Status of three West Greenland caribou populations 2001. 1) Akia-Maniitsoq, 2) Ameralik, 3) Qeqertarsuatsiaat. Technical Report No. 46

1 Technical Report No. 46, 2002 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 1) Akia-Maniitsoq, 2) Ameralik, 3) Qeqertarsuatsiaat Status of three West Greenland caribou populations 2001 2 Title: Status of three West Greenland caribou populations 2001. 1) Akia-Maniitsoq, 2) Ameralik, 3) Qeqertarsuatsiaat. Authors: Christine Cuyler, Michael Rosing, John D.C.Linnell, Pipaluk Møller Lund, Per Jordhøy, Anne Loison & Arild Landa Translation: none Date of publication: month + year Funding: DANCEA, Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic  Ministry of Environment and Energy, Strandgade 29, Copenhagen K, Denmark Series: Technical Report no. 46, 2002 Publisher: Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Cover photo: Two female caribou in winter. Photographer: Christine Cuyler ISBN: 87-90024-87-7 ISSN: 1397-3657 Layout: Kirsten Rydahl Printing: Oddi Printing Ltd, Reykjavik, Iceland Prints: 150 (Danish & Greenlandic summaries) Reference: Cuyler, C., M. Rosing, J.D.C. Linnell, P.M. Lund, P. Jordhøy, A. Loison & A. Landa 2002. Status of three West Greenland caribou populations 2001; 1) Akia-Maniitsoq, 2) Ameralik, 3) Qeqertarsuatsiaat. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Technical report No. 46. xx pp. Available from: Greenland Institute of Natural Resources P.O. Box 570 DK-3900 Nuuk Greenland Phone: +299 32 10 95 Fax: +299 32 59 57 www.natur.gl 3 by Christine Cuyler1, Michael Rosing1, John Linnell2, Pipaluk Møller Lund3, Per Jordhøy2, Anne Loison4 & Arild Landa1 & 2 1 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 570, DK  3900 Nuuk, Greenland 2 Norwegian Institute of Nature Research, Tungasletta 2, 7485 Trondheim, Norway 3 Technical Division, City Hall, 2080 Eidsvoll Norway 4 UMR  CNRS 5558, Laboratoire de Biometrie et Biologie Evolutive, 69622 Villeurbanne cedex, France Technical Report No. 46, 2002 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 1) Akia-Maniitsoq, 2) Ameralik, 3) Qeqertarsuatsiaat Status of three West Greenland caribou populations 2001 4 Sammenfatning 5 Eqikkaaneq 6 7 In March 2001 aerial survey by helicopter for caribou abundance and herd structure was completed for 3 populations. The first was the Akia-Maniitsoq caribou population in region Central. The last two were populations in region South, the Ameralik and Qeqertarsuatsiaat herds. Flight height was 15 metres, flight speed averaged 80 km/hr, and strip width was 300 metres to either side of the helicopter, for a total of 600 metres. During March-April of 1998 and 2000, snowmobile ground surveys for herd structure were also completed in region Central. Both aerial and ground surveys gave annual recruitment estimates. Akia-Maniitsoq herd  region Central The estimate for pre-calving population size of Akia-Maniitsoq herd of region Central in March 2001 is c. 46,236 caribou (37,115 - 55,808; 80% CI). Winter range destruction has been observed. A decrease in herd size is advisable to prevent further destruction of the range. Therefore a large female harvest is needed. Neither halting population growth nor herd size reduction can be effectively achieved through hunter harvest unless females make up a large proportion of the animals taken. Caribou density in 2001 was 4.0 caribou per km2 in the high-density stratum, and 1.1 caribou per km2 in the low-density stratum. The former is high and considered a threat to vegetation. Mean group size declined from 6.4 in 1998 to 3.2 in 2001. Calf percentage also declined from 25% in 1998 to 17% in 2001. Similarly annual recruitment was 65 calves/100 cows in 1998 but only 31 in 2001. The high 1998 recruitment could have promoted rapid increase in population size, specifically since there are no natural predators. The present substantial drop in calf recruitment may indicate a population already in decline. The bull to cow ratio was about one bull to every 1.72 cows, which is not unusual. If natural mortality is between 8 and 10% then on a herd this size between 3,700 and 4,600 animals may be expected to die annually. The Akia-Maniitsoq caribou herd may have been steadily increasing in number since the 1950s. It is probable that herd size did increase substantially during the 1990s, given the initial 2-year ban on hunting, the following 5 years of low harvest quotas, the rich lichen range described by several authors, and the high recruitment observed in 1998. Recently caribou have been using the Davis Strait seacoast range, most noticeably the spring of 2001, when they were numerous on the north shorelines of the Godthåbsfjord along Akia/Nordlandet. Since utilization of coastal range occurs during population peaks, the present estimate may be a maximum for the region. The density of 4 caribou/km2 appears to support this. The herd size estimate in 2001, which is larger than all previous estimates need not mean a continued increasing number of caribou in the Akia-Maniitsoq herd, since calf recruitment dropped and is now poor. The improved sampling design produced a high population estimate, but the herd may be in decline or on the brink of decline. Support for this hypothesis is found in the present remarkably low recruitment value and observed current range degradation. This situation underlines the importance of monitoring and managing each herd separately in the future. Ameralik Herd  northern area of region South The Ameralik herd may have steadily increased since the 1940s until a possible recent peak in the late 1990s. These caribou Summary 8 have been using the seacoast heavily since 1997/98, which indicates both food limitation elsewhere on the range and a peak in animal numbers. The present high caribou density and range degradation supports this suggestion. This studys estimate for the pre-calving population size of the Ameralik herd in region South in March 2001 is c. 31,880 caribou (24,721  39,305; 80% CI). The large estimate need not mean a continued increasing number of caribou in the Ameralik herd. The herd may be in decline, given the poor calf recruitment, range degradation, and probable high population numbers over the past 5 years. Caribou density in 2001 was 3.7 caribou/ km2. Range destruction has been observed. Given that there are no predators, calf percentage is a low 18% and recruitment only 40 calf/100 cows. This may signal a herd already in decline. The relatively even bull to cow ratio suggests that harvests since 1995, although male-biased, have been too small to affect the population, e.g., herd size was likely large. If natural mortality is between 8 to 10% then between 2,500 and 3,200 animals may be expected to die annually. Once again halting further population growth and decreasing herd size is advisable to prevent further destruction of the range. Preserving the range will ensure the future of the caribou herd. As with the AkiaManiitsoq herd a large female harvest is needed to effectively halt population growth or reduce herd size. Qeqertarsuatsiaat Herd  southern area of region South The 2001 Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou herd size estimate of c. 5,372 caribou (2,864  8,244; 80% CI) is coupled with an excellent late winter calf recruitment (61 calf/100 cow) and reasonable caribou density (1.1 caribou/km2). With the high calf recruitment an increase in number is probable unless regulated by hunter harvest. The herd produces large animals for the harvest and present herd size does not appear to represent a threat to range condition. However, little is known about lichen range in the area. For every bull there are 1.4 cows. If natural mortality is between 8 to 10% then between 400 and 550 animals may be expected to die annually. Harvests should be about half female, so as to protect genetic variability in this relatively small population and promote female fecundity. A harvest strategy, which maintains the herd at its current size estimate, may be sustainable for both herd and range. 9 Estimates of herd size, herd structure and recruitment are important for caribou management decisions. Harvest regulation in west Greenland began in earnest during the 1990s with caribou herd size as the sole foundation. Animal abundance estimates are central to management in Greenland. Alone however, an estimate tells nothing about body condition, fertility, or recruitment, which are also relevant to management decisions, and can often explain the causes behind population fluctuations. The 1990s aerial surveys in west Greenland, specifically 1995 and 1996, had the best method design up to their time. Yet surveys are subject to uncertainty and typically underestimate numbers (Thomas 1998). Therefore it is critical to further improve methods if the resulting estimate is to accurately reflect population size. Recently three caribou populations in West Greenland were investigated; Akia-Maniitsoq, Ameralik and Qeqertarsuatsiaat. Akia-Maniitsoq caribou: region Central The Akia-Maniitsoq caribou population of region Central (Figure 1) is composed of native west Greenland caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) genetically mixed with feral semi-domestic reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) (Jepsen 1999), which were introduced to the Godthåb/Kapisillit area in 1952 (Figure 2). Ear-marked escaped reindeer were already being harvested in region Central, specifically Qussuk, during the 1970s (Kristian Egede pers. comm.). As with all regions in west Greenland there are no natural predators. Region Central may contain sub-populations of caribou, but results from satellite collared individuals (Cuyler & Linnell in press) suggest that the caribou of the region may be considered one population. Introduction Figure. 2. Place names in region Central. 16 Figure 4. Aerial helicopter survey of the Akia-Maniitsoq caribou population in region Central. Figure 5. Aerial helicopter survey of the Ameralik caribou population in region South. 17 missed caribou per transect, was calculated from the results of the 2000 survey in region North (Cuyler et al. 2002). Rear seat (left and right) observer ability, however, was initially unknown. Therefore the rear seat observers alternated seat position, so each sat on the same side as the known-ability observer at least once. Also several observers were used. It was assumed that this spread the bias risk over an average of several individuals ability rather than risk the possibility of a poor observer, sitting in the right rear seat, causing high negative bias.Details specific to each caribou population studied are given below in the order in which the surveys were completed. Akia-Maniitsoq caribou population (region Central) The aerial survey of region Central occurred 12-16 March 2001. Region Central encompasses approximately 15,362 km2. The 47 random transect lines were divided between 2 strata, one high and one low caribou density stratum (Figure 4). The high-density stratum involved c. 10,037 km2, while the low-density stratum encompassed c. 5,325 km2. 34 transects were allocated to the high caribou density stratum and 13 transects to the low caribou density stratum. Herd structure and recruitment counts were flown on 5 transects, and over large areas in both the high and low caribou density strata. Ameralik caribou population (region South) The aerial survey of the Ameralik herd occurred 12-21 March 2001. Region South encompasses approximately 13,473 ice-free km2, however the Ameralik area involves about 8,377 km2. 40 random transect lines were allocated to the latter (Figure 5). Herd structure and recruitment counts were flown on 4 of the transects, and also over areas where caribou were numerous. Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou population (region South) The aerial survey of the Qeqertarsuatsiaat herd occurred 21-22 March 2001, and used 21 random transect lines (Figure 6). Region South encompasses approximately 13,473 Figure 6. Aerial helicopter survey of the Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou population in region South. 