INTRODUCTION

Every spring, Snow Geese (Anser caerulescens, Linnaeus, 1758 [kangut in Inuktut]) and Ross’s Geese (Anser rossii, Cassin, 1861 [qaaraarjuk in Inuktut]) migrate to the Canadian Arctic tundra to breed (Ryder and Alisauskas 1995). These two species, which have been managed collectively since 1978 (Moser and Duncan 2001), are commonly referred to as “light geese” (Fig. 1).

Light goose populations, including the Midcontinent Lesser Snow Goose (A. c. caerulescens) and Ross’s Goose populations, have increased significantly since the 1970s (Abraham et al. 2005, Leafloor et al. 2012, Fox and Leafloor 2018, Alisauskas et al. 2022, Canadian Wildlife Service Waterfowl Committee 2022) (Appendix 1). This has resulted from a combination of factors, including a widespread decline in hunting pressure due to reduced numbers of hunters (Ankney 1996, Batt 1997, Jefferies et al. 2003), and the increased use of wildlife refuges and southern agricultural feeding areas by geese during winter (Batt 1997, Jefferies et al. 2003, Abraham et al. 2005). High densities of light geese have altered northern ecosystems (Alisauskas et al. 2006, Leafloor et al. 2012). Overgrazing of shoots, shoot pulling, grubbing of belowground plant parts, nest building, and trampling of vegetation has led to decreases in vegetation biomass and species diversity in the Arctic (Didiuk and Ferguson 2005, Alisauskas et al. 2006, Kellett and Alisauskas 2025), where most Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese nest (Alisauskas et al. 2011). At the time of publication, in Canada and the United States, light geese remain designated as overabundant (NAWMP 2018, Canadian Wildlife Service Waterfowl Committee 2022).

Due to rapid environmental change, there is a pressing need to build reliable long-term datasets on wildlife. Traditional and local ecological knowledge gathered through interviews with Indigenous harvesters living in close relationship with wildlife is a key source of information (Huntington 2011, Pardo-de-Santayana and Macía 2015). The resulting qualitative knowledge database can provide information on aspects of wildlife ecology that are not always targeted by the scientific community or are beyond the reach of traditional scientific observations, particularly for wide-ranging species living in remote environments such as the Arctic (Mallory et al. 2003, Huntington 2011, Service et al. 2014). Furthermore, the frequency and geographic scope of wildlife scientific studies are restricted by temporal, budget, and travel restrictions (Mallory et al. 2018). In comparison, Indigenous knowledge includes observations over long and more continuous time series (Martinez-Levasseur et al. 2017).

In Inuit Nunangat (Inuit homelands in the Canadian Arctic), Inuit have lived near goose colonies for generations, and continue to harvest light geese for their meat, eggs, and plumage (Henri et al. 2020). Inuit knowledge of light geese is gained and shared through personal experience, careful observation, and oral histories (Gagnon and Berteaux 2009, Karetak et al. 2017, Ljubicic et al. 2018). Inuit knowledge includes holistic ecological perspectives that synthesize various elements of wildlife ecology and demography (Mallory et al. 2003, Gilchrist et al. 2005), reflecting a complex web of relationships between people, land, and all living beings (Karetak et al. 2017). In Canada, the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in resource management is a legal and policy requirement (e.g., Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, c. 22; Species at Risk Act, 2002, c. 29). In the territory of Nunavut, Inuit knowledge must be considered equally alongside scientific knowledge in environmental governance and decision-making (Government of Nunavut 2013). The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires the co-management of wildlife to ensure that Inuit harvesting rights are upheld, and that Inuit knowledge is considered in decisions affecting Inuit culture, livelihoods, lands, and food security (Government of Canada and Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut 1993).

