DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase 1 Summary Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phase 1 Summary Report Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands REINDEER ERADICATION PROJECT – PHASE 1 SUMMARY REPORT 1. Introduction South Georgia today is a wildlife haven but has a history of exploitation. The Government of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI) is committed to safeguarding and restoring the native species, habitats and landscape features of the Island. The principles of environmental protection and sustainable ecosystem management are enshrined within its laws and policies, which include measures to protect against invasive and non-native species that threaten the natural environment. Reindeer were introduced by Norwegian whalers in order to provide a familiar food source and to vary an otherwise fairly limited diet. The reindeer were also a reminder of home, and hunting them provided a recreational activity. Reindeer were introduced to two discreet areas of South Georgia on three occasions between 1909 and 1925. Combined, the areas occupied by reindeer equate to the largest ice free part of the Island, and consequently support a diverse flora. Reindeer are having a detrimental impact on South Georgia’s native flora through trampling and overgrazing of indigenous plants, particularly coastal tussac, leading to soil erosion and increased distribution of more resistant, invasive plants. In places, this has changed the structure of the vegetation and soils to the extent that native seabirds can no longer nest there. Following stakeholder consultation, in 2010 GSGSSI made the decision to remove reindeer from the Island. Following the recommendations of an advisory group on reindeer management methodology, the decision was taken to investigate the possibility of using a combination of herding and ground shooting to eradicate reindeer from South Georgia. These two methods were thought to provide the best balance between the need to eradicate the reindeer in an efficient and humane manner, to remove the bulk of carcasses and to allow recovery of commercially viable products. The eradication was carried out in association with the Norwegian Nature Inspectorate (SNO) who have considerable experience in reindeer management. As herding and corralling was an untested eradication method, to assess the feasibility on South Georgia, a reconnaissance trip was conducted between 1st and 31st January 2012. During the reconnaissance two members of SNO and one GSGSSI staff visited both of the areas with reindeer and concluded that it would be feasible to herd the majority of reindeer into a central corral where they could be slaughtered and butchered under veterinary supervision. Trained marksmen would shoot reindeer occupying inaccessible outlying areas. 1 In January and February 2013, the first phase of the eradication was completed, with just over 1,900 reindeer being eradicated from the Busen area (Figure 1); one of the two peninsulas which are occupied by the reindeer. The eradication of the second herd, on the Barff Peninsula, is planned for early 2014. Figure 1. The Busen area This report gives an overview of operations in the Busen area and highlights the main lessons learned that will inform the planning of phase 2 of operations. 2. Overview of field operations The eradication team consisted of ten Sami reindeer herders, four marksmen, four science assistants, a vet, a doctor and two project management staff. The field team arrived on South Georgia in two waves. The first group, which consisted of the project management staff, two marksmen, a doctor, two science support workers and four herders arrived on South Georgia in early January 2013. A second group, consisting of the remaining six herders, two marksman and two science assistants arrived in mid-January. Once they had arrived on South Georgia and completed safety briefings and a general orientation, the first group were tasked with offloading cargo and 2 constructing the fencing in the corral area. The bulk of materials needed for the fence construction in the corral area were offloaded from the Pharos SG using a seatruck over the course of two days (Figure 2). Figure 2. Offloading rolls of fencing from the seatruck. Photo CE Kilander. Once the fencing material was offloaded, the first team of marksmen were deployed to begin shooting in outlying areas (see below) and the remaining staff began work constructing the fences. The majority of the fencing work was completed within a week. The fence building in the main corral area went smoothly with soft ground making putting in the posts relatively easy (Figure 3). Moving the rolls of fencing material around the site was challenging if quad-bike access was not possible (Figure 4). In areas where quad-bike access was available a custom-made fence rolling/unrolling device was used which saved some time (Figure 5). Elsewhere fence rolls were unrolled by hand. 3 Figure 3. Inserting the posts in the main corral area. Photo CE Kilander. Figure 4. Unrolling wire mesh by hand up a steep hill. Photo CE Kilander. 