions in Porsanger, Finnmarkin August. The thirdnationalmeeting ruary atStjørdal,Mid-Norwayandthesecondmeetingwasheld volved institutionsin2006. The County GovernorofFinnmark(StigSandring). Morset), StabbursnesNatureHouse(GryIngebretsen)andthe and Tomas Aarvak), StateNatureInspectorate(SNO)(Torkjell from NorwegianOrnithologicalSociety(NOF)(IngarJ.Øien by theendofyear. The groupincludedrepresentatives The planalsohasfocus onthebilateralworkbetweenstates, Anyway, theLWfG willnotbesaved byactionsinNorway Those actionsareanationalresponsibility, andwillbecon- Implementingrestrictionsonactions/disturbance adverseto • • Development ofafeasibilitystudytodeterminethepos- Increased cooperationbetweencountriesandbodies • Continued andnewawarenesscampaigns • Continued predator-control inbreedingareas • Continued andincreasedmonitoringefforts instagingand • • Continued conservationofhabitats,bothcurrentlyinuse As Norwaynowholdsthemajorityofbreedingpairsleft An internationalmeetingwiththenationalLIFE-teamspre- Two National Action Plan meetingswereheldwithallin- fl yway rangestatesareallnecessaryelementsina fi rst meetingwasheldinFeb- fi nal draftofthe fi c national c SHORT NEWS fi c 83 84 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 SHORT NEWS Øien, I.J.& Aarvak, T. 2009: The effect ofRedFoxcull- 5. References plan. project, haspavedthewayforamoreeffective andtargeted tion plancombinedwiththeresultsfromjoint LWfG LIFE- way. Butitseemsthatthe This doesnotmeanthatactionshavebeenput onwaitinNor- The NorwegiannationalactionplanforLWfG islongoverdue. 4. Discussion tions ashowtotarget theeffective measures. ence withlistedmanagementactionswillgivefurtherindica- last fewyears,itisexpectedthatbettermonitoringandexperi- sion oftheplan.Consideringincreaseinknowledge and newmeasuresmaybeimplementeddirectlywithoutrevi- fi tion. Othermorelongtermaspectswillbereviewedafterthe tion controlinbreedingareaswillbesubjecttoannualevalua- area (seeØien& Aarvak 2009). The implementationof preda- started the LWfG ofbeingshot(seenewsonright).In2007,DNandSNO autumn stagingperiod,whichreducesconsiderablytheriskfor whole areausedbyLWfG inthePorsangenFjordduring lation (from2007). All goosehuntingisnowprohibitedinthe introduced aspartoftherevisionnationalhuntinglegis- tions onhuntingininnerpartofthePorsangenFjordhavebeen already duringtheNational Action Planprocess.Newrestric- ning continuously. Partsofthenewactionswere implemented such asmonitoringandareaconservationefforts arekeptrun- The planisimplementedimmediatelybyDN.Ongoingactions 3. Implementationoftheplan wild populationfails. for futuremanagementoptionsiftheconservationofcurrent a possibleestablishmentofcaptivepopulationtokeepready Norway thanactionsinalone. The planalsoallowsfor or moreeffective totheoverallaimsinNationalplanfor secretariat ifanactioninarangestateisviewedasbene outlines theuseof“seed-funds”madeavailableto AEWA- staging andwinteringareasoutsideNorway. The plantherefore the mainmechanismbehindpopulationdeclineoccurin less effi mechanism, andtoraisetheinterestofotherparties. bilateral environmentalagreements,asanadditional also pointstothepossibilityofincludingLWfG intoother a specifi rst 5-yearperiod. The planisalsoconsideredtobedynamic, It isrecognizedthatmanagementactionsinNorwaymaybe No 1-2009:81–82. – WWF FinlandReport27&NOFRapportserie Report Final reportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject2005–2009. White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration route. I.J. &Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Geesein2008.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien, ing inthecorebreedingareaforFennoscandian Lesser cient thaninotherrangestates,partly becausesomeof cchallengeintheconservationofLWfG. The plan fi rst actionsonRedFoxcontrolinthecorebreeding Tungasletta 2,7485 Trondheim, NORWAY fi Directorate ofnature management nalisation oftheinternationalac- email: [email protected] Terje Bø fi nancing fi cial new knowledge. tant totheLWfG willcontinuouslybeevaluatedinthelight of to huntingonotherspecies, thehuntingregimeinareasimpor- importance totheLWfG. The areascoveredinclude manyofthe the LWfG, astheGreylagGooseitselfisacommonspecies. large areasinFinnmark. This wasdoneexclusivelytoprotect the LWfG, ahuntingbanonGreylagGoosewasintroducedto the knowledgeofpresentandpastautumn staging areasfor were maderestrictionsontheGreylagGoose hunt.Basedon same timeashuntingonPink-footedGoosewas banned,there This wasdonetopreventaccidentalkillings of LWfG. At the other waysadverselyaffect theLWfG population. that BeanGoosehuntingwouldcauseaccidental killings,orin for thiswasuncertaintyaboutthepopulationstatus, andtherisk been legalforthesespecies. Goose andBeanalsooccurinFinnmark andhuntinghas tion havesuffered a steepdecline.GreylagGoose,Pink-footed to thecountyofFinnmark,anddespiteprotection, thepopula- the breedingandstagingareasinNorwayhave beenrestricted no legalhuntingonthespecieshasoccurred.Inlastdecades LWfG) hasbeenaprotectedspeciessince1970,andafterthis The Lesser White-fronted Goose( goose Lesser White-fronted benefi tadwindlingpopulation of Changing huntingregulations to To prevent detrimentaleffects ontheLWfG population,due From year2007Pink-footedGoosehunting wasbanned. From year2002BeanGoosehuntingwasbanned. The