18 Figure 7. Akia-Maniitsoq herd structure zigzag overflights. Figure 8. Ameralik herd structure zigzag overflights. 19 ice-free km2, however the Qeqertarsuatsiaat area involves about 5,096 km2. Herd structure and recruitment counts were flown throughout the region over large areas, where caribou were numerous. Estimating abundance Population estimates for the 3 caribou populations investigated and the minimum number for the missed animals were calculated according to Cuyler et al. (2002) (Appendices 3 & 4). The standard method when each missed animal is identified follows Pollock & Kendall (1987). Herd structure & calf recruitment During aerial surveys, herd structure and recruitment counts were obtained by backtracking transects in a zigzag flight pattern, never flying more than c. 2 kilometres from the transect line (Figures 7, 8 & 9). Alternately, areas of high caribou density were chosen. Choice of a transect or area depended on how many caribou were present, since the goal was to maximize the number of caribou, sexed and aged, for herd structure and recruitment. Akia-Maniitsoq transect numbers 1, 39, 68, 105 & 227 were backtracked, as were Ameralik transect numbers 94, 206, 282 & 295. There was close communication between all observers and pilot during this exercise. All caribou sighted were sexed and aged (< or > 1 year old) following a brief overpass with the helicopter. Sex was determined by the presence or absence of a vulva and/or urine patch on the rump. This reliably indicated a female on both adults and calves. No other method was 100% certain, e.g., antler size, shape, presence or absence, were not used, as the presence of antlers on female caribou is highly variable in western Greenland. Age was determined by body size. Calves of both sexes were considerably smaller than all other age classes at this time of year. There were two age classes used in subsequent analyses, i.e., calf (≥ 9-10 months old) Figure 9. Qeqertarsuatsiaat herd structure zigzag overflights. 20 Figure 10. Akia-Maniitsoq herd structure ground survey, routes taken region Central: (A) 1998 & (B) 2000. and adult (> 1 year). Calf percentage given is the percentage of the total number of caribou seen. Calf recruitment is the late-winter calf/100 cow ratio. Group size was based on proximity and group cohesion during possible flight response, e.g., three cow/calf pairs, separated by several hundred metres, would not be regarded as a group of six. The sex and age structure of the Akia-Maniitsoq herd, region Central, were also investigated by ground survey, between 25 March  3 April 1998, and 29 March  9 April 2000 (Figure 10). Areas were counted only once and rapid terrain coverage was used to avoid the possibility of double counting. Binoculars and Leica spotting scopes were used to sex and age animals observed. 21 Local involvement Local hunters and hunting officers participated in the surveys as caribou observers, and professional hunters were chosen by the Greenland Association of Commercial Hunters (KNAPK) and Greenland Directorate for Fisheries Hunting and Municipalities (DFFB). Local professional hunters Aslak Jensen, Johannes Egede, Niels Olsen, and Rink Heinrich participated in the helicopter survey 2001. The Maniitsoq wildlife officer, Jakob Heilmann, participated in the region Central snowmobile ground survey for herd structure assessment 2000, while local recreational hunter Jacob Poulson participated in 1998. Description region Central Region Central encompasses approximately 15,362 km2, and caribou utilise much of this area over the course of a year. The regions boundaries reflect geographic features. To the north is the Sukkertoppen Ice Cap, to the north west is Søndre Strømfjord, to the west is the Davis Strait, to the south is Godthåbsfjord and to the east the Greenland inland Ice Cap. Today, the largest human settlement within the region is the city of Maniitsoq, with 2,929 inhabitants, while a further 796 people live in smaller settlements (Grønlands Statistisk Årbog 2000). Only a few kilometres south lies Greenlands capital city, Nuuk, with c. 13,445 inhabitants, and the Kapisillit settlement, with c. 115. Most cities and settlements are located on the Davis Strait seacoast. Vast portions of region Central are readily accessible to Greenlands technologically modern and mobile hunters due to the natural fragmentation of the landscape by fjord, lake and river systems. The northern third of region Central, specifially the inland named Qaamassoq, can be described as high mountain plateau with a miriad of lakes sprinkled throughout. The area receives plenty of precipitation year round, and in winter this can create deep snow conditions that drive caribou out of this area, east to the borders of the Ice Cap, south towards Fiskefjord, or west towards the Davis Strait coast (Thing & Falk 1990, Strandgaard et al. 1983). Snow cover is typically good until May-June. In 1999 this area was still snow covered on the 25th of June. Although lichen range was good during the 1970s, twenty years later it was overgrazed (Thing & Falk 1990). The southwest portion of region Central is Akia/Nordland, and lies between Fiskefjord to the north and Godthåbsfjord to the south. The landscape is monotonous fissured rocky lowlands with a myriad of lakes and rivers. There is a central mountain ridge, which runs SW-NE. The climate is wet and maritime with typically deep snow in winter, and previously caribou concentrations have been found on the south shores of Fiskefjord and in the mountain region north of Qussuk but elsewhere on Akia almost none at all (Thing & Falk 1990). This area contained some of the best lichen range in west Greenland, without evidence of overgrazing (Thing & Falk 1990; Lund et al. 2000). During the early 1980s lichens stood 2 to 3 cm high in near coastal areas (Strandgaard et al. 1983). This area currently represents favoured wintering range for the Akia-Maniitsoq herd (Cuyler & Linnell in press). During summer of 2000 several Nature Institute staff noticed independently that vegetation was trampled or overgrazed in the Qussuk area of Akia/Nordlandet, which only 3 years previously had been good lichen heaths. Lichen ranges closer to the Davis Strait coast have also been reduced over the last few years (Tittus Egede pers. comm.). The southeastern area, Ujaragssuit Nunaat, which is south of the Sarqap Sermerssua glacial tongue and east of the lake Taserssuaq and fjord Iluljalik, is dominated by high mountainous terrain, proximity to the inland Ice Cap and a continental climate, which means little precipitation annually and light snow depths in winter. Caribou have been known to prefer this area, but the winter lichen range was overgrazed in 1990 (Thing & Falk 1990). Even in the early 22 1980s lichens here were described as overgrazed and in some places consisting only of dead lichen mats (Strandgaard et al. 1983). The coast north of Fiskefjord up to Søndre Strømfjord is varied. Mountainous terrain is typical and much of the area is divided by deep long valleys running SW-NE. There are several alpine ice caps. Snow cover can be deep and total, and at the high elevations snow cover can remain until mid-July. Description region South Region South encompasses approximately 13,473 ice-free km2. The regions boundaries reflect geographic features. To the north is Godthåbsfjord, to the east is the Greenland inland Ice Cap, to the south is Frederikshåb Isblink, and to the west the outer coast along the Davis Strait. The region is characterized by a geographically fragmented landscape. Steep sided fjords penetrate deeply towards the inland Ice Cap and glacial tongues of the Ice Cap often begin at the fjord heads. Today, the largest human settlement within the region is Greenlands capital city of Nuuk, with 13,445 inhabitants, while a further 388 people live in smaller settlements (Grønlands Statistisk Årbog 2000). Also using region South for hunting, specifically the Grædefjord area, are hunters from region Paamiut, 2,085 inhabitants. Ameralik This 8,377 km2, area includes all ice-free land and islands. This area between the Godthåb and Sermilik fjords (and Sermeq glacial tongue) has a sharply contrasting landscape. There are low coastal flatlands on the Davis Strait coast and high sharp mountain peaks with alpine glaciers elsewhere. The large lake, Kangerdluarssungûp taserssua, and the Ameralik fjord dominate in the centre, running generally east-west across the region. Snow is typically deep at the coast and decreases steadily towards the east until almost nothing close to the inland Ice Cap (Thing & Falk 1990). The terrain east of 50°30W sees little precipitation, while west of that receives plenty, e.g. snow depths are commonly 1.5 metres at 51°W during winter (Jack Frederiksen pers. comm.). However for at least the past 2 decades, the windblown coastal lowlands at the seacoast seldom can keep any snow cover to speak of during winter (Göran Lindmark pers. comm.). Historically the lichen ranges in Ameralik were excellent. Knud Rasmussen (1910) investigated Godthåbsfjord-Ameralik area with Saami during 1905. He described a range covered extensively with rich deep reindeer-lichen heaths, reaching even up to 1,000 m ASL in places. He wrote that the range was better suited for reindeer than anywhere in Scandinavia at that time. Lichens were still rich during the 1940s along the Davis Strait coastline from Lille Narsaq down to Buksefjorden and all along the shores of Buksefjorden. These ranges are now overgrazed (Tittus Egede pers. comm.). Ameralik had good quality winter range during the early 1980s (Aastrup 1983, 1984), and lichen ranges were generally assumed of good quality in the early 1980s, due to observations of body condition (Thing 1982a; Strandgaard et al. 1983). However lichen ranges near the Ice Cap were poor relative to further west (Strandgaard et al. 1983). Lichen ranges on the Nunatarssuaq, east of Kapisillit were overgrazed in late 1980s (Nikolaj Heinrich pers. comm.). Ameralik in 1990 still contained some of the best lichen range in west Greenland, second only to Akia in region Central, being relatively good in many areas but again overgrazed near the Ice Cap (Thing & Falk 1990). The average lichen cover in 1984 for the land between Ameralik and Kangerdluarssungûp taserssua was 45-55% (Aastrup 1986). However, the entire south shore of the Ameralik fjord was overgrazed by the late 1990s (Jens Bjerge pers comm). In 1998 the lichens mats of the Eqaluit valley were observed overgrazed and trampled (GN unpublished). Between 1985 and 2000 the lichen heaths were severely overgrazed and trampled (Lund et al. 2000). 23 Qeqertarsuatsiaat This 5,096 km2, area includes all ice-free land and islands. The area is naturally fragmented to a severe degree by steep sided fjords and glacial tongues from the inland Ice Cap. Half the region is alpine, being greater than 700 metres ASL (Thing & Falk 1990), but there are low coastal flatlands and islands along the Davis Strait coast. Snow cover can be total from Davis Strait coast to the inland Ice Cap. Although not examined, Thing & Falk (1990) assumed the winter lichen range in this area was overgrazed and in poor condition, because the 1990 survey estimated a low caribou population size. Other explainations are possible. For example a heavy hunting pressure could have kept caribou numbers low, despite good range conditions. Alternately, the population size might have been underestimated, and have nothing to do with range condition. Hence range condition was unknown. 