In Inuit Nunangat, Inuit harvesting rights are protected through land claims, which extend to federally regulated Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and National Wildlife Areas (Henri et al. 2020). In Nunavut, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and National Wildlife Areas are co-managed by Area Co-Management Committees (ACMC), which work with the federal government and local Hunters and Trappers Organizations in management decisions (Government of Canada 2014, 2016). In 2016, the Nivvialik and Irniurviit ACMC identified light goose abundance and associated impacts as a key priority, and highlighted the need and opportunity to bring together Inuit and scientific ways of knowing about light goose ecology. These joint priorities led to the creation of the Kangut Project, of which this paper is part (see https://kangut.ca; Carter et al. 2018a,b, Henri et al. 2019, 2020). In the Kivalliq region of Nunavut (our study area), light goose colonies are located near and within three Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (MBS) that are co-managed by the Nivvialik and Irniurviit ACMC: Kuugaarjuk (McConnell River), Ikattuaq (Harry Gibbons), and Qaqsauqtuuq (East Bay) (Fig. 2).

By combining interviews of 40 light goose harvesters and Elders with results from aerial surveys in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut, we aimed to better understand (1) local light goose phenology and habitat selection, (2) changes in light goose distribution and abundance between the 1940s and 2010s, (3) the effects of increased light goose abundance on ecosystems, and (4) factors driving changes in light goose distribution.

METHODS

Author positionality

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) project leads (Henri, Johnston, Carter, Smith) worked closely with the Arviat and Salliq Project Management Committees to guide all aspects of research design, implementation, analysis, and reporting (Henri et al. 2019, 2020, Carter et al. 2018a, b). First author Carter coordinated the research, co-led analysis with Martinez-Levasseur, and worked closely with community researchers (Irkok, Saviakjuk, Emiktaut) in facilitating research in Salliq and Arviat. The results and analysis we present also greatly benefited from contributions by a National Wildlife Research Centre Geomatics Research Lab cartographer (Chaudhary), ECCC ornithologists (Baldwin, Alisauskas), a cultural geographer (Ljubicic), and a technical writer (Wong). Our motivation for this project was rooted in the desire to work collaboratively, in a reciprocal relationship, to address community-identified concerns about the impacts of overabundant light goose populations. Authors Irkok, Saviakjuk, Emiktaut, and the Project Management Committees have close, personal ties within their communities of Arviat and Salliq, as well as strong connections with the land and goose colonies around their communities. Authors Carter, Johnston, Henri, Smith, and Baldwin have well-established, long-term, working relationships with Arviat and Salliq community members and organizations. These relationships provided a strong foundation for research co-design, and knowledge co-creation, according to the strengths of both Inuit knowledge and Western science. Established relationships enabled the expansion of the research team where additional support was needed, with mutual commitments to working together for the common good (Healey and Tagak 2014, Carter et al. 2025).

Study area

Inuit knowledge was documented in June 2017 in Arviat (61°11’ N, 94°06’ W; population 2657) and in August 2017 in Coral Harbour (Salliq in Inuktut; 64°08’ N, 89°09’ W; population 891), Nunavut, Canada (Fig. 2) (Statistics Canada 2016). These communities were selected due to (1) their proximity to three MBS, and (2) known local experience and concerns about light goose population dynamics. Both communities have a majority Inuit population (≥ 94%) (Statistics Canada 2021).

Inuit knowledge documentation

“Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) embraces all aspects of traditional Inuit culture, including values, worldview, language, social organization, knowledge, life skills, perceptions and expectations” (Nunavut Department of Education 2007). While Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit was integral to and documented through the Kangut Project, we use the term Inuit knowledge because we are presenting ecological observations and inferences made from natural history observations. We conducted semi-structured individual and group interviews (see Carter et al. 2018a, b for interview questions) with 40 light goose harvesters and Elders from Arviat and Salliq (Table 1) ranging in age from their early 20s to their late 80s, thus providing direct observations that extended back to the 1940s. Audio-recorded discussions were transcribed, and thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo10 (Version 10, 2012) (Creswell 2009).