reason Tungasletta 2,7485 Trondheim, NORWAY Directorate ofnature management email: [email protected] , hereafter Anser erythropus fi ords supposedtobe of Arild Espelien Arild measures alsosupporttheconservationactions inothercoun- countries likeFinlandinadditiontothenational conservation tin 2009). As theLWfG isamigratoryspecies,itessentialthat aration ofaninternationalactionplanforthe species (seeMar- prepared bythepresentLWfG LIFEproject,parallelwithprep- Finland (seeLuukkonen2009)andnoneduring theautumn. only 10–20individualsofthespeciesarenowadays stagingin breeding recordsdatesbackto1995.During spring migration, of Säärenperä in Siikajoki, Finland.of Säärenperä in Siikajoki, ©Ari Leinonen, May 2005 An adultpair ofLesser onthecoastal Geese White-fronted meadows cies ofFinlandandFennoscandia. The latestcon autumn. Today theLWfG isoneofthemostendangeredspe- gration attheFinnishBothnianBaycoastboth inspringand LWfG wasalsothemostnumerousgoosespeciesonmi- dian populationcomprisedofthousandsbreedingpairs. The goose speciesintheFinnishLapland,andtotalFennoscan- erythropus, hereafterLWfG) wasthemostcommonbreeding A hundredyearsagotheLesser White-fronted Goose(Anser the Lesser Goose White-fronted New Finnish National Planfor Action The fi rst ever FinnishNational Action PlanfortheLWfG was Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project fi rmed Finnish the implementation oftheinternational plan.Itisproposed that tion actions areproposedtobeimplemented primarilythrough cies actionplan(Jones et al.2008). The international conserva- tation, thatispartofthe newinternational(AEWA) SingleSpe- Committee forcaptive breeding, reintroductionandsupplemen- introduction ofLWfG areproposedtobeleftfornewNordic nities inordertoreduce theriskforLWfG ofbeingshot. goose huntingperiodby tendaysinmostnorthernmostcommu- posed tobecarriedout. Itisalsoproposedtodelaythestartof geese andintensifyingthecontrolofRedFox population. contain abanofhunting,minimisingthehuman disturbancefor diate stricterconservationactionsde new breedingsiteswillbefound,thereisaspecial setofimme- coastal meadowsthattheLWfG tendtouseinspring.Incase to beadopted,aswellcertainmanagement actionsforthe account. Forthestagingsitesasimilarsetofactions isproposed and updatedsothatLWfG conservationisadequatelytakeninto ment plansoftheconservationareasareproposed tobemade to bedirectedoutoftraditionalcoreLWfG areas,andmanage- lation isproposedtobeintensi Finnish Lapland,controloftheRedFox(Vulpes vulpes)popu- proposed tobeestablished.Inthepotential breeding areasin tected (ifnotfullyprotectedyet),andhunting freezonesare sites importantforthespeciesareproposedto belegallypro- international to morecomplexconservationissuessuchas participationin annual monitoringofpotentialbreedingareasandstagingsites gional environmentalcentres. ices ofMetsähallitus(ForestandParkService)relevantre- all theMinistryofEnvironment,NaturalHeritageServ- actions tothenationalnatureconservationauthorities,mostof responsibility forco-ordinatingthenationalLWfG conservation one ofthemaingoalsactionplanwouldbetomove tal organisations, mainly WWF. Therefore itwasobviousthat servation ofthespecieshassofarbeenleadbynon-governmen- species inFinland(Rassietal.2001),themonitoringandcon- LWfG Lifeproject)wasarrangedinEstoniaNovember2007. plans inNorwayandEstonia(thatwerealsopreparedwithinthe meeting withthenationalteamspreparingaction relevant actionswereprovisionallydiscussed. An international mation partwascompleted,aspecialistmeetingholdand data wascollectedandanalysed. When thebackgroundinfor- was draftedfi action planpart. The backgroundinformationpartoftheplan er comprehensivebackgroundinformationpart,andtheactual ess bycirculatingdraftversionsofthedocumentforcomments. thorities andorganisations wereinvolvedintheplanningproc- litus andtheMinistryofEnvironment. All otherrelevantau- team weredeeplyinvolvedintheprocess,aswellMetsähal- SYKE. Also WWF FinlandanditsLWfG conservationproject Finland, inco-operationwiththeFinnishEnvironmentalinstitute years. The mainresponsiblepartneroftheprocesswasBirdLife conservation responsibilitiesandactionsintotheFinnishplan. tional andnationalplanshelpedustoincorporateinternational tries alongthe Valdak Marshes, Finnmark, Norway. Ekker, ©Morten May 2008 by thetradional style Sami “lavvu” tent inthefi LesserNorwegian researcher Goose White-fronted Tomas Aarvak Issues relatedtothecaptive breedingandpossiblefuturere- Information campaigns onthespeciesandthreatsarepro- The actionpartoftheplancontainsnumbermeasuresfrom Although theLWfG isclassi The FinnishNational Action planconsistsoftwoparts:arath- The preparationoftheFinnish Action Plantookmorethantwo rst. Duringthisprocess alsounpublishedFinnish fl yway conservation actions. All currentlyknown fl yways. The parallelpreparationoftheinterna- fi ed, hikingroutesareproposed fi ed asacriticallyendangered fi ned. These actions would eld campat the SHORT NEWS 85 86 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 SHORT NEWS Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T. &Mannerkoski,I.2001: 2009 Luukkonen, A. Jones, T., Martin,K.,Barov, B.,Nagy, S.