4 Figure 5. Unrolling wire mesh with the aid of a quad bike and trailer. Photo AM Wilson. Temporary fences were constructed to the east of the Olsen Valley, to the north of Husvik and between Tønsberg and Stromness (Figure 6). These fences were typically less substantial and contained large ‘gates’ that would allow reindeer to pass though during herding. Construction of these fences was almost exclusively by hand and in some cases required posts to be carried several hundred metres up scree slopes. Figure 6. Temporary to the east of the Olsen Valley. Photo CE Kilander. 5 Herding operations Large numbers of people were required to move deer across some of the more open passes in the Busen area, therefore the main herding operation could only commence once the second group of herders had arrived. Herding was completed over a period of approximately two weeks (Figure 7). The reindeer on South Georgia are not accustomed to humans and at times were quite skittish. This meant that in places, several attempts were needed to move reindeer from one valley to the next. Herding was primarily the responsibility of the Sami herders but when science assistants were not engaged in other work, they helped. The Sami had a good understanding of reindeer behaviour and the science assistants typically were physically fit and had good local knowledge. Co-incidentally, many of the science assistants had experience gathering animals such as sheep, cattle and deer elsewhere. Typically there were between 6 and 16 personnel involved in the herding operation at any one time. Figure 7. Reindeer being herded from Husvik. Photo S Crimmin. 6 Approximate numbers of animals herded from each area are as follows: Leith Harbour 200 Stromness 60 Fortuna east*† 200 Jason Harbour 200 Carlita/Olsen Valley 200 Husvik Harbour† 250 *A decision was made not to herd reindeer from the west side of Fortuna Bay as this would entail crossing a substantial river, which was considerably higher than it had been in the previous year and would present a hazard to both reindeer and people. † 100 animals from Fortuna and 100 animals from Husvik were herded but escaped from the corral area before they could be slaughtered. Although there was some success in bringing animals over from Jason Harbour, Leith and the Olsen Valley moving animals over from Fortuna Bay and Framnaes Point proved to be problematic. In part this may have been because of the slightly unpredictable behavior of the reindeer but a contributory factor may also have been of the very physical nature of the work that was beyond the fitness levels of many of the herders. In the Olsen Valley and Husvik area quad-bikes were used to assist in the herding of animals. While the quad-bikes were useful in very open areas in many cases, reindeer reacted badly to their presence and this undoubtedly increased the stress of the herding operations considerably. Quad-bikes also caused damage to vegetation that may take several years to recover. Overall, while it is clear that a herding technique can gather a large number of animals into a corral, it is only appropriate to use over relatively short distances and where the terrain is simple (i.e. few ‘pinch’ points such as passes or steep scree slopes). Slaughter and butchering Once reindeer had been gathered into the central corral area near Tønsberg Point groups of approximately 100 were moved into a race and inner corral, from where animals were fed into a catching pen in groups of approximately 40 animals. Individual animals were then stunned with a captive bolt gun and bled, the carcasses were loaded onto the sea truck and taken on board a processing vessel (Figure 8). Depending on the weight of the carcass between 15 and 20 animals could be 7 transported by the seatruck at any one time. A complete turn around of the seatruck (loading carcasses on shore, offload on processing vessel and return to shore) would take in the region of 30-40 minutes. Limited space on the processing vessel restricted the maximum number of reindeer slaughtered in any one day to 150 animals. On the whole, the slaughter went well and apart from days when weather prevented the seatruck from operating, the shore side team were able to supply the processing vessel with the maximum number of carcasses they were able to handle each day. Figure 8. Reindeer carcasses being loaded on board the seatruck. Photo CE Kilander. Once slaughtered animals were brought on board the processing vessel they were de-hided, eviscerated and left to hang on the trawl deck until they had reached ambient temperature (Figure 9). At this point they were lowered into a chilled hold with an ambient temperature of between5 and 9˚C. Depending on the age of the animal, carcasses were hung between 1 and 4 days to tenderise.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crean Traverse 2016 Report
