Estimated Survival Rates of Canada Geese within the Atlantic Flyway

Abstract

Project personnel banded 28,849 Canada geese (Branta canadensis) with aluminum leg bands and individually coded neck bands in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina from 1983 to 1986. The mean annual neck band retention rate was 99.3 * 0.3 (SE)% from retrap data of previously banded geese. The annual survival rate for the flyway was 77.3 3.8% using band-recovery analyses from 1,008 recoveries of 13,331 postseason-banded geese and 70.9 ? 1.3% using mark-resight data. Annual changes in the distribution of wintering geese were caused, in part, by changes in annual survival rate. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 53(1):91-96 The changing winter distribution of Canada geese is a major problem facing managers within the Atlantic flyway (Hankla and Rudolph 1967, Trost and Malecki 1985, Malecki and Trost 1986). During the 1960's, a large percentage of wintering geese shifted northward from North and South Carolina to the Chesapeake region (Del., Md., and Va.) (Trost and Malecki 1985). The distribution of wintering geese appears to be shifting further north from the Chesapeake to the mid-Atlantic region (N.Y., Pa., and N.J.) (Fig. 1). The changing winter distribution may result from differential survival, reproduction, or movement between subpopulations or regions. Differential survival or movement may result from changes in available wintering habitat, changes in diet, proliferation of private sanctuaries, changing weather trends, and increasing numbers of resident geese decoying migrants. Our objective was to determine if changing winter distribution of Canada geese results from differential survival. We thank all state, federal, and private biologists who have banded or observed geese in the Atlantic flyway. Without their hard work, this study would not have been possible. We especially thank J. D. Nichols for assistance with the analysis, S. Sheaffer for computing assistance, and J. E. Hines for Figure 1. We also thank J. D. Nichols, S. Sheaffer, N. B. Barber, M. J. Conroy, and an anonymous referee for reviewing the manuscript. This paper is a contribution of the New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Cornell University, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Wildlife Management Institute (USFWS contract 14-16-0009-1524) cooperate with the New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.