(compilers)2008 References plan wasoffi over totheMinistryofEnvironmentinMarch2008. The the LWfG LIFEprojectbytheendof2007andplanhanded bird watching tower isvisibleby theforest patch to next theshoreline ©Estonian Inspectorate on theleft.. ofEnvironment,August 2006 andthemainland is between SuurRahu Väike excluding ofwhichthemainpart Rahu, theeastern endwas cleared andburned. The Haeska The larger isletintheforeground was cleared andburned by ofwhich the eastern isSuurRahu, part thecamp. The smallerislet in thestrait therestoration after islets(facingnortheast) camp,Aerial Rahu view oftheHaeska that was arranged by inAugust the LIFEproject 2006. a needtoanalysetheLWfG datacollectedearlierinFinland land willbeactiveininternationalLWfG forums. There isalso Finland willsupportthe AEWA secretariat inthis,andthatFin- The & Suomenympäristökeskus,Helsinki. Suomen lajienuhanalaisuus2000.– Ympäristöministeriö 27 &NOFRapportserieReportNo1-2009:25–27. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009.– WWF FinlandReport on theEuropeanmigrationroute.FinalreportofEU K. (eds.):ConservationofLesser White-fronted Goose 2004–2008. In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen, White-fronted Goose on Bothnian Bay coast, Finland, in cal SeriesNo.36.Bonn,Germany. White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus.– AEWA Techni- vation ofthe Western PalearcticPopulationoftheLesser International SingleSpecies Action PlanfortheConser- fi nal draftoftheFinnish Action Planwascompletedby cially adoptedbytheministryinMarch2009. Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500, Helsinki, 10,FIN-00500, Helsinki, Lintulahdenkatu Teemu Lehtiniemi : The spring migration of the Lesser PL 1285, FIN-00101 Helsinki, PL1285,FIN-00101Helsinki, email: [email protected] email: [email protected] 1 &Petteri Tolvanen 1 BirdLife Finland 2 WWF FinlandWWF FINLAND FINLAND 2 : conservation ofLWfG inEstonia: the next pean migrationroute main textchapters: The National Action PlanforLWfG inEstoniaconsistsofsix 2.Contentsoftheplan adopted bytheMinistryofEnvironmentinFebruary2009. Action Plan. The planandthefundingdecisionwereoffi sources andseveralmeetingswereheldinordertoelaboratethe autumn stop-over sites of LWfG was collected from various counties inwesternEstonia. Also, informationonspringand the mostimportantcoastalmeadowareasforLWfG infour ronment .Somefi the MatsaluNatureReserveandEstonianMinistryofEnvi- Responsible bodiesforthepreparationofactionplanwere National Action PlanforthespecieswaspreparedinEstonia. pus, hereafter LWfG) Life Nature project (2005–2009) the fi During thepresentLesser White-fronted Goose( 1. Introduction inEstonia Goose White-fronted New National Planfor Action theLesser The planisde • Conservation actionsinEstonia,includingthebudgetfor The mainthreats forLWfG• Present status ofthespecies • Wintering• grounds • Migration routesandimportantstagingareasontheEuro- General introduction ofthespecies • fi ve years fi eld workwascarriedoutinordertodetermine ning theprioritiesofactionsneededin Anser erythro- cially rst . Salmicoastal meadow(383ha)inMatsalu NationalPark 5. Põgari-Sassicoastal meadow(294 ha) inMatsaluNa- 4. Kiideva-Saardo coastalmeadow(360ha)inMatsalu 3. Haeska coastalmeadow(442ha)inMatsaluNational 2. Tahu coastalmeadow(677ha)in SilmaNatureReserve 1. In Läänemaa EU agri-environmental measuresandtheEstonianstatebudget. 1) willbesecuredandfundedprobablyusing acombinationof (Läänemaa andPärnumaacountiesontheislands, seeFigure al meadow areas suitable for staging LWfG in Western Estonia and complementedaccordingly. Managementofthelarge coast- After thatitwillbereviewedbytheMinistry ofEnvironment The Action Planwillbeimplemented duringthenext 3. Implementationoftheplan focus areaswhereEstoniacouldplayaspecial role. ings andsurveys. The NemunasdeltainLithuaniaisoneofthe part intheinternationalLWfG conservationinitiatives,meet- LWfG onthe ronmental authoritiesinordertopracticethe identi during the spring staging period will be arranged by the envi- cialists andbirdwatchersinidenti the LWfG. rings, andevaluatingthespaceusedietpreferenceof determine thenumberandageofindividuals,readingcolor- October) migrationperiods. The aimofthemonitoringisto (April-May) andautumn(September- ing areasofLWfG duringthespring Western-Estonia attheknownstag- ing thehuntingseasoninautumn. areas incaseLWfG areobserveddur- hunting onvoluntarybasisinlimited an operativesystemtostopthegoose information. The aimistoestablish the threats and necessity of change of der toinformhuntersaboutthespecies, e.g. byEstonianHuntersSocietyinor- during thetrainingcoursesorganised entations andinformationforhunters conservation specialistswillgivepres- called “red light” system). Nature LWfG areexpectedtobepresent(so- goose hunting in areas where/when tation ofavoluntarysystemtoban these sites. be responsibleforthemanagementof 2009 theEnvironmentalBoardwill servation Law, and starting from year protected bytheEstonianNatureCon- removing of reed. All these sites are open coastalmeadowsbygrazingand aim ofthemanagementismaintain potential sitesforstagingLWfG. The including theknownstagingareasand eas listedintheManagementPlan, of LWfG. There are13different ar- ows thatarepotentialstagingareas • International co-operation:Estonianspecialistswilltake Public awareness work; training of nature conservation spe- • • Annual monitoringofLWfG in Training ofhuntersand implemen- • • Management ofthecoastalmead- tional Park National Park Park fi eld. Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2 project fi cation ofLWfG. Workshops the Lesser (for Goose White-fronted site numbersseelistbelow). Figure 1.Locations oftheEstonian coastal meadow areas planfor listed inthenational action 8 fi fi cation of cation ve years. Saare maakond Hiiu maakondHiiu 10 maps ofLWfG. logical Society(NOF) for verynicedistributionandmigration compiling theEstonian Action Plan,andtoNorwegianOrnitho- land forprovidingmany goodideasandmuchusefuldatafor Special thankstoPetteri Tolvanen andtheteamof WWF Fin- 4. Acknowledgements 13. Võilaiu coastalmeadow (136ha)in Võilaiu Special Area 12. Kõinastu sandbancks(120 ha)inKõinastuSpecial Area In Muhumaa 11. Käina-Vaemla coastalmeadow(800ha)inKäina-Kassari In Hiiumaa Abruka coastalmeadow(59ha)in Abruka Special 10. Area Siiksaarecoastalmeadow (81ha)inLaidevaheNature 9. Rahustecoastalmeadow (216ha)inRahusteNature 8. In Saaremaa Häädemeestecoastalmeadow(1029ha)inLuitemaa 7. In Pärnumaa Pagarannacoastalmeadow(35ha)inMatsaluNational 6. 11 9 of Conservation of Conservation Landscape Area Protected of Conservation Reserve Reserve Nature Reserve Park ONIA Lihula 90305,Penijõe, NatureMatsalu Reserve, EST 12 13 4 1 Lääne maakond 32 State Nature Conservation CenterState Nature Conservation 6 5 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: Pärnu maakond Maire Toming 7 SHORT NEWS 009 87 88 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 SHORT NEWS threats, key factorsandconservation measures,aswell as the the LWfG inRussiaand neighbouringcountries andrespective AEWA. shop. The resultsoftheworkshopwere madeavailablefor presented ina for thespeciesthatis now completedandadopted,wasalso project co-ordinator. The AEWA SingleSpecies Action Plan migration route”thatwas alsopresentedinthemeetingby “Conservation ofLesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean territory. be takentoprotectthesepopulationsespecially ontheRussian and todefi Fennoscandian andwesternRussianpopulations oftheLWfG purpose oftheworkshopwastoconcretize the threatsto rum oftheBarentsCouncilsEnvironmental Work Group. The Environmental Cooperation,andtheHabitat Conservation Fo- Norwegian EnvironmentalCommission,the Russian–Finnish tional, inadditiontotheorganizing bodies. Embassy inMoscow, BirdLifeNorway, and Wetlands Interna- povednik Yugansky, WWF Russia, WWF Finland,Norwegian of Nenets Autonomous District,Zapovednik Putoransky, Za- Study GroupofNorthernEurasia(RGG),Ecological Inspection of Science(IEERAS), VNII Priroda,Goose,SwanandDuck sia, InstituteofEcologyandEvolutiontheRussian Academy experts andrepresentativesfromBirdRinging CentreofRus- ing wasattendedbyRussian,FinnishandNorwegianLWfG the NorwegianDirectorateforNatureManagement. The meet- Ministry ofNaturalResources,theFinnishMetsähallitusand December 2007intheMoscowZoobyRussianFederation after LWFG) conservationworkshopwasarrangedon13–14 A trilateralLesser White-fronted Goose( December 2007 Lesser Goose,White-fronted Moscow, workshop ofthe onconservation Joint Russian-Norwegian-Finnish the ”DoubleOb” area intheRussianObRiver valley. © Petteri Polojärvi, Moscow, Russia,December 2007 December 2007.Eugeny Strelnikov from the Yugansky isgivingapresentation Reserve onthestatus oftheLesser G White-fronted A workshop ofLesser ontheconservation inRussiaandneighbouringcountries Goose White-fronted was heldintheMoscow Zoo in The workshopidentifi The workshopwasclosely linkedtoEULIFENatureproject The workshopwasaninitiativesupportedby theRussian– neappropriateconservationactionsandmeasures to fi nal draftversionanddiscussed inthework- ed prioritysitesfor theconservationof Anser erythropus, here- lakes, Ayke, Kulykol)inKazakhstanandRussia. Sosva”) aswelltheKustanayandOrenburg areas(Shalkar eral Refuge,BerezovskyFederalZapovednik ”Malaya oininsky Zakaznik),DoubleObstagingarea(Elizarovsky Fed- tion inwesternRussiawereidenti Agreement onNatureConservation. transboundary co-operationundertheumbrella oftheBilateral ment andconservationactivitiesintheRussian-Kazakhstan ter fromtheRussianFederationMinistryofNatural Resources. mation downtotheregion(raion)levelaccompanied bythelet- agencies), focusingonkeyLWFG regions.Distributethisinfor- decision makers(natureconservationandgame management tribution oftheinformationlettertoselected companies. tion withoilcompaniesatkeyLWFG sites.Preparationanddis- sian FederationMinistryofNaturalResources. tected areasofdifferent level.RecommendationsfortheRus- web siteinRussian). to makethisdataavailablefordecisionmakers(e.g.througha may bethenextstagesinthiswork.Itwouldalsoimportant Detailed mapsforselectedareasandsitemanagementplans of threats;(3)possibleconservationandmanagementactions. Bird Areas, IBAs)including:(1)gapsinknowledge;(2)review tion ofLWfG inRussia: following concreteproposalsonhowtointensifytheconserva- The threeatpresentmostimportantsitesforLWfG conserva- • Surveytheopportunityofinvolvement game manage- • Preparationoftheinformationpackagefor theregional • Developmentofstrategicapproachforpotentialco-opera- • GapanalysesofcoveragekeyLWFG areasbystatepro- • DevelopmentofaGISdatabaseonkeyareas(Important Morten Ekker Morten Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500, Helsinki, 10,FIN-00500,Helsinki, Lintulahdenkatu 1 Sandgata 30B, N-7012, Trondheim,NORWAY , Tomas Aarvak Tungasletta 2,7485 Trondheim, NORWAY 1 Directorate ofnature management email: [email protected] email: [email protected] fi ed: KaninPeninsula(Sh- 2 email: [email protected] &Petteri Tolvanen 2 NOF -BirdLife Norway 3 WWF FinlandWWF FINLAND oose in 3