24 5HJLRQ 3RSXODWLRQ (VWLPDWH &RQILGHQFH,QWHUYDO  Central Akia-Maniitsoq 46,236 37,115 – 55,808 South Ameralik 31,880 24,721 – 39,305 South Qeqertarsuatsiaat 5,372 2,864 – 8,244 1 non-parametric (bootstrap) CIs. 5HJLRQ 3RSXODWLRQ /RZGHQVLW\DUHD +LJKGHQVLW\DUHD Central Akia-Maniitsoq 1.1 / km²4.0 / km² South Ameralik -3.8 / km² South Qeqertarsuatsiaat - 1.05 / km² 5HJLRQ&HQWUDO 5HJLRQ6RXWK $NLD0DQLLWVRT $PHUDOLN 4HTHUWDUVXDWVLDDW Year 2001 2000 1998 2001 2001 Method Aerial Ground Ground Aerial Aerial Total sexed & aged 758 590 575 555 107 Average group size 3.2 3.6 6.4 4.3 2.9 Maximum group size 18 17 36 28 6 Bull (>1 year) 232 (30.6%) 236 (40.0%) 206 (35.8%) 207 (37.3%) 33 (30.8%) Cow (>1 year) 400 (52.8%) 237 (40.2%) 224 (39.0%) 249 (44.9%) 46 (43.0%) Calf 126 (16.6%) 117 (19.8%) 145 (25.2%) 99 (17.8%) 28 (26.2%) Recruitment (calf/cow*) 0.31 0.49 0.65 0.40 0.61 * all cows >1 year old Table 5. Late winter herd structure parameters for 3 caribou herds in West Greenland. Table 3. Estimates of caribou abundance 2001 for 3 herds in West Greenland. Corrected for missed caribou as follows Cuyler et al. (2002). Table 4. Caribou density 2001 for 3 herds in West Greenland. Corrected for missed caribou as follows Cuyler et al. (2002). 25 Caribou population size & herd structure Incorporating a correction for missed caribou (Cuyler et al. 2002), population size estimates for the 3 caribou populations investigated are, 1) Akia-Maniitsoq c. 46,236 caribou, 2) Ameralik c. 31,880 caribou, and 3) Qeqertarsuatsiaat c. 5,372 caribou (Table 3), while mean densities ranged up to 4 caribou/km2 (Table 4). Herd structure and calf recruitment varied substantially among the 3 caribou populations (Table 5). Distribution changes were observed for both the Akia-Maniitsoq and Ameralik caribou populations. Unusually large numbers of Akia-Maniitsoq caribou were observed on the Davis Strait coast and the northern shorelines of Godthåbsfjord. A large portion of the Ameralik caribou population was observed in the extreme south of their range and bordering on the Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou range. Akia-Maniitsoq caribou distribution Within the high-density stratum, large numbers, i.e. high densities, of caribou were present all along the south-facing slopes of the hilly north shore of Godthåbsfjord. The favoured Akia/Nordland wintering range just north of these hills, was also densely populated. For example, transect line 68 had a density of c. 23 caribou/km2, and half of transect line 227 had a density of c. 20 caribou/km2 (Appendix 5). Coastal areas along the Davis Strait were also full of caribou. Coastal transect line 39, which was at the mouth of Fiskefjord, south side, had a density of c. 15 caribou/km2, while transect lines 97, 17 and 77 had densities of c. 3, 2 and 2 caribou/km2 respectively. Further north the Davis Strait coastline was still supporting substantial numbers of caribou. Transect lines 84, 56 and 107 had densities of c. 5, 4 and 4 caribou/km2 respectively. Also areas further inland had high densities. Transect 1 had a density of c. 7 caribou/ km2. Inside a narrow inland valley, which lies on a N-S orientation, 197 caribou were sexed and aged. We named this valley Eldorado because its caribou density was c. 30 caribou/km2. This valley was an observed April migration route for south to north movement of the Akia-Maniitsoq herd during the 1998 and 2000 ground surveys. Areas furthest inland by the Ice Cap, i.e., the Ivisartoq and Ujaragssuit Nunaat areas, were also well populated though not as excessively as elsewhere within the high-density stratum. Densities typically lay above 2 caribou/km2, while lines 166, 108, and 96 had densities of 4.4, 4 and 3.8 caribou/km2 respectively. Although the low-density stratum in the northern portion of region Central typically had few caribou, transect line 105 beside the inland Ice Cap was an exception. It had a density of c. 17 caribou/km2. Transect lines 53 and 61 in the mid-interior had densities of 1.6 and 2 caribou/km2 respectively. Large tracts where few caribou were present were also noted. The area between transect lines 18 and 193 were little used for other than bee-line migration trails heading due north through there. This pattern was also noticed during the ground counts of 1998 and 2000. There were seven transects in the high-density stratum where zero or one caribou only were sighted. These were transects 3, 18, 58, 65, 136, 181 and 186. There were four transects in the low-density stratum with zero caribou sighted. These were transects 15, 52, 95 and 126. Results 32 the Atammik area. The present study also observed high densities of caribou along the Davis Strait seacoast. Further inland, along the inner Godthåbsfjord coasts, caribou are also now noticeable at shorelines. Since 1996, and until this study, more caribou have been present, than ever remembered, near the coasts of region Central and hunters could make easy kills by just cruising the fjords. The present study also observed high densities of caribou along the Godthåbsfjord coasts. Caribou in west Greenland use seacoast areas when caribou numbers are high (Grønnow et al. 1983; Meldgaard 1986). Caribou also move when food is in short supply (Haber & Walters 1980). The greater the lack of food the greater the caribou will move (Baskin 1990). Coupled with the present population size estimate, the above distribution data strongly suggests that the Akia-Maniitsoq herd has been increasing for several years, and were particularly abundant in March 2001. Food supply may have begun to be a limiting factor. Ameralik herd Caribou number in the northern portion of region south was low for years. Meldgaard (1986) gives sources, which describe region South Ameralik caribou herds distribution 100 years ago. It was good on the nunataks, Nunatarssuaq & Akugdlerssuaq, which are east of the settlement Kapisillit. The population south and east of Ameralik fjord was then described as large. During the early 1980s few caribou used the western half of the region, but concentrated themselves in the northeastern corner (Thing 1982a). Winter caribou distribution in the early 1980s was concentrated primarily in the areas north and south of the lake Kangerdlusarssungûp, with calving occurring in the continental inland area near the Ice Cap (Thing 1982a, Strandgaard et al. 1983). Summer found the animals dispersed. Then towards winter the animals followed their old trails westward to their coastal wintering range (Meldgaard 1986; Aastrup 1984). During the winter of 1990, caribou still occupied the land north of the lake Kangerdluarssungûp taserssua since range quality south of the lake was poor (Thing & Falk 1990). The above describes the Ameralik caribou herds distribution when numbers were low. Recently caribou number increased. Range expansion has been evident during the 1990s. Before the 1990s caribou paths were nonexistant on the outer Godthåbs peninsula or in the Ameralik/Buksefjord area, however by the late 1980s and during the 1990s both paths and animals became noticeable. Currently the Ameralik caribou population appears to be using seacoast areas and moving away from the northern portion of region South, which is overgrazed (Lund et al. 2000), and colonizing little-used coastal range further south, which borders on the Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou range. Since caribou movement is proportional to food scarcity and Greenland caribou use seacoast areas during population peaks, the above suggests that Ameralik herd size has been high for several years already and that range condition is already a limiting factor. The present population size estimate and documented overgrazing makes further caribou movement probable. Range degradation at new locations may follow. Although this survey observed no caribou tracks between the actual Ameralik and Qeqertarsuatsiaat herds, given the southward movement of the Ameralik caribou, mingling of these two sub-populations may occur in future. Qeqertarsuatsiaat herd Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou are generally found in the inner reaches between the heads of the major fjords and the inland Ice Cap, i.e., heads of the fjords, Grædefjord, Qeqertarsuatsiaat kangerdluat, and Bjørnesund (Agdlumersat) (Meldgaard 1986). Distribution during the autumn hunting season was locally known to be best in the inland areas close to the inland Ice Cap (Meldgaard 1986). This was also the case during 33 an air survey in 1982 (Strandgaard et al. 1983). Local knowledge tells that shifts in distribution have occurred in the past (Meldgaard 1986). Large concentrations can in some years be found around the fjord head of Grædefjord (Kangerdluarssugssuaq) and other years around the fjord head of Bjørnesund (Agdlumersat), although caribou are seldom observed south of Bjørnesund. Annual movements include moving to low lying coastal wintering areas in SeptemberOctober and in spring moving inland to calving grounds and summer ranges (in Meldgaard 1986). The present study found a similar distribution of caribou to that described above. No caribou were found near the Davis Strait seacoast. This may have been due to the lack of sea ice on the fjords. Caribou may be reluctant to swim cold fjords in late winter, if lichen range was adequate where they were. Given that Greenland caribou use the seacoasts during population peaks and move greatly when range is poor (Haber & Walters 1980; Grønnow et al. 1983; Meldgaard 1986; Baskin 1990), their present distribution suggests that their herd size is not near a peak and further that their range is adequate for the present density. Most animals were in the rugged uplands just east of the town of Fiskenæsset/Qeqertarsuatsiaat. Surprisingly the spring migration to the inland had begun at the time of this survey. The area where migration movement occurred was surveyed in under 2 hours and against the flow of movement, which removed the possibility of double counting. Further, the observed maximum straight line movement for west Greenland caribou in March was under 5 km per day (Cuyler & Linnell in press). Expected natural mortality Adult natural mortality for caribou in 5 North American herds without natural predators is 4-6% annually (Bergerud 1967; 1971; Skoog 1968; Kelsall 1968), which corresponds to a life expectancy of 17 to 25 years. Adult annual natural mortality has been c. 8% on Southampton Island (NWT, Canada), which is also without predators (Heard & Ouellet 1994), and Thing (1982b) suggested a natural mortality of 7% for adult caribou of region North in west Greenland. Actual natural mortality values for Greenland caribou appear around 8-10%, given the general life expectancy of 10 to 12 years found in Loison et al. (2000) and Cuyler & Østergaard (2002). It should come as no surprise to find a number of dead caribou in the terrain over the course of each year. During a lifetime of hunting, Kristian Egede (pers. comm.) found about 10 dead caribou a year while out in the terrain. Using a natural mortality of 8-10% and the current population estimate of c. 46,236 (37,115  55,808; 80% CI) caribou for the Akia-Maniitsoq herd, equates to an expected natural mortality of between c. 3,700 and 4,600 caribou each year in region Central. Similarly, the expected natural mortality is between 2,500 and 3,200 caribou each year for the Ameralik population and between 400 and 550 caribou for the Qeqertarsuatsiaat population. Implications for caribou harvest Akia-Maniitsoq & Ameralik herds Given the 2001 herd size estimate of c. 46,236, observed caribou densities and distribution, and local knowledge on range expansion, it is possible that the Akia-Maniitsoq caribou herd is now a threat to its range. The herd may even have reached peak numbers, given its present seacoast distribution, low calf recruitment and evidence of range degradation. The situation is similar for the Ameralik caribou herd, which appears to have been abundant for several years already, given the expanded distribution to the seacoast, local knowledge accounts, and documented range destruction of the late 1990s. Today the 2001 herd size estimate of c. 31,880 (80% CI: 24,721  39,305) caribou coupled with the observed high density, low calf recruitment and poor range suggest a herd primed for a decline. Preventing further destruction to the range is necessary if healthy herds of reasonable 34 This project was financed by DANCEA, Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic  Ministry of Environment and Energy, Denmark. Sincere thanks to Mike Ferguson and Michael Kingsley for valuable input and brainstorming on alternate survey designs and methodologies. Thanks to Pipaluk Møller Lund for generating the random transects. Thanks to GreenlandAir and helicopter pilots Wilhelm Von Platen and Ulf Østerlund for superb flying under difficult conditions. Thanks from the bottom of our stomach to Svein Villiksen and Paulus Hard at the Buksefjord Hydro Power station for their hospitality, coffee and delicious waffles. Thanks to the competent and ready help as observers in the helicopter, KNAPK hunters Aslak Jensen, Johannes Egede, Niels Olsen, Rink Heinrich, and also to biology assistants Casper Christoffersen & Lotte Rasmussen for the same. Thanks to Per Jordhøy and Jakob Heilmann for the spring 2000 ground survey for herd structure. Thanks to Jacob Poulsen for the spring 1998 ground survey for herd structure, and to Joseph Gogie McCullough for logistical support during the field work. Sincere thanks to Erik Born, Lars Witting, Mads-Peter H.