During interviews, biogeographical information on light goose distribution (e.g., during nesting, feeding, and migration) and Inuit activities related to light geese (e.g., egg picking, hunting) were recorded using six maps (two at scale 1:250,000 for Arviat and four at scale 1:150,000 for Salliq). Light goose abundance (low, medium, high) was documented for each decade between the 1940s and the 2010s. The National Wildlife Research Centre Geomatics Research Lab digitized field maps and created the final maps using ArcMap (ESRI Inc., Redlands, California, USA). We added a spatial limit of the “range of direct observations” made by interview contributors (Martinez-Levasseur et al. 2017) by merging all polygons drawn by contributors (all observations related to light geese and shorebirds; see full project results in Carter et al. 2018a, b) and adding a 2-km buffer to the new polygon. For specific details on results validation, see Henri et al. (2020). The numbers cited (e.g., 26/40) represent the number of interview contributors who shared similar views on specific topics out of the total number of individuals who responded to the question (details in Appendix 1).

Aerial photography used to estimate the distribution of nesting light geese

Methods used to estimate the nesting distribution of Lesser Snow and Ross’s Geese in known colonies are described in detail in Kerbes et al. (2014). Briefly, aerial photography of nesting colonies of Lesser Snow Geese was conducted in June 2003 (Western Hudson Bay), 2004 (Southampton Island), and 2008 (Western Hudson Bay, Southampton Island). Ross’s Goose numbers were estimated at Kuugaarjuk (McConnell River) MBS using air photo and ground data (Kerbes et al. 2014). Note that the time frame of the aerial surveys corresponds to the decades 2000s–2010s of the observations mapped during interviews.

Literature search

A snowball and citation search approach was used to search peer reviewed and grey literature sources. First, seminal articles on light geese (e.g., Alisauskas et al. 2022; A. M. Calvert, personal observation) were mined for key references and to inform the development of a search strategy to identify relevant literature (i.e., a list of keywords). This included light goose-specific terms (e.g., light goose phenology, habitat, abundance, trend, competition, predation), and themes such as Inuit knowledge of geese/birds or the effects of environmental changes on migrating species. The search was considered complete once all references in the bibliography of all sources had been explored, and no additional sources could be found. Duplicate records were identified and removed. Forty-two sources published between 1971 and 2022, most corresponding to our study area, were retained and imported into NVivo10.

Braiding multiple knowledge types

We strove to braid multiple knowledge types (Kimmerer 2015, Henri et al. 2021, Giroux et al. 2024) throughout project development and implementation, as described in Henri et al. 2020. This approach to knowledge co-production (Yua et al. 2022) guided database analysis (i.e., Inuit knowledge interviews, aerial survey results, and published literature) and results interpretation. The database was analyzed using thematic analysis (i.e., coded and organized according to broad themes: light goose phenology, light goose habitat, effects of increased light goose abundance on ecosystems, changes in light goose abundance, factors driving changes in light goose distribution) associated with our Inuit knowledge interviews and aerial survey results (Creswell 2009). Each broad theme included up to three levels of subthemes (e.g., general theme: effects of increased light goose abundance on ecosystems; subtheme level 1: effects on the land and vegetation; subtheme level 2: effects resulting from foraging; subtheme level 3: foraging method). We identified common and novel themes within and across knowledge types, then compared knowledge types and identified areas that overlapped, conflicted, or were unique.

Limitations and potential biases

Although Project Management Committees identified community members with topical expertise (Henri et al. 2020), our results represent a partial sample of all knowledge about light geese held by Salliq and Arviat community members. Thus, additional knowledge may exist that was not documented through this study. Also, the personality and gender of visiting scientist co-facilitator (N. A. Carter, woman), and the loss of information through English/Inuktut interpretation may have influenced responses (Brook and McLachlan 2005). However, interviews were co-facilitated by local, Inuit community researchers (one man and one woman in each community), with support from Carter and expert simultaneous interpreters, to maximize interviewee comfort level and ensure interview contributors could share knowledge in the language of their choice (Henri et al. 2020). Furthermore, prior to the interviews, community researchers translated the interview guide from English into the local Inuktut dialect (Henri et al. 2020), then back into English using a method known as forward and backward translation (Bullinger et al. 1993). This approach ensured that regardless of language, questions were conceptually equivalent.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section is divided into four subsections corresponding to our study objectives: (1) light goose phenology and habitat selection, (2) changes in light goose distribution and abundance between the 1940s and the 2010s, (3) effects of increased light goose abundance on ecosystems, and (4) factors driving changes in light goose distribution. A table summarizing Inuit knowledge results (including more details on numbers of interview contributors and selected quotes) and Western science results is included in Appendix 1.

