Assessing the Impact of Lesser Snow Goose and Cackling
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF LESSER SNOW GOOSE AND CACKLING GOOSE COMPETITION ON BREEDING ATLANTIC BRANT by Clark Nissley A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science in Wildlife Ecology Summer 2016 © 2016 Clark Nissley All Rights Reserved ProQuest Number: 10190828 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ProQuest 10190828 Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2016 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF LESSER SNOW GOOSE AND CACKLING GOOSE COMPETITION ON BREEDING ATLANTIC BRANT by Clark Nissley Approved: __________________________________________________________ Christopher K. Williams, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: __________________________________________________________ Jacob L. Bowman, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Approved: __________________________________________________________ Mark W. Rieger, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Approved: __________________________________________________________ Ann L. Ardis, Ph.D. Senior Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this study was provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service through the Arctic Goose Joint Venture, the Polar Continental Shelf Program of Natural Resources Canada, California Waterfowl through the Dennis Raveling Scholarship, Long Point Waterfowl in coordination with Delta Waterfowl through the Dave Ankney and Sandi Johnson Waterfowl and Wetlands Graduate Research Scholarship, the University of Delaware, and Trent University. The field work was conducted under permits from the Canadian Wildlife Service, Nunavut Water Board, Kivalliq Inuit Association, Nunavut Planning Commission, Nunavut Impact Review Board, and the Government of Nunavut. I would like to thank all field technicians for their assistance and continued hard- work in the adverse conditions of our arctic field camp. It would not have been possible without the teamwork and mental fortitude displayed by all field crew members. Specifically, I would like to thank Jim Noble, Nick Docken, Will Weise, Lizzi Bonzcek, and Ashley Lutto for all their contributions to two successful field camps. This project would not have been possible without the advice and helping hands of Paul Smith, Grant Gilchrist, Chris Sharp, Mike Janssen, Christie MacDonald, Christine Eberl, and all others who assisted along the way. A special thank-you to Shannon Badzinski for generously providing housing for the field crew in Ottawa. Lastly, a special thank-you to both of the project investigators, Ken Abraham and Chris Williams, without whom this project iii would not have been possible. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... viii ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1 Study Area........................................................................................................... 5 Objectives............................................................................................................ 7 Management Implications................................................................................... 8 2 COULD ARCTIC GOOSE INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION BE AFFECTING THE NESTING BEHAVIOR OF ATLANTIC BRANT?......... 15 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 15 Study Area......................................................................................................... 20 Methods............................................................................................................. 21 Quantifying Nest Site Selection .................................................................. 21 Behavioral Scans......................................................................................... 23 Results ............................................................................................................... 26 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 29 3 NEST FATE PROBABILITIES AND FACTORS INFLUENCING THE NEST SUCCESS OF THE ATLANTIC BRANT ............................................ 43 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 43 Study Area......................................................................................................... 47 Methods............................................................................................................. 48 Results ............................................................................................................... 52 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 54 4 ANTHROPOGENIC INDUCED WILDLIFE POPULATION RELEASE INCURS APPARENT COMPETITION CONSEQUENCES.......................... 63 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 63 v Study Area......................................................................................................... 65 Methods............................................................................................................. 66 Results ............................................................................................................... 68 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 68 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 74 Appendix A ROSS’S GOOSE (CHEN ROSSI) NESTING COLONY AT EAST BAY, SOUTHAMPTON ISLAND, NUNAVUT ....................................................... 85 B EAST BAY, SOUTHAMPTON ISLAND, NUNAVUT, CANADA SPECIES LIST .................................................................................................................. 92 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Number of goose nests found by species at East Bay, Southampton Island, Canada, 1979–2015. ..................................................................... 36 Table 2 Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test used to test differences in incubation behavior between years in nesting Atlantic brant at East Bay, Southampton Island, Canada, 2014 and 2015. Mean values represent proportion of time spent on activity. ........................................................ 37 Table 3 Mean island size, water depth, and water distance for brant nesting islands between 2014 and 2015 and between Atlantic brant and cackling goose nesting islands in 2015 on East Bay, Southampton Island, Canada.59 Table 4 AICc comparison of 12 a priori models to predict Atlantic brant nest-fate probabilities with respect to arctic fox predation on East Bay, Southampton Island, Canada, 2014 and 2015.......................................... 60 Table 5 MCestimate AICc comparison of 4 variables from top model to predict brant nest-fate probabilities with respect to fox predation, on East Bay, Southampton Island, Canada, 2014 and 2015.......................................... 61 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Satellite Imagery of Southampton Island. East Bay is located on the Southeast side of the island. Banding efforts take place on all parts of the island. ....................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2 Map of the East Bay study site with a border around the searched nesting area. The border delineates the zone in which most geese nest in at East Bay (tidal line to 1.25 miles inland)......................................................... 11 Figure 3 Brant mid-winter survey counts have fluctuated since the beginning of the surveys in 1955. The count reached a low point in 1980, but has since rebounded and remained steady around 140,000 brant. .......................... 12 Figure 4 Nesting pairs of brant at East Bay, SHI have declined from a high of 455 in 1979 to a low of 44 in 2014. ................................................................ 13 Figure 5 Potential forms of interspecific competition displayed by cackling geese and lesser snow geese with breeding Atlantic brant. ............................... 14 Figure 6 Study area located on East Bay, Southampton Island, Canada................ 38 Figure 7 Snow