    SOUTH GEORGIA – CREAN SHACKLETON TRAVERSE 2016 TRAVERSE TEAM PELAGIC CREW Cian d’Arcy (Ireland) Alec Hazell (UK) - Skipper Morgan d’Arcy (Ireland) Giselle Hazell (South Africa) Aileen Crean O’Brien (Ireland) Bill Sheppard (UK) Crag Jones (UK) – Joint Leader Stephen Venables (UK) – Joint Leader The Crean Glacier and Antarctic Bay from Trident Ridge This expedition was the culmination of many years dreaming and planning by Aileen Crean O’Brien, to follow in the steps of her grandfather Tom Crean on the centenary of his famous traverse with Shackleton and Worsley. Aileen was accompanied by her two sons, Cian and Morgan, and her partner Bill Sheppard, with Crag Jones and Stephen Venables as mountain leaders. Although five of the team were successful, an unlucky accident stopped Aileen herself from completing the traverse. !1 SOUTH GEORGIA – CREAN SHACKLETON TRAVERSE 2016 Salvesen and Crean teams at Grytviken The Crean team boarded Pelagic in Stanley on TRAVERSE – DAY 1 – October 8 September 17, reaching South Georgia the We left King Haakon Bay at 05.30, travelling following week. While waiting to rendezvous on skis, towing pulks. Some bare ice with Jones and Venables, they spent several necessitated wearing crampons for the initial days doing short day walks from anchorages climb onto the glacier. Thereafter, snow on the Barff Peninsula, guided by Alec and conditions were good. The weather was calm, Giselle Hazell, enjoying the same excellent but with persistent cloud at around 500 metres. weather which had benefited the Salvesen At 14.30 we stopped to camp just below the Range Expedition. Trident Ridge, just by the second col from the left.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing UAV Monitoring of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands’ Iconic Land-Based Marine Predators
    fmars-08-654215 May 26, 2021 Time: 18:32 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 01 June 2021 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.654215 Developing UAV Monitoring of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands’ Iconic Land-Based Marine Predators John Dickens1*, Philip R. Hollyman1, Tom Hart2, Gemma V. Clucas3, Eugene J. Murphy1, Sally Poncet4, Philip N. Trathan1 and Martin A. Collins1 1 British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 3 Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States, 4 South Georgia Survey, Stanley, Falkland Islands Many remote islands present barriers to effective wildlife monitoring in terms of Edited by: challenging terrain and frequency of visits. The sub-Antarctic islands of South Georgia Wen-Cheng Wang, National Taiwan Normal University, and the South Sandwich Islands are home to globally significant populations of seabirds Taiwan and marine mammals. South Georgia hosts the largest breeding populations of Antarctic Reviewed by: fur seals, southern elephant seals and king penguins as well as significant populations of Gisele Dantas, wandering, black-browed and grey-headed albatross. The island also holds important Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Brazil populations of macaroni and gentoo penguins. The South Sandwich Islands host the Sofie Pollin, world’s largest colony of chinstrap penguins in addition to major populations of Adélie KU Leuven Research & Development, Belgium and macaroni penguins. A marine protected area was created around these islands in *Correspondence: 2012 but monitoring populations of marine predators remains a challenge, particularly John Dickens as these species breed over large areas in remote and often inaccessible locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecography E7330 Trathan, P
    Ecography E7330 Trathan, P. N., Ratcliffe, N. and Masden, E. A. 2012. Ecological drivers of change at South Georgia: the krill surplus, or climate variability. – Ecography 35: xxx– xxx. Supplementary material APPENDIX 1 AERIAL SURVEY METHODS The Royal Navy Lynx helicopter we used carried an external camera pod housing a Zeiss RMK aerial survey camera fitted with a 152-mm lens. Consecutive photographic images (240-mm frame size) overlapping by 60% were captured with either Kodak Aerochrome 2448 colour reversal film or Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 negative film. Our nominal survey height was 500 m, resulting in a photo-scale of approximately 1:3,300; a small number of flights were flown at 600 m, giving a photo-scale of approximately 1:4,010. All flights were undertaken during daylight hours when shadows were relatively short (10:30 am to 15:30 pm local time; GMT–3 hours). The survey flights were carried out during the females’ long incubation shift while male birds were away from the colony foraging at sea. At this time there was minimum penguin traffic into and out of the colony as males were away for 10–20 days (Trathan 2004). In addition, penguin traffic associated with failed breeders was much reduced as many unpaired birds had returned to sea (Williams and Croxall 1991). Thus, on the dates flown, we assumed that each bird in the colony represented a single nesting site, and each nest site represented a breeding attempt. We assumed that a count of these breeding attempts represented the breeding population size. To minimize potential disturbance to penguins during helicopter over-flights, we positioned ground observers to monitor penguin activity within selected colonies (n=6).