Light goose nomenclature, phenology, and habitat selection

Nomenclature

In Salliq and Arviat, Lesser Snow and Ross’s Geese were respectively referred to in Inuktut as kanguq (singular) or kanguit (plural) and qaaraarjuk (singular) or qaaraarjuit (plural). Most interview contributors did not distinguish between Snow and Ross’s Geese, and referred to both species collectively as light geese or kanguq/kanguit. Similarly, Alisauskas (2001) reported that the two species are difficult to distinguish from a distance; thus, they have been managed collectively since 1978 (Moser and Duncan 2001). We use “light geese” (Lesser Snow and Ross’s Geese collectively) as our unit of identification and to designate the population of interest.

Phenology

Interview contributors observed light geese from the end of April/early May through September (Fig. 3). Four contributors reported that light geese arrive earlier compared to a few decades ago. In the 1970s and 1980s, Snow Geese arrived on the west coast of Hudson Bay between the last week of May and the first week of June (Harwood 1977, Ankney and MacInnes 1978, Ankney 1980, Kerbes et al. 1990). Contributors associated earlier migration with earlier snowmelt, as has also been observed by Inuit regarding other migrating species (Martinez-Levasseur et al. 2021). Contributors noted that light geese lay eggs at least 1 week earlier than in the past. Similarly, Rockwell et al. (2011) reported that hatching dates of Snow Geese breeding at La Pérouse Bay (Manitoba, western Hudson Bay) had advanced by approximately 1 week between the 1960s and the 2000s.

In the 1970s–1980s, scientists observed that light goose fall migration began in mid-September in the Hudson Bay interior (Mclaren and Mclaren 1982, Richards and Gaston 2018). However, three contributors shared that today, fall migration begins in late September or early October, with light geese and goslings feeding near communities from mid-summer until migration (Fig. 3). This earlier arrival and later departure by high densities of light geese exerts added foraging pressure on the coastal tundra and biodiversity (Abraham et al. 2019; A. M. Calvert, personal observation).

Habitat selection

Many contributors (18/40) observed light geese nesting near food sources (vegetation), and described nesting areas as marshy and muddy, located near rivers, lakes, and ponds, and concentrated near the coast. They reported that habitats rich in water bodies (i.e., ponds, lakes, rivers) have fewer predators. One contributor and Alisauskas et al. (2009) reported that habitats rich in water bodies provide escape from terrestrial predators during the brood rearing/moulting phase. During brood rearing, light geese disperse over wide areas up to 40 km inland (Kerbes et al. 1990, Leafloor et al. 2012; A. M. Calvert, personal observation). By dispersing, light geese reduce their grazing pressure at nesting areas (Leafloor et al. 2012).

Changes in light goose abundance between the 1940s and the 2010s

Detailed results on light goose abundance, by study site, and specific results for Ross’s Goose abundance, are provided in Appendix 1.

General trends

Most contributors (27/40) reported an increase in light goose abundance along the western coast of Hudson Bay and southern Southampton Island over their lifetime (i.e., since the 1940s for the eldest). Since the 1980s on western Hudson Bay, both Inuit observations and aerial surveys (1985–2008) identified decreased local light goose numbers (Fig. S2, Appendix 1). Aerial surveys showed that over the 1985–2008 period, the population decreased by 41% from an estimated 420,000 to 246,300 birds. One Salliq contributor reported a recent decline on Southampton Island, as did scientists (Alisauskas et al. 2022). Likewise, Snow Goose declines were reported by scientists in other breeding subpopulations (e.g., Karrak Lake in Canada’s central Arctic) (Weegman et al. 2022, Alisauskas et al. 2024).