-Jørgensen and Michael Kingsley for reviewing the manuscript. A warm thank you to all local knowledge sources, those hunters, wildlife officers, helicopter pilots and interested locals who gave of their time to provide local knowledge. These included, in alphabetical order, Atle Dahl (Nuuk), Birger Knudsen (Paamiut), Bjørn Rosing (Nuuk), Esmar Bergstrøm (Nuuk), Göran Lindmark (Pilot), Hans Henrik Skott (Pilot), Jack Frederiksen (Nuuk), Jacob Poulsen (Nuuk), Jakob Heilmann (wildlife officer, Maniitsoq), Jan Kleinschmidt (Nuuk), Jens Bjerge (Nuuk), Johannes Rosing (Nuuk), Kristian Egede (Nuuk), Minik Møller Lund (Nuuk), Morten Jørgen Heilmann (Nuuk), Nikolaj Heinrich (Nuuk), Tittus Egede (Nuuk), Victor McGregor (Atammik) and Vittus Nielsen (wildlife officer, Nuuk). size are to be maintained in future. Caribou density likely needs to be reduced to prevent range destruction. Thus the herds should not be allowed to increase further, rather a decrease from present numbers is advisable. Maintaining a low caribou density for several decades could allow sustainable lichen heaths. A target density of under 2 caribou/ km2 is suggested as a management goal to be reached by 2006. Given the nearby large number of potential hunters, regulated harvest pressure could be a useful management tool influencing herd size, density and herd structure. Since 1995 the caribou harvests have been severely (90%) sex-biased towards males (Loison et al 2000). Highly male-biased sex ratios in harvesting can lead to greatly reduced female fecundity and population collapse (Ginsberg & Milner-Gulland 1994), and may even endanger the genetic variabiAcknowledgements lity of a population (Ryman et al 1981). Because of this and the need to reduce herd size, more females in the harvest are needed. Neither halting population growth nor herd size reduction can be effectively achieved through hunter harvest unless females make up a large proportion of the quota taken. Qeqertarsuatsiaat herd Today the 2001 Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou herd size estimate of 5,372 (80% CI: 2,864  8,244) caribou is coupled with an excellent calf recruitment and reasonable caribou density for the area. The present size of the herd appears to promote large healthy animals, while not representing a threat to range quality. However, little is known about lichen range in the area. Maintaining the herd at its current size estimate through wise harvesting may be sustainable for both herd and range. 35 Aastrup, P., 1984. Vandkraft i Grønland. Rensdyr. In: Grønlands Fiskeriog Miljøundersøgelser & Grønlands Botaniske Undersøgelser. 68 pp. Aastrup, P., 1984. Rensdyrundersøgelser og vegetationskortlægning ved vandkraftværk Buksefjord, Nuuk/Godthåb, 1983. Undersøgelser af rensdyrbestanden: 40-72.  In: Grønlands Fiskeriog Miljøundersøgelser & Grønlands Botaniske Undersøgelser. 81 pp. Aastrup, P., 1986. Rensdyrundersøgelser ved vandkraftprojekt Kangerluarsuunguaq/Buksefjord, Nuuk/Godthåb, 1984-1985. Grønlands Fiskeriog Miljøundersøgelser, København. 80 pp. Baskin, L.M., 1990. Population dynamics of reindeer. Rangifer, Special Issue No. 3: 151-156. Bergerud, A.T., 1967. Management of Labrador caribou. J. Wildl. Manage. 31: 621-642. Bergerud, A.T., 1971. The population dynamics of Newfoundland caribou. Wildl. Monogr. 25. 55 pp. Caughley, G., 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y. 234 pp. Cuyler, C. & J.D.C. Linnell, in press. Årligt vandringsmønster hos satellitmærkede rensdyr i Vestgrønland. Kapital 6 in: P. Aastrup (ed.). Undersøgelser af vestgrønlandske rensdyrs aktivitetsområder og vandringer samt effekter af menneskelige forstyrrelser. Grønlands Naturinstitut. Teknisk rapport nr. 49. Cuyler, C. & J. Østergaard, 2002. Fertility in two west Greenland caribou populations on different ranges, 1996/97. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Progress Note 1. 11 pp. Cuyler, C., M. Rosing, J.D.C. Linnell, A. Loison, T. Ingerlsev & A. Landa, 2002. Status of the Kangerlussuaq-Sisimiut caribou population (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) in 2000, West Greenland. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Technical report No. 42. 52 pp. Cuyler, C., M. Rosing, J.D.C. Linnell, P.M. Lund, A. Loison & A. Landa, in prep. Reconnaissance for caribou abundance, herd structure and recruitment, Neria & Qassit caribou herds (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) in 2000, Paamiut, West Greenland. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Technical report No. 48. Dzus, E., 1999. Population dynamics: How are the caribou doing? In: Boreal Caribou Research Program (BCRP) progress report 1999. Boreal Research Committee 15810114 Ave., Edmonton, Alberta T5M 2Z4 Canada. 37 pp. Fancy, S.G., K.R. Whitten & D.E. Russell, 1994. Demography of the porcupine caribou herd, 1983-1992. Can. J. Zool. 72: 840-846. Ginsberg, J.R. & E.J. Milner-Gulland, 1994. Sex-biased harvesting and population dynamics in ungulates: implications for conservation and sustainable use. Conservation Biology 8: 157-166. Grønlands Statistisk Årbog 2000. Grønland 2000 Kalaallit Nunaat: statistisk årbog Ukiumoortumik kisitsisitigut paasissutissat. Grønlands Hjemmestyre. Grønlands Statistik 2000. Jydsk Centraltrykkeri A/S, Viby J. 624 pp. Grønnow, B., M. Meldgaard & J.B. Nielsen, 1983. Aasivissuit  The Great Summer Camp Archaeological, ethnographical and zoo-archaeological studies of a caribou hunting site in West Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland. Man & Society No. 5: 96 pp. Haber, G.C. & C.J. Walters, 1980. Dynamics of the Alaska-Yukon caribou herds and management implication.  In: Reimers, E., E. Gaare & S. Skjenneberg (eds.). Proceedings of the Second International Reindeer/Caribou Symposium, Direktoratet for vilt og ferskvannfisk, Trondheim. 645-663. Heard, D.C., 1985. Caribou census methods used in the Northwest Territories.  In: Proceedings of the 2nd North American Caribou workshop, 1984. McGill Subarctic Res. Pap. No. 40: 229-238. Heard, D.C. & J.P. Ouellet, 1994. Dynamics of an introduced caribou population. Arctic 47(1): 88-95. Literature cited 36 Helle, T., T. Helle, S.-S. Kilpelä & P. Aikio, 1990. Lichen ranges, animal densities and production in Finnish reindeer management. Rangifer. Special Issue No. 3: 115-121. Jepsen, B.I., 1999. Populationsgenetiske studier af vildren (R.t. groenlandicus) and tamren (R.t. tarandus) i Vestgrønland. M.Sc. Thesis, Botany Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 64+ pp. Kelsall, J.P., 1968. The migratory barren-ground caribou of Canada. Can. Wildl. Serv., Queens Printer, Ottawa, Canada. 340 pp. Klein, D.R., 1987. Vegetation recovery patterns following overgrazing by reindeer on St. Matthew Island. Journal of Range Management. 40(4): 336-338. Lund, P.M., E.S. Hansen & C. Bay, 2000. Græsningsvurdering af dværgbuskheder i Eqaluit ilorliit og Qasigiannguit, i Ameralik-fjord, jagtområde Kujataa. Grønlands Naturinstitut. Teknisk rapport nr. 36. 32 pp. Loison. A., C. Cuyler, J.D.C. Linnell & A. Landa, 2000. The caribou harvest in west Greenland, 1995-98: sex, age and condition of animals based on hunter reports. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Technical report No. 36. 33 pp. Meldgaard, M., 1986. The Greenland caribou  zoogeography, taxonomy, and population dynamics. Meddelelser om Grønland. Bioscience no. 20. 88 pp. Parker, G.R., 1972. Biology of the Kaminuriak population of barrenground caribou Part I. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. No. 20. 95 pp. Pollock, K.H. & W.L. Kendall, 1987. Visibility bias in aerial surveys: a review of estimation procedures. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51: 502-510. Rasmussen, K., 1910. Renbejte-undersøgelses-ekspeditionens rejse i Grønland, sommeren 1905 (Rapport til indenrigsministeriet). Atlanten, Medlemsblad for foreningen De Danske Atlanterhavsøer Bind II 1907-1910. Københaven : 43-58. Ryman, N., R. Baccus, C. Reuterwall & H.M. Smith, 1981. Effective population size, generation interval, and potential loss of genetic variability in game species under different hunting regimes. Oikos 36: 257-266. Skogland, T., 1985. The effects of density-dependent resource limitation on the demography of wild reindeer. J. Ani. Ecol. 54: 359-374. Skoog, R.O., 1968. Ecology of the caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley. 699 pp. Strandgaard, H., V. Hothe, P. Lassen & H. Thing, 1983. Rensdyrsundersøgelser i Vestgrønland 1977-82. Job completion report. Vildtbiologisk Station, Kalø: 1-29. Thing, H., 1981. Feeding ecology of the West Greenland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) in the Holsteinsborg-Sdr. Strømfjord region, a Thesis, University of Aarhus, June 1981. Thing, H., 1982a. Flytælling af vestgrønlandske vildrenbestande marts 1982. Vildtbiologisk Station, Kalø. 10 pp. Thing, H., 1982b. Struktur og årlig tilvækst i en bestand af vestgrønlandsk vildren (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus). Rangifer 2: 28-35. Thing, H, & K. Falk, 1990. Status over rensdyrbestandene i Vestgrønland mellem Nassuttooq og Paamiut Sermiat, MartsApril 1990. Grønlands Hjemmestyre Miljøog Naturforvaltningen, Maj 1990. 23 pp. Thomas, D., 1969. Population estimates and distribution of barrenground caribou in MacKenzie District, N.W.T., Saskatchewan, and Alberta, March to May 1967. Can. Wildl. Serv., Rep. Ser. No. 9. 44 pp. Thomas, D., 1998. Needed: Less counting of caribou and more ecology. Rangifer, Special Issue No. 10: 15-23. Vibe, C., 1967. Arctic animals in relation to climatic fluctuations. Meddelelser om Grønland. The Danish Zoogeographical Investigations in Greenland. Københaven. 170 (5): 277 pp. Ydemann, D. & C.B. Pedersen, 1999. Rensdyr i Vestgrønland 1993-1996. Unpublished report to Greenland Institute for Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. 