    [Show full text]
  • Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Reindeer
    Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Reindeer Eradication Project End of Phase 2 report 1. Introduction 1.1. Background In the early twentieth century, Norwegian whalers introduced reindeer to South Georgia to act as a food source and as a reminder of home (Leader-Williams 1988). Since then, the lack of natural predators and disease has allowed the number of reindeer to increase enormously (Moen and MacAlister 1994). Scientific evidence has shown that the reindeer were having a detrimental impact on South Georgia’s native flora through trampling and overgrazing of indigenous plants, particularly coastal tussac, leading to soil erosion and increased distribution of more resistant, invasive plants (Leader-Williams et al. 1987). This has changed the structure of the vegetation and soils to the extent that many native seabirds can no longer nest there. As part of its commitment to safeguarding and restoring the native species, habitats and landscape features of South Georgia, the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI) consulted widely on a number of reindeer management options. All but complete removal of the reindeer would result in continued ecological damage to the island and put at risk the success of the project being run by the South Georgia Heritage Trust to eradicate non-native brown rats and mice from the entire island. 1.2. Summary of Phase I The first phase of the reindeer eradication project was undertaken in the Busen area in January and February 2013. Following the recommendations of an advisory group on reindeer management methodology, and a reconnaissance trip in 2012 (Eira and Kilander 2012), the decision was taken to trial a combination of herding and ground shooting to 1 eradicate reindeer from this area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mineral Prospecting Expeditions to the South Atlantic Islands and Antarctic Peninsula Region Made by the Scottish Geologist David Ferguson, 1912-1914
    Published in Scottish Journal of Geology, 2013, Volume 49, 59-77. Note that this version of the text does not include the Journal’s editorial and proof corrections The mineral prospecting expeditions to the South Atlantic islands and Antarctic Peninsula region made by the Scottish geologist David Ferguson, 1912-1914 P. Stone1 & J. Faithfull2 1. British Geological Survey, Murchison House, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3LA, UK (e-mail: [email protected]) 2. Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK Synopsis David Ferguson’s mineral prospecting expeditions to South Georgia (1912), the Falkland Islands and the South Shetland Islands (1913-1914), on behalf of the Christian Salvesen whaling company of Leith and now largely forgotten, were early examples of commercially motivated terrestrial exploration in the South Atlantic region. Prior geological knowledge was very limited and Ferguson complemented his unsuccessful prospecting work with attempts to understand the regional geology of the areas that he visited. These interpretations were based on relatively cursory field work undertaken in an arduous environment, and did not prove robust; but the well- documented specimen collections that Ferguson accumulated provided the basis for excellent and much-cited petrographical accounts by G.W. Tyrrell of Glasgow University. Ferguson had studied geology at the university and the influence of his mentor there, Professor J.W. Gregory, is apparent. In turn, Gregory utilised Ferguson’s observations in support of a subsided ‘South Atlantic continent’, opposing the ‘displacement hypothesis’ for that region formalised by Alfred Wegener from 1912 onwards. Ferguson’s field notebooks and most of his rock specimens are now 1 held by Glasgow University (Archive Services and Hunterian Museum respectively) but he distributed representative specimen collections widely, and these are extant in several other British museums.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared by P Brewin, E Wells , O Volonterio and P Brickle