Trends in colonies

Interview contributors noted that the number of nesting light geese has significantly decreased in Kuugaarjuk MBS near Arviat (Fig. 2-A) and Qaqsauqtuuq MBS near Salliq (Fig. 2-C) since the 1960s and 1990s, respectively. Similarly, aerial surveys at Kuugaarjuk MBS revealed a 79% decrease in nesting birds between 1973 and 2008 (Fig. S2, Appendix 1). Scientists reported that birds have nested at Kuugaarjuk MBS since at least 1941 (MacInnes and Kerbes 1987). Surveys conducted in 1977 showed that most geese had moved elsewhere (Kerbes et al. 1990). Similarly, three contributors said that high densities of light geese nesting at Kuugaarjuk MBS resulted in overgrazed lands, which forced geese to move elsewhere in search of forage—a phenomenon also recorded by scientists, first at the end of the 1960s (Lieff 1973). The coastal salt marshes of western and southern Hudson Bay, including Kuugaarjuk MBS, are sensitive to goose foraging pressure due to their unique soil and vegetation characteristics, low diversity of organisms, and small size (A. M. Calvert, personal observation). Furthermore, in addition to local breeding colonies, the west coast of Hudson Bay is grazed by many migrating geese that stage there in spring (Abraham et al. 2005; A. M. Calvert, personal observation). Other causes, including disease outbreaks and spring droughts, could have also been involved in the decline of light geese at Kuugaarjuk (McConnell River) MBS (Kerbes et al. 1990).

Colony-specific trends in abundance were more difficult to assess from aerial surveys of Southampton Island because the Qaqsauqtuuq and Salliq colonies were not distinguished in the counts after the colonies expanded to the point where their borders merged in 2008 (Fig. S5, Appendix 1). For both colonies combined, the total number of birds increased by 43% between 1997 (156,700) and 2008 (223,400). In the East Bay region, an extensive decline in vegetation between 1979 and 2010 (Abraham et al. 2019) was due to persistent long-term foraging by light geese, as reported by eight Salliq contributors. Two contributors reported that the number of light geese at Ikattuaq MBS (Fig. 4) was still high, and the land was less overgrazed compared to the Qaqsauqtuuq MBS colony. Aerial surveys revealed that Ikattuaq MBS, including Ell Bay, and its surrounding areas (Boas River) still had, in 2008, the largest colony of Snow Geese (644,000) on Southampton Island.

Contributors reported that the deterioration of breeding ground habitats in some colonies might have induced the movement of birds toward their communities. Around Arviat (Fig. 5), shifts in nesting areas farther north (toward Maguse River) and south (south of McConnell River) were also reported by Kerbes et al. (2006). In 1973, the first record of 1000 nesting light geese was made using aerial surveys around Maguse River (Kerbes 1975, Kerbes et al. 2006). By 2008, the nesting population had increased to 111,500 birds (Fig. S2, Appendix 1). The Nivvialik ACMC—which has management responsibility for Kuugaarjuk MBS—has expressed interest in reviewing the MBS boundaries in response to these changes (Nivvialik Area Co-Management Committee, personal observation). On Southampton Island (Fig. 4), five contributors, as well as scientists (Abraham and Ankney 1986, Kerbes et al. 2006), reported that the Salliq colony (nearest to the community) had become established by the mid-1980s. While aerial surveys in 1997 estimated 11,900 light geese breeding at this colony (Kerbes et al. 2006), four contributors noted light geese had been nesting there only since the 2010s. Finally, recaptures indicated that light geese have emigrated from declining colonies in our study area to other Arctic colonies, especially on Baffin Island, Nunavut (Alisauskas et al. 2022). Three Salliq contributors noted that some migrating light geese observed in their area are on their way to Baffin Island.

Effects of increased light goose abundance on ecosystems

Effects on the land and vegetation

Most contributors (27/40) highlighted how light geese have changed the land through removal of vegetation by grazing, grubbing, and nesting. One contributor reported that when light geese build nests, they cause a substantial impact due to the quantity of moss, lichen, grasses, and twigs used.

