Demographic outcomes of diverse migration strategies assessed in a metapopulation of tundra swans

Table 1 Characteristics of breeding populations of tundra swans implanted with satellite transmitters relative to marking location in Alaska. Refer to Fig. 1 for detailed distribution information

Marking location	Management population	Migration route	Winter location	Annual migration distance ± SE (km)	Time spent on breeding area ± SE (d)	Hunter harvest
Colville River Delta	Eastern	Upper Plains	NC, MD,VA	12719 ± 119	115.2 ± 2	yes
Kotzebue Sound Lowlands	Western	AB, SK, MT, UT	CA	10753 ± 85	141.1 ± 3	yes
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta	Western	AB,SK, MT, UT	CA	10963 ± 133	130.9 ± 4	yes
Bristol Bay Lowlands	Western	seAK, BC	Pacific NW, CA	7906 ± 286	172.6 ± 5	min.
Lower Alaska Peninsula	Western	Gulf of Alaska	AK,WA, BC	1021 ± 405	351.5 ± 7	no

Annual migration distance was the combined distance of autumn and spring migration to and from marking locations on the breeding area to primary wintering location. Hunter harvest of Bristol Bay tundra swans was considered minimal as they do not commonly migrate through the western states of Montana, Idaho and Utah, that allow sport harvest of tundra swans, and there is no sport harvest for tundra swans allowed in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska. Tundra swans from the Lower Alaska Peninsula are facultative migrants; only 2 of the 10 PTT-marked swans from the Lower Alaska Peninsula migrated during the study, and only irregularly

ISSN: 2051-3933