ed totheLWfG suchas conservationstatus,migration, popu- tors. The presentationscovered awiderangeoftopics connect- the project countries functionedas theirlecturersandinstruc- countries. Twelve members oftheLIFEprojectteamfromall two personsfromeach oftheaforementionedneighbouring LWfG monitoring establish apermanentnetwork forLWfG monitoring the movementsofLWfG inthecountriesmentionedabove and logical Societyinkeyareasforthespecies to Greekornithologistscollaboratingwiththe Hellenic Ornitho- BirdLife partnersinBulgaria,Romaniaand Turkey aswell Goose insouth-easternEurope”theworkshop aimedat: 2008. Underthetitle”ConservationofLesser White-fronted the contextofLWfG LIFEproject. future wasorganised byHellenicOrnithologicalSocietywithin a trainingworkshoptohelpindealingwiththese issuesinthe for thespecies(seeMartin2009)hadrecently beenadopted, project wasabouttoendandthenewInternational Action Plan co-ordinated monitoringinsouth-easternEurope. As theLIFE LWfG intheneighbouringcountriesbringsupneedformore where thebirdsarespendingtheseperiods. siderable effort ithas notbeenpossibletodiscoverthesite(s) ing mid-winter(seePanagiotopoulouetal.2009)?Despitecon- countries at Lake Greece Kerkini, workshop European for south-east Lesser training Goose White-fronted including four individuals colour-ringed by inNorway theLIFEproject,underexcellent conditions. ©Petteri Tolvanen, Novemb afl to observe training oftheKerkini workshopThe hadtheopportunity participants ockof45 Fennoscandian LesserGeese, White-fronted or sitesdothemain of thosequestionsisthesocalled“mysterysite”:towhichsite tering patternbutalsonewquestionsarose. The mostimportant ulation providednewimportantknowledgeonthespecies’ win- EU LIFE-Natureproject2005–2009themonitoringofpop- , hereafterLWfG).Goose (Ansererythropus DuringtheLWfG try fortheFennoscandianpopulationofLesser White-fronted Greece hasprovedtobethemostimportantwinteringcoun- About 35traineesparticipated, mostofthemGreeks,butalso • trainingkeyornithologists oftheaboveorganizations in • promotingtheneedto increasethelevelofknowledgeabout • disseminatingtheresultsofLWfG LIFEprojectto The workshopwasheldatLakeKerkinion28–29 November Furthermore, thelackofknowledgeon occurrenceof Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project fl ock oralarge partofitdisappeardur- Panagiotopoulou, M., Tsougrakis, Y., Naziridis, T. &Makriy- lation trends,threats,monitoringandofcourseidenti Martin, K.2009 References no fundingavailableandactivitiesthatrequire funding. mitment includesspeci ganisations toputeffort onthissubjectinthefuture. The com- countries andwiththecommitmentofallparticipatingor- monitoring schedulefortheLWfG inthesouth-eastEuropean manent networkforcommunicationonandimplementinga colour-ringed inNorway bytheLIFEproject. fl had theopportunitytoobserve,underexcellentconditions,a pleasurable partoftheworkshopwas European countries.However, theprobablymostimportantand International Action Planfocusingspeciallyonthesouth-east also participatedtheworkshopwithapresentationonnew Waterbird(AEWA)the African-Eurasian Agreement Secretariat in thesecountries.ItisworthnotingthatKirstenMartinfrom presented theavailableknowledgeonspeciesoccurrence issues. The delegatesfromRomania,Bulgariaand Turkey also ock of45FennoscandianLWfG, includingfourindividuals The workshopwasclosedwiththeestablishmentofaper- 27 &NOFRapportserie ReportNo1-2009:60–64. LIFE-Nature project2005–2009. – WWF Finland Report the Europeanmigration route.FinalreportoftheEU (eds.): Conservationof Lesser White-fronted Gooseon in Greece.In: Tolvanen, P., Øien,I.J.&Ruokolainen,K. anni, E.2009:MonitoringofLesser White-fronted Geese Report No1-2009:76–80. 2009. – WWF Finland Report27&NOFRapportserie route. FinalreportoftheEULIFE-Natureproject 2005– Lesser White-fronted GooseontheEuropeanmigration P., Øien, I.J.&Ruokolainen,K.(eds.):Conservationof tion oftheLesser White-fronted Goose.In: Tolvanen, for theConservationof Western PalearcticPopula- email: [email protected], [email protected] Yannis Tsougrakis &Maria Panagiotopoulou : The InternationalSingle Species Action Plan Kastritsiou str.Kastritsiou 8, GR-54623, Thessaloniki fi c activitiesthatcantakeplaceifthereis Hellenic Ornithological Society fi eld visitwherewe GREECE er 2008 fi cation SHORT NEWS 89 90 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 the autumnsof1996and2008 river mouth,KaninPeninsula, Russia,in fronted expeditions Goose to theMesna duringtheLesserobservations White- Appendix: Annotated ofbird checklist 1996 and 2008: See 1996 and2008:See Table 2on page 42. Brent Branta Goose bernicla 1996 and2008:See Table 2on page 42. BrantaBarnacle Goose leucopsis 2008: 1individual, see Table 1onpage 41. 1996: – Canada Branta Goose canadensis 2008: 1individual, see Table 1onpage41. 