Habitat and vegetation changes caused by light geese have been the focus of intensive scientific research since the 1970s (A. M. Calvert, personal observation). The main factors predicting the severity of habitat alteration by light geese are the season, foraging method (Fig. 3), and density of birds (A. M. Calvert, personal observation). In the salt marshes of coastal Hudson Bay, decades of foraging by increasing numbers of geese have led to changes such as a reduction in vegetation, exposure of underlying sediment, and changes in soil chemistry (A. M. Calvert, personal observation). Abraham et al. (2019) reported that in Qaqsauqtuuq MBS, persistent long-term cumulative foraging pressure by multiple species of geese induced significant declines in graminoids that are preferred by geese as forage, and declines in lichen and willow cover, resulting in a drastic decrease in plant species richness and diversity. One contributor, as well as Kellett and Alisauskas (2022), reported that goose-induced habitat changes are part of a long-term natural cycle wherein the land replenishes itself. Though some freshwater sites have shown signs of recovery within 5–10 years, the recovery of vegetation in salt marshes can take more than 20 years (Jefferies et al. 2006; A. M. Calvert, personal observation).

Interview contributors mentioned light goose feces when discussing the effects of increased numbers of light geese on the land. Contrasting views included goose droppings fertilizing and replenishing soils with nutrients versus droppings contaminating the land by introducing pollutants. Bird species with longer migration distances tended to have higher pesticide levels in their feathers (Xiao et al. 2023), suggesting that migratory birds might play a role in the transport of pollutants. These findings highlight the importance of studying the levels of contaminants, including pesticides, in different organs of light geese because they are an important food source for Inuit.

Interactions with other wildlife

Two Arviat contributors were concerned about the decrease in other goose species (i.e., Cackling Goose [Branta hutchinsii]). However, Cackling Geese had greater nest survival inside a Ross’s Goose colony than outside it in the McConnell River area, unless surrounded by a very high density of Ross’s Goose nests (Baldwin et al. 2011; A. M. Calvert, personal observation). Around Salliq, Ross’s Geese were reported to be “invading” and “pushing out” Snow Geese. While one contributor reported no interactions between shorebirds and light geese, explaining that their habitats differed, another reported that Red Phalaropes (Phalaropus fulicarius) were no longer seen around Salliq, having moved to new areas due to light goose abundance, which has resulted in species competition for space/food.

Scientists reported that changes in the availability of nesting material and sites, reduced food sources, and altered prey–predator dynamics might explain declines of local breeding birds (A. M. Calvert, personal observation) such as shorebirds, other goose species, and songbirds (Jefferies et al. 2003, Abraham et al. 2005, 2019, Flemming et al. 2016, 2019, 2022, Lamarre et al. 2017; A. M. Calvert, personal observation). In general, overabundant light geese have been affecting sympatric fauna through “bottom-up” effects of habitat alteration and “top-down” changes in predator–prey dynamics (A. M. Calvert, personal observation). Three contributors reported that numbers of light goose predators (i.e., polar bears, gulls, raptors, foxes) had increased since the 2000s. Increasing predation on light goose eggs and goslings by Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) has been reported in western Hudson Bay (Sammler et al. 2008). In the same area, predation of Snow Goose nests by polar bears might result from the increasing overlap between ice-free sea conditions and the light goose breeding season (Rockwell et al. 2011, Gormezano and Rockwell 2013; A. M. Calvert, personal observation). On the other hand, the increased light goose abundance has led to a healthier fox population, as reported by an Arviat contributor. In Bylot Island MBS (Qikiqtaaluk region, Nunavut), probabilities of successful fox reproduction increased with proximity to goose colonies, especially during periods of low lemming abundance (Giroux et al. 2012, Flemming et al. 2016).

Finally, eight contributors noted that light geese and caribou compete for food and space. A recent review of caribou diet revealed that in warmer seasons, caribou consume graminoids and berries, as do light geese (Prevett et al. 1979, Webber et al. 2022). Two contributors said that migrating caribou herds damage land used by light geese. A contributor explained that light geese defecate on the vegetation that caribou consume, which could cause caribou to become diseased. Tugend (2017) reported that during the light goose breeding season, geese and caribou share the same land, which in turn has affected both species.

Effects on people

Six contributors expressed frustration about light geese feeding heavily on berries (Fig. 3). Prevett et al. (1979) and Jefferies et al. (2003) indicated that 18% of the diet of Snow Geese staging in the Hudson Bay Lowland at the start of the fall migration consists of seeds and berries. Two contributors expressed concern about the negative impacts of increased goose droppings on freshwater bodies (e.g., contamination by Escherichia coli). Light goose feces contribute to changes in water chemistry, including an increase in nitrogen and phosphorus, in ponds or lakes adjacent to nesting colonies (Tugend 2017, Mariash et al. 2018; A. M. Calvert, personal observation).