    Prepared by P Brewin, E Wells1, O Volonterio2 and P Brickle 1 Wells Marine, King’s Lynn, UK 2 Facultad de Ciencias, Montevideo, Uruguay Shallow Marine Surveys Group South Georgia intertidal assemblages September 2011 Executive Summary The intertidal macrofaunal community of Cumberland East Bay, South Georgia is examined. This region may be prone to higher levels of acute or chronic impacts from anthropogenic sources, and thus a baseline of the biodiversity and ecology is prudent. Thirty four macrofaunal species or putative species were found throughout all sites. However, species accumulation curves show that further sampling is needed for a complete species inventory. Between-site differences are noted, particularly at Maiviken that may be in part, due to proximity to the open coast. Other sites were similar in their species composition, but varied in their species abundance. Typical of intertidal communities, intertidal zones were structured along a gradient of low to high tidal height, and communities across all sites could be broadly grouped into those categories. Within sites, species showed extremely patchy distributions across scales of less than 1 meter, and can be related to concurrent variability in habitat (rock pools, cobble, boulders, seaweeds etc). Of significance were the eight species of free-living platyhelminth (turbellarian flatworms) flatworms found, of which 2 are new to science, representing an almost three-fold increase in the number of intertidal species reported for South Georgia compared to previously reported work. We suggest that future monitoring should expand the spatial extent of sampling at each site, as well as spatial resolution, although this is not necessary at all sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Staphylinidae of South Georgia*
    Pacific Insects Monograph 23: 240-242 September 1970 COLEOPTERA: STAPHYLINIDAE OF SOUTH GEORGIA* By W. O. Steel2 Abstract: Two species from South Georgia are treated here. A key to species of adults and larvae is in­ cluded. Two species of Staphylinidae have previously been recorded from South Georgia, Halmaeusa atriceps (Waterhouse) and Crymus antarcticus Fauvel, and these are the only ones represented amongst the material studied. The type of C. antarcticus could not be found in the Fauvel collection but there is no doubt, from the description, that this is conspecific with Arpediomimus falklandicus Cameron. Full descriptions and figures of the genera Crymus (as Arpediomimus) and Halmaeusa and also of C. antarcticus (as A. falklandicus) were given in my paper on Campbell I. Staphylinidae (1964, Pacif. Ins. Monogr. 7: 340-75, cf p. 348, 366), and are not repeated here. The larvae of the South Georgia species appear to be indistinguishable from those of Crymus kronei (Kiesenwetter) and Halmaeusa antarctica Kiesenwetter respectively which were also described and figured in the same paper. KEY TO STAPHYLINIDAE OF SOUTH GEORGIA Adults 1. Antennae inserted under sides of front of head, the insertions not visible from above... ..Crymus antarcticus Antennae inserted on vertex, the insertions clearly visible from above. Halmaeusa atriceps Larvae 1. Cercus 1-segmented; head with 5 ocelli on each side; segment 8 of abdomen not modified Crymus antarcticus Cercus short, 2-segmented; head with 1 ocellus on each side; segment 8 of abdomen strongly sclerotized and produced backwards in middle .Halmaeusa atriceps Subfamily OMALIINAE Genus Crymus Fauvel Crymus Fauvel, 1904, Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Management Plan for South Georgia
    ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENTPLAN FORSOUTHGEORGIA Publicconsultationpaper IssuedbyBritishAntarcticSurveyattherequestoftheGovernmentof SouthGeorgiaandtheSouthSandwichIslands February1999 Thisconsultationdocumentsetsoutproposedpoliciesunderconsiderationby theGovernmentofSouthGeorgiaandtheSouthSandwichIslandsforthe futuremanagementofSouthGeorgia.Itisissuedtosolicitcommentand suggestionsfromthepublicabouttheproposedpolicies. TheGovernmentwillconsiderallresponsesbeforefinalisingthepoliciesand makinganynecessarylegislationforthefuturemanagementoftheisland.The GovernmentexpectstopublishthepoliciesinanEnvironmentalManagement Planlaterthisyear. Viewsmaybesubmittedbyindividualsandorganisationsonalloranypartof thisdocument.Wewouldparticularlywelcomeresponsestothequestions posedinSection3. Allcommentsandsuggestionsmustbereceivedby6April1999. PLEASESENDALLCORRESPONDENCEBYLETTER,FAXOR EMAILTO: Dr.E.McIntosh BritishAntarcticSurvey HighCross MadingleyRoad CambridgeCB30ET UnitedKingdom Telephone: +44(0)1223221640 Fax: +44(0)1223362616 Email: [email protected] ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENTPLANFORSOUTHGEORGIA Tableofcontents 1. Introduction Page 1.1 Locationandgeneraldescription........................................................ 1 1.2 Discoveryandhistory......................................................................... 1 1.3 Currentlegalstatus............................................................................. 5 1.4 Existingandproposedlegislation....................................................... 6 2. Resourceinventory 2.1 Climate...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Heavy Fuel Oil and Bunkering Activity in the South Georgia & the South
