Binis — Oiu LniDfi Rimhiicis 



For further information: 



Thomas E- Martin 



National Biological Senice 



Cooperative Wildlife Research Lhiit 



LIniversity of Montana 



Missoula, MT?98I2 



weatlier-induced prciduclivity problems, sur- 

 vival pioblcins dining migration or wintei'. and 

 degradation of breeding habitat. These results 

 emphasize the impoilance of national programs 

 such as MAPS and BBIRD in providing base- 

 line information on both continental and local 

 habitat-specific processes that intluence avian 

 population dynamics. Ultimately, these data on 

 breeding productivity and adult survival and 

 their underlying environmental determinants 

 will provide information critical for managing 

 North American landbirds. 



References 



Baillie. S,R.. R.E. Green. M. Body, and ST. Buckland, 

 199.^. An evaluation of Ihe constant effort sites scheme. 

 British Trtisl lor Ornithology. Thetford. 10.^ pp. 



DeSante, D.F. 1992. Monitoring Avian Productivity and 

 Survivorship (MAPS): a sharp, rather than blunt, tool for 

 monitoring and assessing landhird populations. Pages 

 .SII--S2I ill DC McCullough and R.H. Barrett, eds. 

 Wildlife 21)1)1: populations. Elsevier Applied Science. 

 London. 



DeSante. D.F.. and G.R. Geupel. 1987. Landhird productiv- 

 ity in central coastal California: the relationship to annu- 

 al rainfall, and a reproductive failure in 19X6. Condor 

 89:6-^6-65.^. 



DeSante. D.F.. K.M. Burton, and O.E. Williams. 1993a. The 

 Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship 

 IMAPS) program second annual report (1990-1991). 

 Bird Populations 1:68-97. 



DeSante, D.F.. O.E. Williams, and K.M. Burton. I99.^b. The 

 Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship 

 (MAPS) program: overview and progress. Pages 208-222 



in DM. Finch and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and manage- 

 ment of Neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep, 

 RM-229. U.S, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest 

 and Range E.xperiment Station. Fort Collins. CO. 



Martin. T.E. 1992. Breeding productivity considerations: 

 what are the appropriate habitat features for manage- 

 ment? Pages 4.'>,'i-473 in J.M. Hagan and D.W. Johnston, 

 eds. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrants, 

 Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 



Martin, T.E. Variation and covariation of life history traits of 

 birds in relation to nest sites, nest predation. and food. 

 Ecological Monographs, In press. 



Martin, T.E.. and G.R. Guepel, 199.3. Nest-monitonng 

 plots: methods for locating nests and monitoring success. 

 Journal of Field Ornithology 64:507-519. 



Mayfield. H, 1961. Nesting success calculated from expo- 

 sure, Wilson Bull, 73:255-261, 



Mayfield, H. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success, 

 Wilson Bull, 87:456-466, 



Peterjohn, B,G,, and J,R, Sauer, 1993. North American 

 Breeding Bird Survey annual summary 1990-1991, Bird 

 Populations 1:52-67, 



Pulliam, H,R, 1988, Sources, sinks, and population regula- 

 tion, American Naturalist 132:652-661, 



Robbins, C.S,. J,R, Sauer, R,S. Greenberg, and S, Droege, 

 1989, Population declines in North American birds that 

 migrate to the Neotropics, Proceedings of the National 

 Academy of Science 86:7658-7662. 



Rotenberry, J.T., and J, A, Wiens, 1989, Reproductive biolo- 

 gy of shrubsteppe passerine birds: geographical and tem- 

 poral variation in clutch size, brood size, and fledging 

 success. Condor 91:1-14. 



Terborgh, J, 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Es,says 

 on the biology and conservation of birds that migrate to 

 the American tropics. Princeton University Press, NJ. 

 207 pp. 



Canada Geese 

 in North 

 America 



by 



Donald H. Riisch 



Richard E. Malecki 

 National Biological Service 



Robert Trost 



U.S. Fish and Wildlife 



Service 



Canada geese [Bninta canadensis) are piob- 

 ably more abundant now than at any time in 

 history. They rank first among wildlife watchers 

 and second among harvests of waterfowl 

 species in North America. Canada geese are 

 also the most widely distributed and phenotypi- 

 cally (visible characteristics of the birds) vari- 

 able species of bird in North America. Breeding 

 populations now exist in every province and ter- 

 ritory of Canada and in 49 of the 50 United 

 States. The size of the 12 recognized subspecies 

 ranges from the 1.4-kg (3-lb) cackling Canada 

 goose {B.C. minima) to the 5.0-kg ( 1 1-lb) giant 

 Canada goose (B.C. maxima; Delacour 1954; 

 Bellrose 1976), 



Market hunting and poor stewardship led to 

 record low numbers of geese in the early 

 1900"s, but regulated seasons including clo- 

 sures, refuges, and law enforcement led to 

 restoration of most populations. Winter surveys 

 were begun to study population trends and set 

 responsible harvest regulations for these 

 long-lived and diverse birds. Winter surveys 

 begun in 1936-37 probably represent the oldest 

 continuing index of migratory birds in North 

 America. 



Surveys 



Sporadic counts of migrating and wintering 

 Canada geese from the ground were supple- 

 mented by regular tallies from the air in the 

 early 195()'s. Winter surveys began because the 

 subarctic and arctic nesting areas of many sub- 

 species were still unknown and aerial surveys of 

 these remote areas were impractical. 



The well-designed spring surveys of Canada 

 geese that began in the 1970"s with the Eastern 

 Prairie population have now expanded to 

 include several others (Office of Migratory Bird 

 Management 1993). Spring surveys estimate 

 numbers of each population at the time of year 

 when subspecies are reproductively isolated and 

 geographically separated. The smaller sub- 

 species of Canada geese nest farther north (arc- 

 tic and subarctic regions of Alaska and Canada), 

 and most winter farther south (gulf states and 

 Mexico) than do the larger subspecies. 



Status and Trends 



Most aggregations of wintering geese were 

 overharvested in the early 1900"s. Those 