37 Local knowledge sources have been plentiful regarding the Ameralik caribou population, fewer for the Akia-Maniitsoq herd and only a single source was available for the Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou population. This reflects the haphazard collection of local knowledge, rather than a definite lack of sources. Future work would benefit from a more systematic approach for identifying good sources of local knowledge. Akia-Maniitsoq caribou population  region Central Despite the survey estimates from 1977-1996, local knowledge suggests that the Akia / Maniitsoq caribou herd number has increased steadily with each decade since the 1950s until present day with no marked peaks or drops (Kristian Egede & Jacob Poulsen pers. comm.). Prior to the 1950s caribou on Akia/Nordlandet were very scarce (Bjørn Rosing & Kristian Egede pers. comm.). By the 1990s caribou were commonly seen on Akia/Nordlandet (Bjørn Rosing pers. comm.). Further, Jacob Poulsen (pers. comm.) describes the following. During the 1970s it would take 3 to 4 men one week to hunt 6 to 8 caribou, however during the 1980s 4 men could easily take 14 caribou in one day and another 4 to 5 more over the next 2 days for a total of 5 caribou per man. Since the early 1990s caribou have been observed along the Davis Strait coastline and islands, further that this had never occurred before (Jacob Poulsen, Victor McGregor, Tittus Egede & Kristian Egede pers. comm.). Ameralik caribou population  region South Generally local knowledge suggests Ameralik caribou number was low 60 years ago, rose steadily through the 1980s, and attained a high during the late 1990s. Local knowledge suggests that the Ameralik caribou population abundance was high just prior to this study. The Ameralik caribou numbers were low during the 1940s and increased steadily since the 1940s, i.e., no marked peaks or drops, (Tittus Egede & Kristian Egede pers. comm.). In 1997 the caribou of Ameralik were described as too many (Jack Frederiksen, Jens Bjerge, Bjørn Rosing, Tittus Egede & Nikolaj Heinrich pers. comm.). By 1998 caribou were plentiful everywhere, not just at the inner fjord coastlines, but also on the islands and coasts of the Davis Strait (Tittus Egede & Nikolaj Heinrich pers. comm.). There are always caribou in the northeastern corner (between Kangerdluarssungûp taserssua/Maeragdla/Naujat kûat) of region South, because this area receives little snow (Jens Bjerge pers. comm.). Bjørn Rosing (pers. comm.) described the situation as follows. Hunter effort decreased steadily from the 1940s until present day, e.g., long hikes inland and up to one week were needed to get 1 or 2 caribou during the 1940s. By the 1970s hunting was easier, but one still had to walk far inland. The same applied to the 1980s, but by then one could see plenty of animals. Already during the hunting ban, 1993-94 there was a noticeable increase of caribou occurrence on the low coastal flatlands at the mouth of Buksefjord during both summer and winter, and also along the coast north to Lille Narsaq and Ameralik. Caribou were first seen at Lille Narsaq in 1994 or 1995, and caribou presence on the coast increased steadily thereafter. Since 1995, one no longer needed to go into the traditional inland hunting areas. A 1 km walk from your boat would obtain all the caribou wanted. Finally by the late 1990s animals could be taken from the beaches. Behaviour has changed in recent years. Prior to the hunting prohibition in Appendix 1 Local knowledge on animal abundance 38 1993 the caribou were wary, which meant hunters had to sneak up to them. However since the hunting ban was lifted in 1995 the caribou are no longer wary, e.g. they now wander close to cabins and hunters. Hunting became easier after the hunting ban (Morten Jørgen Heilmann pers. comm.). Geologist Victor McGregor (pers. comm.) describes a similar picture. In 1968-69 there were no caribou anywhere in the vicinity of Lille Narsaq (abandoned village) or Prestefjorden. During the 1970s there were no caribou paths, or caribou to speak of, on the south shores of Ameralik fjord. By the mid1980s and early 1990s, however, there were definitely more caribou and caribou paths could be seen everywhere, and the vegetation was showing signs of overgrazing. Esmar Bergstrøm (pers. comm.) hunted and fished in the area between Ameralik and Sermilik fjords since 1970. 1985 was the first year he observed caribou there. Until then there were none. Now he sees them even at the coast near Færingshavn, e.g., 15 caribou were on a nearby tiny island during July 2000. Since the late 1990s caribou have been observed year round on the low coastal flatlands between Buksefjord and Sermilik fjord. October 1998 saw exceedingly large numbers of caribou at Lille Narsaq and along the seacoast between Ameralik fjord and Buksefjord, when c. 2000 caribou were observed, and there were noticeably more caribou in 1998 than there had been in 1997 (Lars Mathiasen pers. comm.). During midOctober of 1998 Jens Bjerge & Jack Frederiksen (pers. comm.) noticed that the Ameralik caribou were numerous, in large groups and on the move. There were c. 100 at the head of Buksefjord, c. 300 at the mouth of Eqaluit, 5 km west, and c. 500 in Præstefjorden. There had been only 150 to 200 caribou in Præstefjorden the previous year (Jacob Rhode pers. comm.). All tracks led to the Davis Strait sea coast, where pilot Göran Lindmark (pers. comm.) observed, over 200 caribou in October/November 1998. That autumn the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources counted just under 1,000 caribou along the shoreline in the vicinity of Lille Narsaq (GNI unpublished data). Large numbers of caribou reoccurred in the autumn of 1999 (Tittus Egede pers. comm.). In the autumn 2000 a group of c. 50 caribou were seen at Lille Narsaq (Hans Henrik Skott pers. comm.). On the Godthåbs peninsula, which defines the north side of Ameralik fjord, Morten Jørgen Heilmann (pers. comm.) observed that before 1975 there were no caribou paths on the outer Godthåbs peninsula (last 20 km), however, more caribou were first noticed in the late 1980s and now caribou paths are present. Further, since 1996 there has been a small number of caribou, c. 20, every autumn near the Kobbefjord ski centre. Larger groups have been seen by others. A caribou group of 55 animals was observed on the north side of Kobbefjord, only c. 17 km east of Nuuk in 1998 (Atle Dahl pers. comm.) and later c. 30 caribou were observed in the same place (Arild Landa pers. comm.). The large numbers seen along the shoreline during 1998 and 1999 were not seen even during Melgaards (1983) suggested peak population size of the early 1980s, never in memory were so many animals to be seen at the coastlines (Bjørn Rosing, Minik Møller Lund, & Kristian Egede pers. comm.). The late 1990s saw caribou heavily using the Davis Strait coast between Ameralik fjord and Buksefjord, and even swimming out to the islands, Utorgarmiut and specifically Qeqertat timerdlît igdlue, at the mouth of Buksefjord (Lars Mathiasen & Nikolaj Heinrich pers. comm.). Hunters from Paamiut commonly sailed up to Sermilik fjord and entered Alángordlia fjord to take caribou, because animals could be shot from the beaches (Birger Knudsen pers. comm.). Body condition has deteriorated in recent years. At present and since the late 1990s, caribou around Ameralik have had poorer body condition, i.e., thinner (Nikolaj Heinrich & Tittus Egede pers. comm.). Spring 39 2000 saw 15 to 20 caribou of poor condition in the vicinity of Lille Narsaq (Jan Kleinschmidt pers. comm.). Caribou taken in Alángordlia fjord in 1997 were large, but the harvests of 1999 and 2000 yielded thin animals (Birger Knudsen pers. comm.). The caribou seem too numerous and are trampling the range and pulling up bushes (Birger Knudsen pers. comm.), and the caribou were already coming out to the fjord shorelines and Davis Strait seacoast in late 1990s because their pastures were overgrazed in the inland (Nikolaj Heinrich pers. comm.). Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou population  region South Few caribou have ever been observed south of Bjørnesund, however, those seen and the 5 shot in 2000 were big and fat (Birger Knudsen pers. comm.). 40 total number of transects 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 & R Q I L G H Q F H  L Q W H U Y D O  P H D Q  Y D O X H 1XPEHURIWUDQVHFWV Region Central Region Central was divided into two strata, one with high caribou density and one with low density (Figure 4). 34 transects were allocated to the high caribou density stratum, and 13 transects were allocated to the low density. Optimal allocation of transects between strata is governed as follows: the number of transects in each stratum must be proportional to the product of the stratums area and the standard deviation of the caribou density within the stratum. How many transects are needed? One of the most important questions that have to be answered before undertaking any survey is whether the survey will yield data of a sufficient quality to answer the question that the survey attempts to answer; animal abundance. A related question is the choice of sample size. In a helicopter survey, where flight hours in Greenland are very expensive, this question becomes very important. An idea of the expected variance is necessary. In flight surveys the variance is intimately related to the density of animals. The prior information available before the surveys was relative densities from a previous survey in 1996 and densities found in region North in 2000. The assumption made was that although the 1996 surveys used a radically different methodology, the relative densities would remain fairly constant. Implicit in that assumption is the expectation that the caribou populations in all regions have had similar growth rates since 1996 despite that they form clearly distinct populations with different demographics. A simulation experiment was performed in the following fashion. The highest density area in the 1996 survey was the high-density area of region North, the density of the other areas was known as a fraction of the density of that high density area. For each simulated transect the number seen is found as follows. A random transect from the high-density area in region North is chosen Appendix 2 Region Stratification & Transect Allocation Figure 11. How many transect lines needed for a relatively accurate and precise survey of region Central. Simulation of confidence interval mean values versus the number of transects used. 41 and the number seen there is called s. If r is the relative density of the area in question and w is the relative width of the transects then a number seen can be simulated as a binomial: Once a simulation was done, the resulting data was analyzed using standard parametric methods, and a confidence interval found. The procedure was repeated for different total numbers of transects. The data was then plotted by taking all the confidence intervals, centering these on their common mean and plotting them against the total number of transects (Figure 11). From the graph it is obvious that an effort smaller than 40 lines will result in a wide confidence interval, whereas a number larger than 60 will be a waste of resources. The result is similar for region South. Note that the picture here is slightly misleading since it takes into account only the width of the confidence interval around the grand mean of the estimates. In reality the means will jump around less for higher sample sizes. For economic reasons the final number of transect lines was set to 48. Transect allocation Since region Central is divided into two strata with different expected densities, transect allocation must be decided. Here a simple mathematical method was used for allocating transects to each strata. The standard method for allocation of transects to strata is to allocate proportional to the product of the area and the expected standard deviation of each strata. If: is the area of strata i is the expected density of strata i then the best allocation is proportional to where: corresponds to the square root of the expected density. Note that it is sufficient to have the expecThere are several ways of choosing a. For animals that tend to be in groups the question centres around whether they tend to increase the group size when the density is higher. If the group size is the same regardless of density then a = 0.5. If on the other hand the group size tends to go up with higher density without the number of groups changing then a = 1. In this case we chose a = 0.75 as a compromise solution. The allocation assumed that the relative densities remained unchanged since last survey of 1996. The stratification was not the same as in the last survey, but was altered based on the observed densities in 1996. Region Central was divided into two strata, with the area northeast of Maniitsoq considered the low density stratum. On the basis of the above mentioned formulas 13 transects were allocated to the low density area and 34 transects were allocated to the high density area. Region South Previous surveys have been unable to clarify distribution of caribou densities in region South. Survey stratification was therefore not possible. Region South contains two distinct caribou herds, the Ameralik and the Qeqertarsuatsiaat. If the region had contained only one herd the allocation scheme would have been similar to region Central. It is necessary, however, to make separate harvest recommendations for each herd. Therefore, a much simpler allocation scheme was chosen. The allocation was made according to the relative sizes of the two areas, so that each received identical coverage. On this basis, 40 transects were allocated to the area of the Ameralik herd, and 21 to the area of the Qeqertarsuatsiaat herd. (, )%LQRPLDO V U Z⋅ L $ L G LL $G α ⋅ 0.5 α = 11 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 LL LL L L LL LLL L $G S$G $G $ G $G $ $G G $G α αα α α αα ⋅ == = = ⋅⋅  ⋅⋅  ⋅ ∑∑∑∑ ted relative densities and areas. For areas {1,..,i} the proportions of transects allocated to area 1 will be. 48 Appendix 5 Aerial survey 2001 data for 3 caribou herds in west Greenland Table 11. Aerial survey Akia-Maniitsoq caribou herd, region Central, March 2001. +LJKGHQVLW\ VWUDWXP /RZGHQVLW\ VWUDWXP 7RWDO Area size1 (km²) 10,037 5,325 15,362 Number strips (Q)341347 Length of each strip (km) 7.5 7.5 Total strip width (metres) 2 x 300 2 x 300 Area covered (km²) 153 58.5 211.5 Flight height (metres) 15 (50 feet) 15 (50 feet) Flight speed (km/hr) 40 to 110 40 to 110 Mean 80 Total caribou seen 570 61 631 1 includes islands, lakes & rivers, but deletes ice caps and glaciers 1 includes islands, lakes & rivers, but deletes fjords, ice caps & glaciers * mean 80 km/hr $PHUDOLN 4HTHUWDUVXDWVLDDW Area size¹ (km²)8,377 5,096 Number strips (Q)40 21 Strip length (km) 7.5 7.5 Total strip width (metres) 2 x 300 2 x 300 Area covered (km²)180 94.5 Flight height (metres) 15 (50 feet) 15 (50 feet) Flight speed (km/hr)*40 to 110 40 to 110 Total caribou seen 632 96 Table 12. Aerial survey Ameralik & Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou herds, region South, March 2001. 