On a more positive note, 11 contributors explained that abundant light geese and eggs near their communities has reduced harvest costs and allowed families to access some goose hunting and nesting grounds on foot. Opportunities to share light geese with food-insecure households and regions, and with other Nunavut communities that do not have light goose colonies, were described by contributors as a benefit of local light goose abundance. In Salliq, beneficial impacts also included opportunities for recreational hunting, commercial harvesting and processing of light goose meat and down, and expansion of local outfitting and bird-watching businesses.

Factors driving changes in light goose distribution

Interview contributors (19/40) reported that habitat loss due to overgrazing has pushed light geese to abandon altered habitats in favor of intact breeding and foraging sites, as reported on the west coast of Hudson Bay in the 1970s and 1980s, and in central and eastern Arctic areas (Kerbes et al. 1990, Aubry et al. 2013, Alisauskas et al. 2022). To avoid the use of heavily degraded habitats, which results in reduced clutch size, egg size, and gosling growth, size, and survival (Abraham et al. 2005, Aubry et al. 2013; A. M. Calvert, personal observation), light geese have displayed density-dependent changes in foraging behavior and breeding site fidelity (Aubry et al. 2013, Wilson et al. 2016; A. M. Calvert, personal observation). Between 2006 and 2015, Lesser Snow Geese (typically male breeding and juvenile geese) emigrated from the degraded habitats of the central (Queen Maud Gulf) and eastern Arctic (James Bay, La Pérouse Bay, Southampton Island), mostly toward the Baffin Island subpopulation (Alisauskas et al. 2022). According to scientists, spatial adjustments by light geese appear to have had a larger influence on their distribution and regional abundance than have previous unsuccessful human attempts to liberalize harvest regulations as a way to control population growth (Alisauskas et al. 2011, 2022). This concurs with Inuit knowledge about natural cycles of population restoration reported by one contributor.

Ten contributors described predator avoidance as influencing goose distribution. Lima (2009) similarly reported that as a response to increased predation, light geese might increase their anti-predatory behavior and vigilance, leading to chronic stress and reduced foraging. When bird breeding areas are populated with numerous predators, birds may choose to nest, abandon their nest, or forego nesting (Lima 2009). Five contributors reported that food and space competition (i.e., among goose species, other bird species, or mammals) influenced light goose distribution, and seven contributors reported that increasing human activity did (i.e., increased noise due to all-terrain vehicles, cars, trucks, and heavy equipment). Inuit in Pond Inlet (Qikiqtaaluk region, Nunavut) have also reported that disturbance from hunting activities, including noise from snowmobiles and rifles, impacted Greater Snow Goose distribution and abundance (Gagnon and Berteaux 2009). Other emerging issues, including disease (e.g., avian cholera), have the potential to affect light goose abundance and distribution (Alisauskas 2001).

