A comparison of field methods to estimate Canada goose abundance

Abstract

We conducted a 2-year study (2014)(2015) in North Carolina, USA, to compare precision and efficiency between 2 methods used to estimate Canada goose (Branta canadensis) abundance. The first method (i.e., band-return estimation) used hunter band-returns and harvest estimates. The second (i.e., plot survey) used surveys of 1-km 2 plots randomly located across potential goose habitat in the state. To quantify efficiency, we recorded all expenses and time dedicated to goose banding and plot surveys. In June 2014, we banded 2,102 adult geese at 44 sites. During the 2014-2015 hunting season, we received 173 direct band recoveries from birds banded as adults. We used the Lincoln-Peterson formula to calculate an abundance estimate of 148,839 (coeff. of variation ¼ 7.9) and determined the band-return method required US $72,858 and 2,317 person-hours to complete. We surveyed 300 1-km 2 plots across North Carolina in April 2015, and calculated an abundance estimate of 155,655 Canada geese (coeff. of variation ¼ 308.9). We determined the plot-survey method required US $80,767 and 2,857 person-hours to complete. Although population estimates were similar, we recommend the band-return technique to estimate Canada goose abundance because it provided a more precise estimate with similar overall costs and, if continued for multiple years, will allow calculation of additional population metrics including survival, recovery rates, and harvest distributions. Ó 2017 The Wildlife Society.

Evaluating the waterfowl breeding population and habitat survey for scaup

“…In conclusion, we believe our results clearly indicate that WBPHS estimates for scaup are biased. Analysis of banding data including Lincoln estimates can provide more precise and efficient population estimates (Alisauskas et al , McAlister et al ).…”

The Presence of Rabbit Warrens in an Agricultural Landscape is Related to Patch Features and Distance to a Highway

“…This variable is relevant as a proxy for the intensity of rabbits' burrowing activity. Even more, this variable could be used as a proxy for the relative rabbit abundance (Palomares 2001, Fernández-de-Simon et al 2011). We did not count entrances showing signs of abandonment (collapses, cobwebs) but we did not perform a formal test to ensure that all warrens were inhabited.…”

An Integrated Population Model for Harvest Management of Atlantic Brant

“…Lincoln estimates of population size are commonly derived from banding and harvest data for geese and other game species (Alisauskas et al 2014, Zimmerman et al 2015, McAlister et al 2017, Fox and Leafloor 2018, Sedinger et al 2018). We lacked sufficient banding data for calculations prior to 2001, so we calculated Lincoln estimates of adult population size (; Lincoln 1930) for study years 2001 to 2018, following Alisauskas et al (2009, 2014) using the bias‐adjusted estimator of Chapman (1951): where b is the number of bandings of adult birds, r is the number of direct recoveries (i.e., recovered in the hunting season after banding), is the band reporting rate, and is the measure of total harvest of adult brant.…”