49 1XPEHUFDULERXREVHUYHGRQWUDQVHFW 5HDUVHDW REVHUYHUV 'DWH GGPP\\ 7UDQVHFW QXPEHU 'HQVLW\ VWUDWXP /HIWIURQW&& /HIWUHDU 5LJKWUHDU /HIW 5LJKW 12.03.01 68 High 17 15 63 LR CCh 12.03.01 227 High 3 1 32 LR CCh 12.03.01 18 High 0 0 0 LR CCh 12.03.01 1 High 17 13 13 LR CCh 12.03.01 124 High 8 4 6 LR CCh 12.03.01 87 High 12 1 20 LR CCh 12.03.01 21 High 13 17 5 CCh NO 12.03.01 8 High 8 10 5 CCh NO 12.03.01 36 High 20 20 20 CCh NO 12.03.01 193 High 10 13 10 CCh NO 12.03.01 191 High 15 13 10 CCh NO 12.03.01 108 High 10 13 5 CCh NO 12.03.01 96 High 11 14 3 CCh NO 13.03.01 77 High 5 0 4 JE MR 13.03.01 97 High 13 13 2 JE MR 13.03.01 17 High 5 5 4 JE MR 13.03.01 39 High 22 27 21 JE MR 13.03.01 84 High 2 5 19 JE MR 13.03.01 58 High 0 0 0 JE MR 13.03.01 56 High 12 12 7 JE MR 13.03.01 107 High 14 14 4 JE MR 13.03.01 181 High 0 0 0 MR JE 13.03.01 164 High 0 0 3 MR JE 13.03.01 3 High 1 1 0 MR JE 13.03.01 183 High 4 5 5 MR JE 13.03.01 46 High 8 8 2 MR JE 13.03.01 65 High 0 0 0 MR JE 13.03.01 186 High 0 0 1 MR JE 13.03.01 19 High 6 6 0 MR JE 13.03.01 141 High 6 6 4 MR JE 15.03.01 135 High 0 1 7 AJ CCh 15.03.01 166 High 6 11 9 AJ CCh 15.03.01 136 High 0 0 0 AJ CCh 15.03.01 64 High 5 5 3 AJ CCh 16.03.01 15 Low 0 0 0 RH MR 16.03.01 92 Low 4 6 0 RH MR 16.03.01 105 Low 25 19 0 RH MR 16.03.01 126 Low 0 0 0 RH MR 16.03.01 121 Low 2 2 1 RH MR 16.03.01 155 Low 3 3 0 RH MR 16.03.01 95 Low 0 0 0 RH MR 16.03.01 52 Low 0 0 0 RH MR 16.03.01 139 Low 2 2 0 RH MR 16.03.01 53 Low 5 3 2 MR RH 16.03.01 61 Low 5 3 4 MR RH 16.03.01 149 Low 2 0 0 MR RH 16.03.01 28 Low 2 0 2 MR RH 7RWDOV   Appendix 6 Ground surveys 1998 & 2000 Akia-Maniitsoq caribou herd Table 13. Raw data aerial survey Akia-Maniitsoq caribou herd, region Central, March 2001. Akia-Maniitsoq survey observers: (CC) Christine Cuyler, (LR) Lotte Rasmussen, (CCH) Casper Christoffersen, (NO) Niels Olsen, (JE) Johannes Egede, (MR) Michael Rosing, (AJ) Aslak Jensen, and (RH) Rink Heinrich. 50 1XPEHUFDULERXREVHUYHGRQWUDQVHFW 5HDUVHDWREVHUYHUV'DWH GGPP\\ 7UDQVHFW QXPEHU /HIWIURQW&& /HIWUHDU 5LJKWUHDU /HIW 5LJKW 12.03.01 246 8 11 0 CCh NO 12.03.01 23 0 0 0 CCh NO 15.03.01 115 1 2 6 AJ CCh 15.03.01 282 2 3 19 AJ CCh 15.03.01 87 5 6 9 CCh AJ 15.03.01 11 6 3 10 CCh AJ 15.03.01 271 0 0 0 CCh AJ 15.03.01 190 0 0 3 CCh AJ 15.03.01 94 25 25 12 CCh AJ 15.03.01 188 2 8 4 CCh AJ 15.03.01 267 10 8 22 CCh AJ 15.03.01 96 5 5 7 CCh AJ 15.03.01 44 2 2 0 CCh AJ 15.03.01 197 0 0 0 AJ CCh 15.03.01 206 11 14 15 AJ CCh 15.03.01 7 0 1 7 AJ CCh 15.03.01 46 0 2 0 AJ CCh 15.03.01 109 0 0 0 AJ CCh 20.03.01 257 24 13 4 NO CCh 20.03.01 41 2 4 23 NO CCh 20.03.01 28 0 4 2 NO CCh 20.03.01 167 24 27 16 NO CCh 20.03.01 91 14 11 9 NO CCh 20.03.01 34 38 37 12 NO CCh 20.03.01 40 39 48 46 NO CCh 20.03.01 258 7 7 16 NO CCh 20.03.01 295 33 31 3 NO CCh 20.03.01 77 0 0 7 CCh NO 20.03.01 172 0 0 0 CCh NO 20.03.01 170 27 28 3 CCh NO 21.03.01 296 0 1 2 MR CCh 21.03.01 180 0 0 3 MR CCh 21.03.01 2 0 0 5 MR CCh 21.03.01 240 10 10 0 MR CCh 21.03.01 37 2 1 11 MR CCh 21.03.01 233 0 0 0 MR CCh 21.03.01 212 8 8 6 MR CCh 21.03.01 182 0 0 0 MR CCh 21.03.01 99 0 0 3 MR CCh 21.03.01 210 0 0 4 MR CCh 7RWDOFDULERXVHHQ   Table 14. Raw data aerial survey Ameralik caribou herd, region South, March 2001. Ameralik survey observers: (CC) Christine Cuyler, (CCH) Casper Christoffersen, (NO) Niels Olsen, (AJ) Aslak Jensen, and (MR) Michael Rosing. 51 1XPEHUFDULERXREVHUYHGRQWUDQVHFW 5HDUVHDWREVHUYHUV'DWH GGPP\\ 7UDQVHFW QXPEHU /HIWIURQW&& /HIWUHDU 5LJKWUHDU /HIW 5LJKW 21.03.01 185 0 0 0 CCh MR 21.03.01 105 0 0 0 CCh MR 21.03.01 59 5 5 6 CCh MR 21.03.01 150 3 3 0 CCh MR 21.03.01 26 24 15 5 CCh MR 21.03.01 14 8 6 7 CCh MR 21.03.01 12 8 10 0 CCh MR 21.03.01 126 9 13 2 CCh MR 21.03.01 3 5 5 7 CCh MR 21.03.01 90 0 0 0 CCh MR 21.03.01 174 0 0 0 CCh MR 21.03.01 62 0 0 0 CCh MR 22.03.01 86 0 0 0 JE CCh 22.03.01 108 0 0 0 JE CCh 22.03.01 199 0 0 0 JE CCh 22.03.01 140 0 0 0 JE CCh 22.03.01 30 0 0 0 JE CCh 22.03.01 10 0 0 0 JE CCh 22.03.01 64 0 0 0 JE CCh 22.03.01 1 0 0 1 JE CCh 22.03.01 136 0 0 0 JE CCh 7RWDOFDULERXVHHQ   Qeqertarsuatsiaat survey observers: (CC) Christine Cuyler, (CCH) Casper Christoffersen, (MR) Michael Rosing and (JE) Johannes Egede. Table 15. Raw data aerial survey Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou herd, region South, March 2001. 52 Table 16. Random transects for aerial survey Akia-Maniitsoq caribou herd, region Central, March 2001. 7UDQVHFWVWDUW 7UDQVHFWHQG'DWH GGPP\\ 'LUHFWLRQ IORZQ 7UDQVHFW QXPEHU /DWLWXGH /RQJLWXGH /DWLWXGH /RQJLWXGH 12.03.01 S – N164º 47.14' 51º 32.91' 64º 50.49' 51º 27.56' 13.03.01 N – S365º 09.80’51º 21.80’65º 05.79’51º 22.96’ 12.03.01 S - N 8 64º 49.86’ 51º 03.41’64º 53.51’51º 07.52’ 16.03.01 W – E1565º 20.68’50º 47.81’65º20.52’50º38.12’ 13.03.01 S - N 17 64º 36.97’52º 04.81’64º 40.68’52º 01.00’ 12.03.01 S –N 18 64º 43.05’51º 20.32’64º 45.39’51º 28.05’ 13.03.01 N – S1965º 09.15’50º 34.45’65º 05.24’50º 31.98’ 12.03.01 S – N2164º 46.09’51º 02.62’64º 49.33’51º 08.32’ 16.03.01 SE-NW 28 65º 30.11’50º 55.63’65º 31.96’51º 04.32’ 12.03.01 S – N3664º 54.46’51º 11.98’64º 56.09’51º 20.72’ 13.03.01 S – N3964º 40.85’52º 03.31’64º 43.95’51º 57.21’ 13.03.01 NW-SE 46 65º 02.89’51º 12.83’65º 00.80’51º 04.61’ 16.03.01 S – N5265º 40.79’51º 56.24’65º 44.54’51º 52.55’ 16.03.01 NW-SE 53 65º 27.61’51º 42.92’65º 25.81’51º 34.19’ 13.03.01 S - N 56 65º 18.61’52º 01.44’65º 22.37’52º 05.01’ 13.03.01 S - N 58 65º 19.84’51º 44.91’65º 23.29’51º 49.99’ 16.03.01 SW-NE 61 65º 23.39’51º 21.39’65º 26.66’51º 15.66’ 15.03.01 W – E6464º 50.56’49º 43.96’64º 49.53’49º 53.16’ 13.03.01 SE-NW 65 65º 01.78’51º 01.07’65º 05.11’51º 06.50’ 12.03.01 S – N6864º 22.11' 51º 37.73' 64º 25.95' 51º 40.69' 13.03.01 W - E 77 64º 18.99’51º 57.18’64º 18.11’52º 06.29’ 13.03.01 S – N8465º 00.67’52º 10.06’65º 04.40’52º 06.31’ 12.03.01 E – W8764º 58.55’51º 25.42’64º58.78’51º 34.97’ 16.03.01 SW-NE 92 65º 21.48’50º 30.04’65º 24.06’50º 22.56’ 16.03.01 S – N9565º 36.87’51º 40.90’65º 40.92’51º 41.22’ 12.03.01 S – N9664º 46.69’50º 30.23’64º 50.72’50º 31.05’ 13.03.01 E - W 97 64º 28.06’52º 06.60’64º 29.03’51º 57.48’ 16.03.01 S – N 105 65º 38.69’50º 27.48’65º 42.25’50º 32.19’ 13.03.01 E - W 107 65º 21.66’52º 24.97’65º 22.37’52º 15.41’ 12.03.01 S – N 108 64º 51.34’50º 38.18’64º 54.72’50º 32.96’ 16.03.01 NE-SW 121 65º 38.27’51º 13.44’65º 36.60’51º 22.38’ 12.03.01 S – N 124 64º 49.51’51º 38.92’64º 53.44’51º 36.66’ 16.03.01 NE-SW 126 65º 37.47’50º 38.29’65º 36.02’50º 47.44’ 15.03.01 W – E 135 65º 03.43’50º 14.72’65º 03.25’50º 05.14’ 15.03.01 N – S 136 64º 53.40’50º 02.64’64º 49.88’49º 57.96’ 16.03.01 E – W 139 65º 31.92’52º 02.11’65º 32.39’51º 52.4’ 13.03.01 S – N 141 65º 07.52’50º 28.98’65º 11.23’50º 25.13’ 16.03.01 SW-NE 149 65º 29.47’51º 09.85’65º 30.74’51º 00.58’ 16.03.01 SE-NW 155 65º 35.85’51º 26.31’65º 37.49’51º 35.26’ 13.03.01 E - W 164 65º 05.72’51º 43.85’65º 05.81’51º 53.45’ 15.03.01 N – S 166 64º 57.85’50º 01.89’64º 53.92’49º 59.59’ 13.03.01 N – S 181 65º 10.39’51º 47.28’65º 06.81’51º 42.78’ 13.03.01 NW-SE 183 65º 03.25’51º 25.54’65º 01.64’51º 16.74’ 13.03.01 NW-SE 186 65º 10.27’51º 04.97’65º 07.62’50º 57.69’ 12.03.01 N – S 191 64º 50.56’50º 54.21’64º 49.24’50º 45.21’ 12.03.01 N – S 193 64º 54.99’51º 21.95’64º 52.77’51º 13.97’ 12.03.01 E – W 227 64º 37.95' 51º 24.53' 64º 38.00' 51º 33.97' 53 7UDQVHFWVWDUW 7UDQVHFWHQG'DWH GGPP\\ 'LUHFWLRQ IORZQ 7UDQVHFW QXPEHU /DWLWXGH /RQJLWXGH /DWLWXGH /RQJLWXGH 21.03.01 S – N264º 03.30’50º 27.78’64º 07.29’50º 29.33’ 15.03.01 SE-NW 7 64º 36.38’50º 28.59’64º38.98’50º 35.83’ 15.03.01 S – N1164º 22.34’49º 43.68’64º 25.41’49º 37.58’ 12.03.01 NE-SW 23 64º 10.78’51º 27.77’64º 08.79’51º 35.85’ 20.03.01 NNWSSE 28 63º 51.02’51º 24.10’63º 47.51’51º 19.54’ 20.03.01 N – S3463º 39.08’51º 09.81’63º 35.08’51º 08.49’ 21.03.01 S – N3763º 59.41’50º 03.76’64º 03.44’50.02.78’ 20.03.01 N – S4063º 35.05’51º 03.50’63º 31.13’51º 01.22’ 20.03.01 SW-NE 41 63º 55.42’51º 16.78’63º 57.73’51º 09.22’ 15.03.01 SW-NE 44 64º 19.89’50º 35.79’64º 21.79’50º 27.54’ 15.03.01 NW-SE 46 64º 23.58’50º 49.45’64º 21.21’50º 41.87’ 20.03.01 S – N7763º 22.12’50º 51.44’63º 26.15’50º 50.58’ 15.03.01 N – S8764º 29.99’49º 57.17’64º 27.81’49º 49.27’ 20.03.01 SW-NE 91 63º 38.14’51º 19.09’63º 41.52’51º 14.06’ 15.03.01 E – W9464º 13.81’50º 02.19’64º 13.93’49º 52.88’ 15.03.01 E – W9664º 15.74’50º 26.94’64º 16.98’50º 18.07’ 21.03.01 E – W 99 63.55.88’50º 23.52’63º 56.31’50º 14.37’ 15.03.01 NW-SE 109 64º 14.15’50º 58.05’64º 12.56’50º 49.49’ 15.03.01 W – E 115 64º 36.12’50º 10.24’64º 34.14’50º 02.02’ 20.03.01 N – S 167 63º 45.73’51º 23.67’63º 41.79’51º 21.61’ 20.03.01 SW-NE 170 63º 25.19’51º 07.12’63º 28.36’51º 01.50’ 20.03.01 SE-NW 172 63º 26.36’50º 45.12’63º 27.71’50º 53.65’ 21.03.01 W – E 180 64º 01.86’50º 26.17’64º 01.82’50º 35.41’ 21.03.01 S – N 182 63º 52.03’49º 55.05’63º 55.35’50º 00.31’ 15.03.01 S – N 188 64º 18.39’50º 00.62’64º 21.88’50º 05.34’ 15.03.01 SE-NW 190 64º 10.74’49º 43.36’64º 12.64’49º 51.57’ 15.03.01 S – N 197 64º 28.05’ 50º 26.06’64º 31.40’50º 20.77’ 15.03.01 S – N 206 64º 34.78’50º 23.33’64º 38.37’50º 18.99’ 21.03.01 S – N 210 63º 52.95’50º 28.25’63º 59.28’50º 28.21’ 21.03.01 S – N 212 63º 52.95’49º 49.88’63º 56.02’49º 55.89’ 21.03.01 S – N 233 64º 03.32’50º 03.68’64º 06.68’50º 08.85’ 21.03.01 SW-NE 240 63º 59.75’50º 27.49’64º 02.59’50º 20.90’ 12.03.01 W – E 246 64º 36.77’50º 53.28’64º 36.71’50º 43.84’ 20.03.01 S – N 257 63º 57.00’51º 24.00’64º 01.24’51º 21.40’ 20.03.01 S – N 258 63º 37.18’50º 58.55’63º 40.68’51º 03.13’ 15.03.01 N – S 267 64º 15.90’50º 07.09’64º 12.31’50º 11.37’ 15.03.01 N – S 271 64º 15.52’49º 39.83’64º 11.48’49º 40.51’ 15.03.01 W – E 282 64º 33.86’49º 45.24’64º 32.36’49º 53.98’ 20.03.01 SE-NW 295 63º 52.37’ 50º 50.03’63º 55.46’50º 55.96’ 21.03.01 W – E 296 64º 04.00’50º 49.48’64º 03.06’50º 58.47’ Table 17. Random transects for aerial survey Ameralik caribou herd, region South, March 2001. 