1996: – indicus Anser Bar-headed Goose 2008: – 1996: See Table 2onpage42. Greylag anser Anser Goose 1996 and2008:See Table 2onpage42. Goose Lesser White-fronted 1996 and2008:See Table 2onpage42. Goose White-fronted 1996 and2008:See Table 2onpage42. Tundra fabalis Anser rossicus Goose Bean 2008: Oneadultbird, see Table 1onpage41. 1996: Oneadultbird, see Table 2onpage42. Bewick’s Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii 2008: See Table 1onpage41.Onlytwo juveniles were observed. on28August and5 September.observed onset oftheautumnmigration. Anadultwithblue neckbandwas August increased to about365on7Septemberandindicated the sighting ofonebrood. Afl 1996: See Table 2onpage42.Breeding wasconfi Whooper Swan 2008: Daily15–25adultspresent. August ca40ind. and3September10ind. days few dozens ofdivers were seenmigrating, noticeably on29 1996: Afl Black-throated Diver arctica Gavia 2008: Daily20-30adultspresent. Nojuveniles observed. most ofthepairshadatleastoneyoung andsomepairseven two. seen on27August. Breeding success seemedto befairlygood, since area isdiffi 1996: Breeding inthearea. The total populationsize inthestudy Red-throated Diver stellata Gavia nen. Aarvak, RistoKarvonen,PetteriPolojärviand Tolva- Tolvanen and Aune Veersalu; 4–14September 2008: Tomas 1996: Aki Arkiomaa, Toni Eskelin,RistoKarvonen,Petteri article mentionedabovearenotrepeatedhere. 1996. The countsofgeeseandswansgivenin Table 2inthe similar, but Torna andtheseashoreduneswerevisited onlyin report. The intensityandareacoveredbythetwosurveysare The surveyareaisdescribedinthearticleonpp.40–43this Appendix Survey periodsandobservers:26 August –12September ock ofca30non-breeding ind. wasseendaily. Onsome cult to estimate, butamaximumof70individualswas Cygnus cygnus Anser albifrons Anser ock of250non-breeding individualson26 Anser erythropus Anser rmed by the 1996: Low numbers, except on3 Mallard platyrhynchos Anas 13 September. 2008: As numerous as Wigeon andPintail. count 280ind. Highest on 1996: Dailycounts 30-135individuals. Teal crecca Anas counts 250ind.Highest on8–10September. 2008: The mostcommon duckspeciestogether with Teal andPintail. on 5,7and9September. 1996: The mostcommon duckspecies. dailycounts 300ind. Highest Wigeon penelope Anas on 5September. 2008: 1–3ind. were seenalmostdaily, peak of30ind. witha distinct 1996: 2–5ind. were seenalmostdaily. Mergus merganserGoosander 2008: Afl young) wascounted on2September. 1996: Several broods were seenandamaximumof 40ind. (including Red-breasted Merganser daily.2008: 10–15ind. observed daily.1996: 4–6ind. observed Smew Mergus albellus 2008: 15–30ind. present daily. 1996: 2–15ind. present daily. Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 2008: 20ind. on 5 Septemberwastheonlyobservation. 1996: 5ind. on4 Septemberin Torna wastheonlyobservation. Velvet Scoter 2008: – 1996: Anadultfemale with4young wasseenon27–30 August. Common Scoter 2008: 10–30ind. counted daily. counts variedbetween 10–20ind. 1996: After 28August, whenafl ockof100ind. wasseen,daily Long-tailed DuckClangulahyemalis 2008: –(Torna wasnotvisited) September anotherbrood wassighted in Torna. 3 young wasseeninashallow pondnearthevillageof Torna. On4 1996: Breeding wasconfi spectabilis King EiderSomateria September. daily,2008: 4–15ind. observed withapeakof30ind. on7 August, andanotherfl 1996: Probably breeds inthearea. Afl AythyaScaup marila daily.2008: Notobserved count 5ind. Highest on5September. September. 1996: Singleindividualson27August, 28August (2ind.) and9 Tufted Duck 2008: 2–4ind. seenalmostdaily. September (2ind.) were theonlyobservations. 1996: Afl ockof10ind. on29 August andsinglebirds on1,8and11 Showeler clypeata Anas towards period. theendofsurvey ind. on5September. The numbersdecreased to lessthan100ind. 2008: As numerous as Wigeon and Teal, withhighestcount 200 on 28August. 1996: Almostasnumerous as Wigeon, withhighestcount 300ind. Pintail acuta Anas 2008: 30–50individualsdaily. September 40ind. ock of20–30ind. waspresent daily. Aythya fuligula Melanittafusca Melanittanigra ock of96ind. on5September. rmed on2September, whenafemale with Mergus serrator

September 60ind. andon8 ock of68ind. wasseenon28 on 28August and7 1996: Presumably individualwasseen thesamefemale-plumaged Marsh HarrierCircus aeruginosus September oneadultfemale withtwo juveniles were present. 2008: Onejuvenile bird arrived on13September, andon 14 Montagu’s Harriers(C.macrourus/pygarcus ) were seenon29August. in thearea.addition,5unidentifi In throughout theperiodraisedthoughtsaboutpossiblebreeding 1996: Sightingsofanadultfemale andatleast2juveniles Pallid HarrierCircus macrourus and adultmales. 2008: 1–4individualsseendaily, includingjuveniles, adult females most days acouple ofindividuals were seenonmigration. 1996: Breeding ofatleasttwo pairswasconfi Hen HarrierCircus cyaneus 2008: 1–3ind. seendaily, includingjuveniles, subadultsandadults. throughout theperiod. 1996: Oneadultand2subadultswere seenintermittently EagleHaliaeetusalbicilla White-tailed Juvenile Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus). ©Petteri Tolvanen, Peninsula, Kanin Russia,September2008 2008: 3–6 ind. observed daily.2008: 3–6ind. observed daily.1996: 1–5ind. observed Merlin Falco columbarius daily,2008: 3–8ind. observed withoutany clearmigration days. number wascounted on11Septemberwhen55birds were seen. when onmostdays about30individualswere seen. The highest inthebeginning ofSeptember August. seemed to Migration start birds were1996: Several (15–20)sedentary seenintheendof Rough-legged Buzzard Buteolagopus on5Septemberanadultpresent. 