    Report for the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Heavy Fuel Oil and Bunkering Activity in the South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands Maritime Zone King Penguins, St. Andrew’s Bay, South Georgia. (Sheilapic76; CC BY 2.0) Constantia Consulting Ltd. This report has been prepared by Dr Neil Gilbert, Director, Constantia Consulting Ltd. Christchurch, New Zealand Invaluable advice and support has been provided by Mr Jack Fenaughty, Silvifish Resources Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand, which is acknowledged with appreciation. Report finalised 2 June 2017 2 Executive Summary The island group of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) is an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. The Territory is administered by a small team based in Stanley in the Falkland Islands as well as a number of officers based at King Edward Point on South Georgia. Activities undertaken in the Territory include scientific research, tourism and commercial fishing. All activities are ship-based, which is the only means of accessing the islands. Vessels operating in the SGSSI maritime zone include fishing vessels (long-liners and trawlers), fishing support vessels (reefers and tankers), passenger vessels, research vessels, a fishery patrol vessel, British naval vessels, and yachts. SGSSI is a haven for the largest and most diverse populations of seabirds and marine mammals on Earth, and the most speciose marine ecosystem in the whole Southern Ocean. Combined with its wilderness, heritage and economic (tourism and fisheries) values, the Territory holds tremendous worth in a global context. Existing pressures on the environment and wildlife include a rapidly changing climate which is predicted to have significant implications for some species, including for krill on which many SGSSI top predators depend.
    [Show full text]
  • ANTARCTICA & Sub-Antarctic Islands Including South Georgia 2012-13
    ANTARCTICA & sub-Antarctic Islands including South Georgia 2020-21 ITINERARIES – 2020-21season Classic Antarctica | Weddell Sea Quest | Polar Circle Quest | Classic South Georgia THE USHUAIA DATES & RATES – 2020-21 season TERMS & CONDITIONS Antarpply Expeditions Gobernador Paz 633 – 1st Floor 9410 Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Phone: +54 (2901) 433636/436747 Fax: +54 (2901) 437728 Email: [email protected] Web: www.antarpply.com Facebook: facebook.com/antarcticexpeditions CLASSIC ANTARCTICA Expedition cruise to the Antarctic Peninsula & South Shetland Islands aboard the USHUAIA DAY 1: Depart from Ushuaia Embark the USHUAIA in the afternoon and meet your expedition and lecture staff. After you have settled into your cabins we sail along the famous Beagle Channel and the scenic Mackinlay Pass. DAY 2 & 3: Crossing the Drake Passage Named after the renowned explorer, Sir Francis Drake, who sailed these waters in 1578, the Drake Passage also marks the Antarctic Convergence, a biological barrier where cold polar water sinks beneath the warmer northern waters. This creates a great upwelling of nutrients, which sustains the biodiversity of this region. The Drake Passage also marks the northern limit of many Antarctic seabirds. As we sail across the passage, Antarpply Expeditions’ lecturers will be out with you on deck to help in the identification of an amazing variety of seabirds, including many albatrosses, which follow in our wake. The USHUAIA’s open bridge policy allows you to join our officers on the bridge and learn about navigation, watch for whales, and enjoy the view. A full program of lectures will be offered as well. The first sightings of icebergs and snow-capped mountains indicate that we have reached the South Shetland Islands, a group of twenty islands and islets first sighted in February 1819 by Capt.