54 7UDQVHFWVWDUW 7UDQVHFWHQG'DWH GGPP\\ 'LUHFWLRQ IORZQ 7UDQVHFW QXPEHU /DWLWXGH /RQJLWXGH /DWLWXGH /RQJLWXGH 22.03.01 SSWNNE 1 62º 56.89’50º 10.86’63º 00.40’50º 06.42’ 21.03.01 SE-NW 3 63º 09.89’49º 37.02’63º 12.30’49º 44.23’ 22.03.01 SE-NW 10 62º 55.81’50º 04.06’62º 57.61’50º 04.06’ 21.03.01 NE-SW 12 63º 15.57’49º 35.00’63º 12.89’49º 41.72’ 21.03.01 NE-SW 14 63º 17.15’49º 38.18’63º 15.47’49º 46.36’ 21.03.01 NW-SE 26 63º 19.83’49º 46.79’63º 17.32’49º 39.73’ 22.03.01 SW-NE 30 62º 56.35’49º 51.16’63º 00.22’49º 48.53’ 21.03.01 E – W5963º 22.87’49º 28.02’63º 24.04’49º 36.67’ 21.03.01 S – N6263º 05.32’50º 46.84’63º 09.34’50º 45.76’ 22.03.01 SSWNNE 64 62º 52.73’50º 06.93’62º 56.60’50º 04.29’ 22.03.01 SSENNW 86 62º 36.03’50º 09.64’62º 39.78’50º 12.95’ 21.03.01 E – W9063º 11.06’49º 54.53’63º 12.07’49º 45.84’ 21.03.01 NW-SE 105 63º 29.69’49º 51.97’63.27.53’49º 44.31’ 22.03.01 SW-NE 108 62º 40.44’50º 16.14’62º 42.84’50º 09.05’ 21.03.01 NE-SW 126 63º 12.78’49º 25.17’63º 10.74’49º 32.93’ 22.03.01 SSWNNE 136 63º 02.39’49º 51.73’63º 06.42’49º 51.04’ 22.03.01 SE-NW 140 62º 59.15’49º 35.60’63º 01.89’49º 42.16’ 21.03.01 E – W 150 63º 20.24’50º 02.82’63º 21.74’49º 54.44’ 21.03.01 S – N 174 63º 09.38’50º 12.00’63º 13.43’50º 12.20’ 21.03.01 NNWSSE 185 63º 31.05’50º 03.93’63º 27.47’49º 59.70’ 22.03.01 SE-NW 199 62º 45.60’49º 48.48’62º 47.60’49º 56.17’ Table 18. Random transects for aerial survey Qeqertarsuatsiaat caribou herd, region South, March 2001. 55 Table 19. Raw data aerial survey herd structure Akia-Maniitsoq caribou herd, region Central, March 2001. 'DWH GGPP\\ 7UDQVHFWQXPEHU 6WUDWXPGHQVLW\ *URXS VL]H 0DOHV $JH!\HDU )HPDOHV $JH!\HDU &DOYHV $JH\HDU 12.03.01 68 4 2 2 12.03.01 68 2 1 1 12.03.01 68 3 2 1 12.03.01 68 5 3 2 12.03.01 68 4 1 3 12.03.01 68 2 1 1 12.03.01 68 8 2 3 3 12.03.01 68 2 1 1 12.03.01 68 2 1 1 12.03.01 68 2 1 1 12.03.01 68 5 3 2 12.03.01 68 2 1 1 12.03.01 68 2 1 1 12.03.01 68 2 1 1 12.03.01 68 4 2 1 1 12.03.01 68 6 2 3 1 12.03.01 68 3 1 2 12.03.01 68 1 1 12.03.01 68 3 1 2 12.03.01 68 7 4 2 1 12.03.01 68 2 2 12.03.01 68 8 4 2 2 12.03.01 68 2 2 12.03.01 68 1 1 12.03.01 68 5 1 1 3 12.03.01 68 3 3 12.03.01 68 2 1 1 12.03.01 227 3 3 12.03.01 227 1 1 12.03.01 227 1 1 12.03.01 227 2 2 12.03.01 227 2 2 12.03.01 227 3 3 12.03.01 227 7 2 2 3 12.03.01 227 1 1 12.03.01 227 2 1 1 12.03.01 227 3 1 2 12.03.01 227 2 2 12.03.01 227 5 5 12.03.01 227 5 2 2 1 12.03.01 227 2 2 12.03.01 227 2 1 1 12.03.01 227 1 1 12.03.01 227 2 2 12.03.01 1 1 1 12.03.01 1 2 1 1 12.03.01 1 6 6 12.03.01 1 4 3 1 12.03.01 1 1 1 12.03.01 1 6 4 2 12.03.01 1 4 3 1 12.03.01 1 4 1 3 12.03.01 1 2 1 1 12.03.01 1 3 3 56 'DWH GGPP\\ 7UDQVHFWQXPEHU 6WUDWXPGHQVLW\ *URXS VL]H 0DOHV $JH!\HDU )HPDOHV $JH!\HDU &DOYHV $JH\HDU 13.03.01 97 3 2 1 13.03.01 97 5 1 3 1 13.03.01 97 2 1 1 13.03.01 17 4 4 13.03.01 39 2 1 1 13.03.01 39 4 2 2 13.03.01 39 4 2 1 1 13.03.01 39 1 1 13.03.01 39 5 5 13.03.01 39 4 4 13.03.01 39 2 1 1 13.03.01 39 7 7 13.03.01 39 2 1 1 13.03.01 39 4 1 2 1 13.03.01 39 4 1 3 13.03.01 39 1 1 13.03.01 39 6 5 1 13.03.01 39 2 1 1 13.03.01 39 6 6 13.03.01 39 2 1 1 13.03.01 39 5 3 2 13.03.01 39 6 4 2 13.03.01 84 2 1 1 13.03.01 56 2 1 1 13.03.01 107 4 2 2 13.03.01 46 2 1 1 13.03.01 46 3 2 1 13.03.01 141 1 1 15.03.01 166 2 1 1 15.03.01 166 2 1 1 15.03.01 64 5 2 3 15.03.01 64 2 1 1 16.03.01 105 10 2 5 3 16.03.01 105 2 1 1 16.03.01 105 2 1 1 16.03.01 105 2 1 1 16.03.01 105 1 1 16.03.01 105 3 1 2 16.03.01 105 4 1 1 2 16.03.01 105 1 1 16.03.01 105 1 1 16.03.01 105 1 1 16.03.01 105 3 3 16.03.01 105 1 1 16.03.01 105 2 1 1 16.03.01 105 2 2 16.03.01 105 2 1 1 16.03.01 105 3 2 1 16.03.01 105 7 6 1 16.03.01 105 1 1 16.03.01 105 1 1 16.03.01 105 3 3 16.03.01 155 3 3 16.03.01 53 2 1 1 16.03.01 61 2 1 1 16.03.01 61 2 1 1 16.03.01 28 2 1 1 16.03.01 28 2 1 1 57 'DWH GGPP\\ 7UDQVHFWQXPEHU 6WUDWXPGHQVLW\ *URXS VL]H 0DOHV $JH!\HDU )HPDOHV $JH!\HDU &DOYHV $JH\HDU 16.03.01 28 2 1 1 16.03.01 Low density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 Low density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 Low density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 Low density stratum 3 1 2 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 2 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 2 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 2 16.03.01 High density stratum 5 4 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 5 1 3 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 2 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 2 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 2 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 3 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 10 3 6 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 2 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 2 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 3 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 2 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 4 4 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 3 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 5 2 3 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 2 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 2 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 11 5 6 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 1 2 16.03.01 High density stratum 3 3 16.03.01 High density stratum 6 3 3 16.03.01 High density stratum 4 1 3 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 2 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 1 1 16.03.01 High density stratum 13 2 10 1 gy 16.03.01 High density stratum 4 1 3 16.03.01 High density stratum 5 2 2 1 64 31.03.98 5 2 3 31.03.98 2 2 31.03.98 3 1 1 1 31.03.98 7 2 2 3 31.03.98 3 1 2 31.03.98 36 4 4 23 5 31.03.98 6 2 2 2 01.04.98 11 2 2 7 01.04.98 2 1 1 01.04.98 3 1 2 01.04.98 1 1 01.04.98 11 5 5 1 01.04.98 5 4 1 01.04.98 5 2 3 01.04.98 1 1 01.04.98 35 17 12 6 01.04.98 3 1 2 01.04.98 3 2 1 01.04.98 18 4 8 6 02.04.98 12 2 5 5 02.04.98 17 9 3 5 02.04.98 3 3 02.04.98 9 6 1 2 02.04.98 16 8 8 02.04.98 10 7 3 02.04.98 3 2 1 02.04.98 1 1 02.04.98 2 1 1 02.04.98 35 19 8 8 02.04.98 22 9 6 7 02.04.98 5 5 02.04.98 6 3 2 1 02.04.98 9 4 4 1 02.04.98 6 4 2 02.04.98 9 2 5 2 02.04.98 2 1 1 02.04.98 14 4 10 02.04.98 1 1 02.04.98 5 2 3 03.04.98 17 2 7 8 03.04.98 2 1 1 03.04.98 4 3 1 03.04.98 12 7 5 2 03.04.98 10 4 5 1 03.04.98 2 1 1 03.04.98 10 4 5 1 03.04.98 7 6 1 03.04.98 7 4 3 'DWH GGPP\\ *URXSVL]H )HPDOHV !\HDU &DOYHV \HDU 0DOHV !\HDU 6H[ XQNQRZQ 03 0 98 3 03.04.98 14 7 2 5 7RWDOV      65 Table 23. Raw data ground survey herd structure Akia-Maniitsoq caribou herd, region Central, March/ April 2000. )HPDOHV &DOYHV 0DOHV *36SRVLWLRQ'DWH GGPP\\ *URXS VL]H !\HDU \HDU !\HDU !\HDU !\HDU 6H[ "/DW /RQJ 29.03.00 2 1 1 64º14.1' 51º52.4' 29.03.00 4 4 64º15.1' 51º54.4' 29.03.00 2 1 1 64º16.7' 52º00.3' 30.03.00 3 3 64º15.0' 51º51.6' 30.03.00 4 1 3 64º15.2' 51º51.4' 30.03.00 1 1 64º15.4' 51º51.4' 30.03.00 4 3 1 64º16.5' 51º50.3' 30.03.00 4 2 1 1 64º16.5' 51º50.3' 30.03.00 3 1 2 64º15.8' 51º51.1' 30.03.00 4 2 2 64º16.8' 51º51.1' 30.03.00 3 1 1 1 64º18.1' 51º51.3' 30.03.00 3 1 1 1 64º18.8' 51º52.7' 30.03.00 4 2 1 1 64º18.8' 51º52.7' 30.03.00 5 2 1 2 64º19.5' 51º54.1' 30.03.00 1 1 64º20.6' 51º55.6' 30.03.00 4 1 1 2 64º20.9' 51º56.0' 30.03.00 2 1 1 64º20.9' 51º56.0' 30.03.00 1 1 64º21.6' 51º58.0' 30.03.00 2 1 1 64º22.7' 51º37.8' 30.03.00 2 1 1 64º25.9' 51º54.2' 30.03.00 3 2 1 64º26.4' 51º53.9' 30.03.00 2 2 64º26.6' 51º53.1' 30.03.00 5 2 3 64º27.1' 51º52.6' 30.03.00 3 2 1 64º28.9' 51º50.4' 30.03.00 2 1 1 64º14.1' 51º52.4' 30.03.00 3 3 64º14.1' 51º52.4' 30.03.00 3 3 64º29.9' 51º51.3' 30.03.00 3 3 64º29.9' 51º51.3' 30.03.00 3 2 1 64º30.9' 52º06.4' 30.03.00 6 6 64º30.9' 52º06.4' 30.03.00 2 1 1 64º32.7' 52º02.1' 30.03.00 2 1 1 64º32.8' 51º58.4' 30.03.00 1 1 64º32.5' 51º58.2' 30.03.00 1 1 64º32.5' 51º58.2' 30.03.00 10 2 1 2 5 64º32.5' 51º58.2' 30.03.00 2 1 1 64º32.5' 51º58.2' 30.03.00 2 2 64º32.0' 51º58.8' 30.03.00 1 1 64º30.7' 51º51.8' 31.03.00 6 2 2 2 64º32.2' 51º50.8' 31.03.00 2 2 64º32.8' 51º50.7' 31.03.00 1 1 64º34.1' 51º50.4' 31.03.00 1 1 64º34.3' 51º50.3' 31.03.00 2 1 1 64º34.2' 51º49.8' 31.03.00 7 7 64º35.0' 51º49.5' 31.03.00 5 1 4 64º35.0' 51º49.5' 31.03.00 6 1 1 4 64º35.0' 51º49.5' 31.03.00 4 4 64º35.0' 51º49.5' 31.03.00 2 2 64º35.0' 51º49.5' 31.03.00 3 2 1 64º36.3' 51º49.0' 31.03.00 5 2 2 1 64º36.7' 51º49.0' 31.03.00 2 1 1 64º38.4' 51º48.6' 31.03.00 2 2 64º39.4' 51º49.1' 31.03.00 4 2 2 64º39.4' 51º49.1' 31.03.00 2 1 1 64º39.5' 51º49.5' 31.03.00 5 2 2 1 64º39.8' 51º49.3' 31.03.00 3 1 2 64º41.7' 51º51.1' 31.03.00 4 2 1 1 64º42.1' 51º51.4' 31.03.00 4 2 2 64º42.1' 51º51.4' 31.03.00 1 1 64º36.1' 51º54.7' 31.03.00 1 1 64º36.1' 51º54.7' 66 )HPDOHV &DOYHV 0DOHV *36SRVLWLRQ'DWH GGPP\\ *URXS VL]H !\HDU \HDU !\HDU !\HDU !\HDU 6H[ "/DW /RQJ 31.03.00 1 1 64 36.1 51 54.7 31.03.00 5 2 1 2 64º35.3' 51º54.0' 31.03.00 3 2 1 64º34.1' 51º53.2' 31.03.00 2 1 1 64º33.5' 51º54.7' 31.03.0083311 64º33.5' 51º54.7' 31.03.00 10 2 1 7 64º36.0' 51º56.6' 31.03.00 4 2 2 64º35.9' 51º57.5' 31.03.00 8 3 1 4 64º35.6' 51º57.2' 31.03.00 3 1 1 1 64º34.9' 51º56.7' 31.03.00 2 2 64º30.1' 51º52.4' 31.03.00 7 7 64º30.1' 51º52.4' 31.03.00 7 7 64º30.1' 51º52.4' 02.04.00 2 2 64º29.1' 51º51.2' 02.04.00 3 2 1 64º29.0' 51º50.5' 02.04.00 1 1 64º29.8' 51º48.5' 02.04.0061131 64º29.8' 51º48.5' 02.04.0093231 64º29.8' 51º47.9' 02.04.00 2 1 1 64º31.0' 51º46.5' 02.04.00104141 64º29.8' 51º48.7' 02.04.00174252 4 64º31.5' 51º46.0' 03.04.00 2 2 64º31.2' 51º50.6' 03.04.00 2 0 64º31.5' 51º50.0' 03.04.00 1 0 64º31.5' 51º50.0' 03.04.00 2 1 1 64º31.4' 51º48.3' 03.04.00 1 1 64º31.4' 51º48.3' 03.04.00 3 1 2 64º31.7' 51º47.2' 03.04.00 3 2 1 64º31.7' 51º47.2' 03.04.001052111 64º31.7' 51º47.2' 03.04.00 2 1 1 64º31.7' 51º47.2' 03.04.00 4 3 1 64º31.8' 51º44.0' 03.04.00 6 5 1 64º32.0' 51º42.8' 03.04.00 3 1 2 64º32.0' 51º42.8' 03.04.00 2 1 1 64º32.0' 51º42.8' 03.04.00 1 1 64º40.3' 51º29.2' 03.04.00 2 1 1 64º39.1' 51º35.8' 03.04.00 1 1 64º37.2' 51º40.8' 04.04.00 4 2 2 64º28.6' 51º50.7' 04.04.00 2 1 1 64º27.6' 51º48.9' 04.04.00 2 2 64º22.3' 51º40.3' 05.04.00 2 1 1 64º31.2' 51º47.5' 05.04.00 2 1 1 64º32.1' 51º46.1' 05.04.00 4 2 2 64º32.1' 51º46.1' 05.04.00 6 2 4 64º32.1' 51º46.1' 05.04.00 2 2 64º31.9' 51º45.1' 05.04.00 4 1 1 2 64º41.8' 51º18.5' 05.04.00 3 2 1 64º44.2' 51º18.8' 05.04.00 8 5 2 1 64º48.1' 51º27.2' 05.04.00 1 1 64º48.1' 51º27.2' 05.04.00 11 6 3 2 64º48.9' 51º27.5' 05.04.00 4 2 2 64º49.0' 51º27.8' 05.04.00 2 1 1 64º48.9' 51º24.1' 05.04.00 6 5 1 64º49.8' 51º25.1' 05.04.00 2 1 1 64º49.8' 51º25.1' 05.04.00 1 1 64º51.1' 51º24.4' 05.04.00 2 1 1 64º51.1' 51º24.4' 05.04.0083311 64º51.5' 51º23.9' 05.04.00 8 6 2 64º51.5' 51º23.9' 05.04.00 6 2 4 64º51.3' 51º21.9' 05.04.00 1 1 64º51.3' 51º21.9' 05.04.00 8 4 3 1 64º51.3' 51º21.9' 05.04.00 3 1 2 64º46.8' 51º24.8' 05 0 00 3 668 5 8 06.04.00 4 2 1 1 64º44.2' 51º16.7' 06.04.00 3 3 64º45.1' 51º16.3' 06.04.00 1 1 64º45.7' 51º14.7' 06.04.00 2 1 1 64º46.3' 51º12.8' 67 )HPDOHV &DOYHV 0DOHV *36SRVLWLRQ'DWH GGPP\\ *URXS VL]H !\HDU \HDU !\HDU !\HDU !