2008: Oneobservation: on11Septemberajuvenile onmigration. 1996: Oneobservation: EagleAquilaGolden chrysaetos 2008: – oftwo ind. were1996: Observations made throughout theperiod. Goshawk Accipiter gentilis individualwasseenon14September.2008: Onefemale-plumaged Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project – 9 September. ed female-plumaged Pallid/ed female-plumaged rmed. Additionally on September. daily.2008: Notobserved dailycount 3ind.on Highest 13 1996: Low (2-15)numberswere counted onmostdays. PloverGolden Pluvialisapricaria 2008: – September. Singlebirds were onfi observed 1996: In Torna, 2ind. seenon3September and10ind. on4 PloverRinged Charadrius hiaticula 2008: –(seashore duneswere notvisited) seashore near Torna. 1996: On3September6ind. andon4September2ind. seenonthe Oystercatcher daily. 2008: 3–5ind. (afamilywithonejuvenile, andanadultpair)present 1996: 2–7ind. seendaily. Common Crane some 90ind. ind. on11Septemberwere counted. The largest singlefl 2008: Dailymaximumsof170individualson7September and140 and 8September. birch bushes. Dailymaximumsof70ind. were counted on26August 1996: Abundantandevenly distributed inwillow thicketsanddwarf Willow Grouse 2008: – September 1ind. and13September1ind. ind., 1Septemberind., 2September 1ind., 3September 1ind., 6 were madeonthefollowing1996: Observations days: 29August 2 FalcoGyrfalcon rusticolus were seen. ofbothssp. withcharacters Individuals 2008: 5–8ind., includingadultsandjuveniles, were seendaily. belonged to thesubspecies ind. on29August and10ind. on31August. Birds studiedclosely mires revealed additionalindividuals. dailycounts: 11 Highest seen preying inthedeltaarea. Day tripto thesurrounding palsa andseveral otherindividualswere1996: At leastonefamilyparty Peregrine Falco peregrinus Haematopusostralegus Lagopuslagopus Grusgrus calidus.

calidus ve additional days. andssp. peregrinus ock was Appendix 91 92 Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route — Final report of the EU LIFE-Nature project 2005–2009 in Finland, anexceptional infl 1996: Aninfl PloverSiberian Golden Pluvialisfulva Adult Heuglin’s Gull(Larusfuscusheuglini).©Petteri Tolvanen, Peninsula, Kanin Russia,September2008 visited) September and 200ind. on11 September(seashore dunesnot daily,2008: Observed withhighestcounts of300ind. on5 400 ind. and4Septemberca2800ind. 1996: In Torna, highestnumberswere counted on3September ca Dunlin Calidris alpina 12 ind. on7September. onmostdays,2008: 2-10juveniles observed withhighest count of August, 40ind. on29 August and30ind. on3September. onmostdays.1996: Seen counts included70ind. Highest on28 Curlew Calidris Sandpiper ferruginea on7September.2008: Oneindividualwasobserved 1996: Call ofasingleindividualwasheard on28–29August. Temminck’s Stint September. onthree days,2008: Observed withhighestcount of15ind. on5 September 220ind. August 50ind., 4September50ind., 9September120ind. and11 numberswere1996: Highest counted onfollowing days: 28 Little Stint Calidris minuta dunes were notvisited) on11–12September(seashore2008: Onejuvenile wasobserved 1996: During3–4Septemberca30ind. were seen in Torna. CalidrisSanderling alba 2008:– (seashore duneswere notvisited) 1996: During3–4Septemberca30ind. were seen in Torna. Knot Calidris canutus dunes were notvisited) dailyonthecoastal2008: 5–20ind. meadows observed (seashore Grey Plovers. unidentifi shoreSea near Torna. ofafl addition,amajorpart In 1996: On3–4Septemberca500ind. were counted onthe White Grey Plover 2008: Oneind. washeard onnight migration on7September. September 1996. Appendix ed wadersseenonthesame days in Torna wasprobably ux of7–8juveniles wasrecorded on11September. Also Pluvialissquatarola Calidris temminckii ux of c. 45 individuals was observed in ux ofc. 45individualswasobserved ock of5000 during 1 1996: Two individualswere seenon 28August andasinglebird Spotted RedshankTringa erythropus September. daily,2008: 1–10ind. observed withhighestcount of18ind. on5 1996: 1–6individualswere daily. observed Common gallinago SnipeGallinago 2008: Two birds were seenon12September. September. 1996: Singleindividualswere seen on27August, 30August and5 Jack SnipeLymnocryptes minimus to thisthespecieswasnotobserved. 10ind. after on12September; 2008: The number decreased sharplyfrom 100ind. on5September only10–30 birdscounted, were otherwise seendaily. 1996: In Torna 3September85ind. and4September 400ind. were Ruff 2008: –(seashore dunesnotvisited) Torna. 1996: On3September2ind. and4September11ind. were seenin LimosalapponicaBar-tailed Godwit 1996: On3 Turnstone interpres Arenaria 2008: – 1996: 1–2ind. were seenalmostdailythroughout thewholeperiod. Wood Sandpiper 2008: Onebird was seenon12September. 1996: – Redshank Tringa totanus 2008: Onebird was seenon5September. 8 September dailyon6–8September,2008: Seen with highestcount of7ind. on August 30ind. and6 September50ind. 1996: Large fl ocks were seenon following days: 28 August 43ind., 30 Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 2008: 2ind. seenon7September(seashore dunesnotvisited) the seashore near Torna. Philomachuspugnax – 4 September.