    [Show full text]
  • ALIEN PLANTS on SOUTH GEORGIA Season Report 2014-‐2015
    ALIEN PLANTS ON SOUTH GEORGIA Season Report 2014-2015 Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Date: June 2015 INTRODUCTION Alien plant management work during the 2014/15 season focused on completing project outcomes for the Defra funded Darwin project “Strategic management of invasive alien plants on South Georgia” project. Comprehensive plants surveys to fill gaps in distribution data were undertaken to enable a strategy to be drafted. More than 6,000 ha was surveyed this season over reindeer and human disturbed areas (Figure 1). Along with these surveys, continuing control was undertaken on low incidence weed sites. The draft weed management strategy along with an environmental impact assessment is now being prepared from information gathered this season. There are 75 alien plant species recorded from South Georgia. Of these, 35 species are historic and presumed extinct, three are widespread and naturalised, three are common locally and five have a limited distribution and further information is being sought from the Darwin project partner Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew. There are 29 other species that are managed on a zero population density basis. All known sites in this last group were checked, and all known sites were treated. Figure 1: Areas surveyed this season shown in red Alien Plants on South Georgia, Season Report 2014-2015 WORK UNDERTAKEN THIS SEASON This season the Weed Team was led by Jennifer Lee and Kelvin Floyd. The field team consisted of Bradley Myer, Sally Poncet, Ken Passfield and Sarah Browning. Brad and Kelvin arrived at King Edward Point on the 8th of January and conducted a herbicide training exercise with Jen and Sarah.
    [Show full text]
  • Rodent Eradication on South Georgia – Preparation and Evaluation: a Summary Report of Activities During the 2011/2012 Field Season
    Rodent Eradication on South Georgia – Preparation and Evaluation: a summary report of activities during the 2011/2012 field season Andy Black, Sally Poncet, Anton Wolfaardt, Darren Peters, Tom Hart, Leigh-Anne Wolfaardt, Mark Tasker and Kalinka Rexer-Huber 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6 1. INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Background 7 1.2 Aims 9 2. FIELD TEAMS 10 3. FIELD METHODS 11 3.1 Proposed fieldwork 11 3.2 Choice of campsite 12 3.3 Rat trapping 13 3.4 House mouse survey 14 3.5 Brown skua survey 15 3.6 South Georgia pintail survey 15 3.7 Snowy sheathbill distribution 15 3.8 Kelp gull distribution 16 3.9 Giant petrel survey 16 3.10 Burrowing petrel distribution 16 3.11 South Georgia pipit distribution 17 4. RESULTS and DISCUSSION 17 4.1 Rat trapping 17 4.1.1 Rat samples 18 4.1.2 Relative rat abundance 23 4.1.3 Genetic analysis 24 4.1.4 Rat discussion 25 4.1.4.1 Timing of trapping 25 4.1.4.2 Rat trap covers 25 4.1.4.3 Rat bait 26 4.1.4.4 Rat distribution and habitat 26 4.1.4.5 Rats and king penguins 26 4.1.4.6 Rats and reindeer 27 4.1.4.7 Adult rat abundance 28 4.2 Mouse trapping 28 4.2.1 Mouse survey discussion 28 4.3 Brown skua survey 29 4.3.1 Skua nest density 29 4.3.2 Skua population estimate 30 4.3.3 Skua chick wing length measurements 31 4.3.4 Skua clubs 31 4.3.5 Skua diet 32 4.3.6 Skua discussion 33 4.4 South Georgia pintail habitat 34 4.5 Giant petrel survey 35 4.6 Snowy sheathbill survey 37 4.7 Kelp gull survey 37 4.8 Burrowing petrel distribution 38 2 4.9 South Georgia pipit survey 40 5.
    [Show full text]