\HDU 6H[ "/DW /RQJ 06.04.00 2 1 1 64 46.3 51 12.8 06.04.00 4 2 2 64º46.5' 51º12.5' 06.04.00 6 4 2 64º46.7' 51º12.3' 06.04.00 1 1 64º46.7' 51º12.3' 06.04.00 1 1 64º47.9' 51º12.4' 06.04.00 3 3 64º48.7' 51º11.3' 06.04.00 4 2 1 1 64º48.5' 51º11.6' 06.04.00 5 2 2 1 64º47.8' 51º12.4' 06.04.00 2 1 1 64º47.8' 51º17.9' 06.04.00 1 1 64º47.8' 51º17.9' 06.04.00 1 1 64º48.9' 51º18.6' 06.04.00 3 3 64º49.1' 51º18.6' 06.04.00 3 3 64º51.7' 51º20.7' 06.04.00 3 3 64º52.3' 51º20.9' 06.04.00 5 3 1 1 64º52.0' 51º18.7' 06.04.001243122 64º52.0' 51º18.6' 06.04.0041111 64º51.8' 51º17.8' 06.04.00831211 64º51.8' 51º17.8' 06.04.00 4 1 1 2 64º51.8' 51º17.8' 06.04.00 4 4 64º53.1' 51º16.9' 06.04.00 9 4 2 3 64º53.1' 51º16.9' 06.04.00 5 3 2 64º53.1' 51º16.9' 06.04.00 2 2 64º53.1' 51º16.9' 06.04.00 5 3 1 1 64º53.1' 51º16.9' 06.04.00 5 5 64º53.1' 51º16.9' 06.04.00 2 1 1 64º51.6' 51º17.1' 06.04.00 3 2 1 64º51.3' 51º16.7' 06.04.00 2 1 1 64º51.1' 51º16.2' 06.04.00 3 2 1 64º51.1' 51º16.2' 06.04.00 1 1 64º50.8' 51º16.4' 06.04.00 3 2 1 64º50.5' 51º17.5' 06.04.00 6 3 1 2 64º50.2' 51º18.2' 06.04.00 2 2 64º38.5' 51º21.8' 06.04.00 5 5 64º38.5' 51º21.8' 06.04.00 2 2 64º41.1' 51º20.5' 07.04.00 2 2 64º44.4' 51º15.2' 07.04.00 3 1 2 64º46.3' 51º12.9' 07.04.00 1 1 64º46.3' 51º12.9' 07.04.00 8 2 6 64º46.6' 51º11.0' 07.04.00 5 2 2 1 64º46.9' 51º09.8' 07.04.00 7 1 1 5 64º46.4' 51º08.2' 07.04.00 3 1 1 1 64º46.4' 51º08.2' 07.04.00 1 1 64º47.0' 51º09.3' 07.04.00 1 1 64º45.6' 51º15.7' 07.04.00 1 1 64º44.0' 51º17.2' 07.04.00 2 2 64º37.5' 51º24.2' 07.04.00 1 1 64º38.3' 51º25.2' 07.04.00 2 1 1 64º38.3' 51º25.2' 07.04.00 4 2 2 64º38.3' 51º25.2' 07.04.00 2 1 1 64º38.3' 51º25.2' 07.04.00112144 64º38.3' 51º25.2' 07.04.00 1 1 64º38.5' 51º26.8' 07.04.00 1 1 64º38.5' 51º26.8' 07.04.00 5 2 3 64º40.8' 51º20.7' 09.04.00 6 5 1 64º26.4' 51º42.8' 09.04.00 6 5 1 64 26.4 51 4 2.8 09.04.00 5 2 3 64º24.9' 51º44.2' 09.04.00 1 1 64º23.1' 51º43.5' 09.04.00 2 2 64º23.1' 51º43.5' 09.04.00 7 2 5 64º22.1' 51º40.8' 09.04.0063111 64º22.3' 51º41.7' 7RWDOV        68 Accuracy  how well a survey estimate for animal numbers reflects the true population size. Annual  occurring, or done every year. Bias  describes how far the average value of the estimator is from the true population value. An unbiased estimator centers about the true value for the population. Bias is the extent to which an estimate is systematically wrong. Bias decreases the accuracy of a survey. In popular terms, negative bias in surveys moves the final estimate to below the true population size and positive bias can move it above the true population size. Body condition  pertaining to amount of fat present, i.e., plenty of fat equals excellent body condition. Confidence interval  statistical term for when the SE is combined with a probability (P) level to yield confidence limits (CL) and their interval, the confidence interval (CI). For example: at a P = 0.90 (alpha = 0.1) then assuming no bias a 90% CI is likely to contain the true population size in 90% of surveys of the same type and intensity. NOTE: it is incorrect to state that there is a 90% chance that the actual number of caribou in a survey area is within the CI. Criteria  standards set on which judgement can be made, i.e. the sex or age of a caribou. Density  the number of caribou per square kilometre of land area. Estimate  a calculation as to the likely or approximate size of the caribou population. Fecundity  related to fertility and is the potential level of reproductive performance of a population, which is usually much greater than the realised reproduction (fertility). However, fecundity and fertility are often used inconsistently and even interchangeably in the literature. Fertility  of a population is the number of live births over a time period, usually a year, e.g., the number of live births per female, or the number of female young born per female. To calculate fertility we need to know the average litter size, average number of litters produced per time interval (year) and the sex ratio at birth (Caughley 1977). Fertility index  see also under recruitment. Ratio of calves to females or calves to adults. Herd  see also under population. Indigenous Greenlandic caribou seldom or never aggregate into large coherent groups. Group size typically stays under 4 animals, with groups scattered throughout a large area. Herd structure  this is the sex and age distribution of the animals within a given population/herd. Logistics  the obtaining, distribution, maintenance and replacement of field equipment and personnel. Management  e.g., wildlife management, which is the act of manipulating, directing, controlling, regulating and/or administrating a wildlife resource and any number of the factors affecting that wildlife resource. Natural mortality  all mortality due to factors other than hunting (disease, accident, starvation, predation, parasites, etc.). Net recruitment  or rate of increase of the herd is determined by subtracting the adult mortality rate from the gross recruitment. Population  see also under herd. All the animals of the same species living in a specific region, which do not mix with animals from other regions, i.e., they are reproductively isolated. A population is a demographic unit distinct by virtue of its unique density, distribution, birth & death rate, sex & age structure, immigration and emigration rates, and other demographic parameters. Population status  states a wildlife species occurrence and abundance, i.e., where and how many. Population analysis  attempts to determine herd structure (sex & age) and the forces controlling the composition of the population/herd. Population dynamics  in any analysis of herd structure and status the parameters are seldom if ever static, therefore the term population dynamics. Precision  is a measure of the quality of the survey estimate for animal number, i.e., how close you could expect the estimate to approximate its expecAppendix 7 List of terms 69 ted value. Precision refers to the variation in repeated measurement of the same quantity. Precision is determined primarily by the variation in the population and the size of the sample. An indicator of the precision of an estimate is the confidence interval. Range  the extent of the land area on which the caribou wander and graze. The land area used during foraging/calving/rutting by the caribou, e.g., summer and winter ranges. The word is often synonymous with pasture or habitat, however, the term range brings vegetation to mind rather than for example topography. Recruitment  see also under fertility index. The late winter (March) value for calves/100 cows, which indicates the increment in caribou number for a specific population/herd from one year to the next. Sightability  the probability of actually seeing a caribou present within the strip flown. Standard Error (SE)  standard error is the standard deviation (SD) divided by the square root of sample size (n) or (n-1) if SD is calculated using n and not n-1. Sampling error would be zero if the same number of caribou were seen on each transect flown. Strata  (plural of stratum) in this report refers to the division of region Central according to expected caribou density. Terrain  refers to the land or ground, usually in conjunction with a description of topography, e.g., rough terrain, mountainous terrain, etc. Variance  statistical term for the amount of variation in measurements. Variance is the expected square deviance regardless of the distribution. Its square root is standard deviation (SD). Note: variance is distribution independent. It is simply the expected square deviation. 70 Aerial Survey method & design Since survey methodology is complex, collaboration of biologists and biometricians experienced in aerial survey design was considered a prerequisite to success. Methods were planned in accordance with later analysis needs. Reducing the bias (missed caribou) was prioritised over lowering the variance. A correction for undetected caribou was also applied. The result was a population size estimate which we consider of an acceptable accuracy and precision. Future surveys are recommended to take the same measures. Survey effort 47 transects were used in the present survey of region Central at the cost of approximately a quarter of a million Danish kroner. As a rule of thumb, new surveys of the same effort can detect a change in population size, which is equal to the sum of the previous confidence interval, e.g., a new estimate for the Akia-Maniitsoq herd would have to drop below 28,000 or rise above 65,000 caribou before a survey with the same effort could show a difference. Regardless of the effort, it will not be possible to detect a change for Akia-Maniitsoq that falls within the present confidence interval, which is 18,693. However, a series of surveys yield much more information than the sum of the individual surveys. With a suitable plan it would be possible to design a series of surveys that could serve to adjust the quota system over a period of time. It is important that the surveys are done in a manner comparable to the surveys done previously in the same area and with a clear objective. Repeating surveys every five years may be enough. Stratification Further refinement of the stratification of Akia-Maniitsoq can be based on the densities found in this and earlier surveys, and would reduce the variance thus improving precision. Perhaps transects with zero or few caribou (transects 3, 58, 65, 181 and 186), could be included in the low-density stratum. Field methods Overall snow cover was highly variable in both Ameralik and Qeqertarsuatsiaat. This surveys low flight altitude and speed, plus the narrowed strip width, were necessary for detecting caribou under these fluctuating conditions. Future aerial surveys would be well advised to continue the use of low flight altitudes. This survey flew at 50 feet, an altitude, which can make many pilots cringe, but which permitted excellent sight-ability of caribou on the strip. However, a height of 100 to 150 feet may be just as suitable. The extra height would make virtual ground speed appear slower (giving more time to observe the same terrain) and could make the entire 2 x 300 metre strip visible in hilly terrain. Altitudes over 150 feet are not recommended. Even at an altitude of 50 feet many caribou just stood and looked at the helicopter without reacting. It is difficult to detect non-moving caribou even at 50 feet regardless of snow cover or terrain features. It is advised to continue using flight speeds averaging 80 km/hr or less and a strip width of 2 x 300 metres. Observers are able to detect most of the caribou present at distances ≤ 300 metres from the helicopter. Accuracy of any survey depends on reducing the bias incurred by observers failing to detect the caribou present in their strip. A narrower strip where most caribou are detected is better than a wide strip where untold numbers of caribou may be missed. Appendix 8 Recommendations for future 71 Random transects of short length erased observer fatigue and promoted 100% concentration during actual transects. These should be continued. Observers Using local hunters with caribou experience as observers can lead to more caribou being seen. Since initially their actual ability was unknown it was an advantage to use several and change their seating position. This allowed an average of the individuals abilities rather than risking the possibility of a one poor observer seated constantly in the same position causing a high negative bias. Since only one observer counted caribou from the right seat position, a stationary poor observer here could cause underestimating of population size. Numbers of caribou seen by the best back seat observers were never significantly (p < 0.05) better or worse than the front seat observer. This may occur if a) there is no intrinsic sighting advantage for the front-seat observer, or b) if a sighting advantage exists, the best rear-seat observer was better than the front seat observer. In future these two alternatives could be tested by rotating the front seat observer. Using a minimum of three observers on each transect is recommended. Caribou counts were consistent between front and rear seats, giving confidence to the observed numbers. A further improvement would be at least two observers for each side of the helicopter. Local involvement will continue to be encouraged, and future surveys would do well by continuing to employ methods for finding local hunters best able to perform the task. Equipment The computer data-logger used was antiquated and unreliable. Thus it was impossible to record caribou group number or size on each transect. A new data logger is necessary to record the number groups observed and their size per transect in order to allow a calculation of survey precision. Regardless, continued use of manual click-counters, as back-up, would be wise considering the ever-present possibility of technology breakdown in the field. Owing to terrain difficulties in Greenland, helicopters are better suited to surveying caribou populations than fixed-wing aircraft for surveys. Ground survey logistics In region Central snowmobile ground surveys should begin early March and finish before April, because April ground fogs can immobilize field teams, and spring break-up may occur even in late March. More of region Centrals caribou population could be monitored for herd structure if temporay winter camps were used. The ground surveys of 1998 and 2000 used permanent camps, so backtracking was a daily necessity. Tenting at a new location each night would facilitate a continuous path through the region and increase the total area covered. Herd structure data representing the entire regions caribou population would be possible. 72 73