September 3ind. and4September12ind. were seenon Tringa glareola 1996: Afl Little GullLarusminutus September. daily,2008: 1–5ind. observed peakof15ind. on7 withadistinct period. 1996: Low numbers (1–8ind.) were intheendof observed Bluethroat Luscinia svecica 2008: 2ind. seenon4Septemberwasthe onlyobservation. individualswere1996: Nine seenduring27August -3September. Citrine Wagtail were theonlyobservations. 2008: Onebird seen on4Septemberand10ind. on5September 1996: Singlebirds were seenon27August and4September. Yellow Wagtail Motacillafl ava count 500ind.Highest on7September. to ca100ind.the beginning ofthesurvey inthe endoftheperiod. daily.2008: Observed The numbers decreases from ca300ind. in exceeded 400ind. counts were1996: Highest intheendofAugust whennumbers Pied Wagtail Motacillaalba count 30ind.Highest on7September. 10–15 ind. to 2 ind. inthe beginning ofthesurvey on14September. daily.2008: Observed The numbers decreases markedlyfrom ca few individualswere observed. days. thesecond week In ofSeptemberalready scarce andonlya theendofAugust1996: In counts ofca40ind. were madeonseveral Red-throated Pipit cervinus Anthus September. 2008: 50–250ind. present daily, withapeakof400ind. on7 several days. numbersof300individualswere1996: Maximum counted on Meadow Pipit pratensis Anthus 2008: Onebird seenon7September, and6ind. on12September. September 2migrating individualswere onlyobservations. 1996: On3September2individualsonseashore in Torna and11 Shore Lark thearea alreadyhad left earlier. still begging for food. Possibly ofthelocalbreeding population part 2008: 4–9ind. present daily, includingadultsandjuveniles thatwere Mesna. The numberofbreeding pairswasestimated at30-40. 1996: Several breeding colonies were found inthedeltaofriver Glaucous Gull 2008: Oneadultwithonejuvenile seenon7September. 1996: – Greater Black-backed 2008: – September were onlyrecords. 1996: 2adultsand3juveniles on27August and1juvenile on3 Herring GullLarusargentatus earlier. thearea ofthelocalbreeding already populationhadleft part 2008: 20–30ind. present daily, incl. adultsandjuveniles. Possibly second week ofSeptemberindicatingtheonsetmigration. estimated to exceed 80pairs. to declineinthe The numbersstarted 1996: The mostnumerous gullspecies. Breeding numberswere Lesser Black-backed Gull/ “Heuglin’s Gull” incl. adultsandjuveniles. 2008: The mostnumerous gullspecies, with30–40ind. present daily, 1996: Breeding inthearea. dailycounts Maximum ca50ind. Common GullLaruscanus 2008: – ock of9juveniles wasseenon4 Eremophila alpestris Larushyperboreus Motacillacitreola Conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose ontheEuropean migration route —Final report of the EULIFE-Nature 2005–2009 project GullLarusmarinus

September. Larus fuscusheuglini 2008: – September, and1ind. on9September. 1996: A “tsik” callof2ind. heard on28August, 1ind. on2 aureola/pusilla Rustic/Little/Yellow-breasted Bunting September. daily,2008: 5–50ind. observed with a peakof60ind. on12 Wheatear Reed Bun obser 2008: Afl 1996: Afl Snow Bunting Plectrophenaxnivalis numbers. dailywithoutany2008: 20–200ind. cleartrend observed inthe exceeded 250ind. intheendofAugust. daily,1996: Observed counts common insuitablehabitat.Highest Lapland Bunting carefully checkedfor thisspecies. even whenallfl 2008: Noneobserved oneindividualon7September.1996: Oneobservation: RedpollCarduelisArctic hornemanni September. daily,2008: 5–50ind. observed withapeakof110ind. on7 daily.1996: 10–50ind. observed fl ammea/hornemanni Redpoll Carduelis fl ammea,includingunidentifi 2008: 1–5ind. seendaily. 1996: 1–5ind. were seenalmostdaily. Raven daily.2008: 6–12ind. observed 1996: Ca throughout 20ind. theperiod. observed Hooded Crow corone Corvus cornix dailyinlow2008: Seen numbers(1–35individuals). dailyinlow1996: Seen numbers(2–20individuals). Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus 2008: – on4days withaltogether1996: Observed 6individuals. WarblerSedge 2008: Oneind. seenon13–14September. 1996: – Fieldfare Turdus pilaris September. daily,2008: 10–40ind. observed withapeakof50ind. on12 daily.1996: 4–30individualsobserved Redwing Turdus iliacus peak of15ind. on7September. onfour2008: Seen days between 7–13September, withadistinct 1 Septemberand2were onlyobservations. 1996: On29August 9ind. andsingleindividuals seenon28August, 1996: 2–25 ind. observed daily.1996: 2–25ind. observed vation Corvus corax Corvus ock of3individualson13Septemberwastheonly ock of7individualson26August wastheonlyobservation. ting Emberizaschoeniclus Oenanthe oenanthe Oenanthe Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500, Helsinki, 10,FIN-00500,Helsinki, Lintulahdenkatu Calcarius lapponicus email: [email protected] ocks atcloserangewere Emberizarustica Petteri Tolvanen ed Redpolls WWF FinlandWWF FINLAND C. / Appendix 93