Climate change-induced phenomena were reported by 10 contributors as drivers of light goose distribution. Warmer-than-average winters and summers can result in earlier spring snowmelt and increased incidence of dried up ponds or lakes, respectively (Campbell et al. 2018), the latter of which has also increased due to isostatic rebound (Bos and Pellatt 2012). This phenomenon not only reduces the area available for suitable nesting habitats, but it also makes it more difficult for goslings to access drinking water and hydrate, particularly during abnormally warm summers (Aubry et al. 2013). Major declines in protein reserves acquired at spring staging areas, likely due to advancing springs and habitat alternation, might affect Lesser Snow Geese recruitment and thus be contributing to overall population declines (Baldwin et al. 2022, Alisauskas et al. 2024). One contributor explained that snowmelt created over-flooded grounds, causing light geese to find a drier place to nest locally or to alter their migration (i.e., how, when, and where they migrate). Arctic warming temperatures have extended the gap between light goose migration timing (and indirectly hatch timing) and seasonal peaks in vegetation quality (Aubry et al. 2013). This “mismatch” could in turn affect gosling development due to a lack of required nutrients (Aubry et al. 2013, Ross et al. 2018). As explained previously, when sea ice breakup occurs increasingly earlier, polar bear predation on light goose colonies is predicted to continue to increase (Smith et al. 2010). Scientists have reported that Ross’s Geese seem to be more resilient to environmental change, including extreme weather or degraded habitat, than Snow Geese (Baldwin et al. 2022). Ross’s Goose nests are well structured and provide more insulation for developing embryos and less exposure to inclement weather compared to Snow Goose nests (McLandress 1983, McCracken et al. 1997, Weegman et al. 2022). Furthermore, Ross’s Geese have a smaller bill size and faster pecking rate than Snow Geese, which allows Ross’s Geese to more easily graze cropped vegetation (Pezzanite 2003, Abraham et al. 2005) and acquire sufficient resources on degraded lands (Abraham et al. 2005, Alisauskas et al. 2006). Finally, it is important to note that contributors (16/40) viewed distributional or abundance changes as normal animal behavior, and not unique to light geese or situations of light goose overabundance.

Research recommendations

Additional participatory methods, including conducting proportional piling exercises for different time periods and within the range of direct observations of Inuit (Martinez-Levasseur et al. 2017, Tomaselli et al. 2022) could be used in the future to better understand subpopulation trends based on interviews. Knowledge gathered through interviews, which can provide information from past observations, can be combined with contemporary light goose monitoring, led by trained local Inuit, to identify potential changing trends. In the Kivalliq region, community-based monitoring projects have become essential to capture local changes in specific light goose subpopulations because aerial photographic surveys conducted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service were discontinued around 2010 (F. Baldwin, Canadian Wildlife Service, personal communication). Regular monitoring is difficult to maintain due to the enormous geographic extent and remoteness of Arctic nesting goose populations, and to issues associated with survey timing, coverage, and cost. Consequently, within the Kivalliq region, at the time of the study, Inuit observations were the only available source of knowledge for detecting and reporting local trends in light goose abundance and distribution. While banding of light geese occurs across several sites in the Arctic, recent work has shown that there are dramatic differences in demography of light goose populations at the regional scale due to variations in adult and juvenile survival rates and differences in probability of movement between colonies. This highlights the importance of Inuit perspectives on the local population status of light geese because such knowledge can occur at frequencies and scales that are simply not possible under current migratory bird monitoring programming. Note that bird banding resumed in 2022 through 2024 near Arviat and Coral Harbour (F. Baldwin, Canadian Wildlife Service, personal communication). Furthermore, in the Arviat region, bird banding has become part of a community-led and community-engaged project on different species of geese, including light geese, involving many co-authors (see https://straightupnorth.ca/goose-monitoring-to-restore-inuit-food-sovereignty/).

CONCLUSION

Braiding diverse knowledge systems generates an enriched body of evidence on light goose population dynamics under a changing climate and broadens the spectrum of solutions that can support environmental decision-making and stewardship at multiple scales. Inuit in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut, Canada hold broad and detailed knowledge related to light goose distribution, abundance, habitat effects, and interactions with co-occurring animals and people. In addition, Inuit knowledge and the knowledge produced through Western scientific methods and tools frequently provide complementary long-term, place-specific observations of light geese. Most published scientific studies of light goose phenology in the Kivalliq region date from the 1970s and 1980s; Inuit observations add to this record with an additional 40 years of observations extending to the present day. The frequency and geographic scope of light goose aerial surveys, monitoring, banding, and other scientific studies is constrained by temporal, budget, travel, and other restrictions (Mallory et al. 2018). In comparison, Inuit knowledge includes, on a local scale for areas accessible from the nearest community, observations over long and more continuous time series. An opportunity exists for Inuit communities to lead studies that address local research priorities and monitor local changes (CAFF 2021), such as light goose phenology, particularly in the context of rapid environmental change (Ross et al. 2018, Baldwin et al. 2022).

By combining Inuit knowledge with aerial surveys and a review of the existing scientific literature, we elucidated changes in light goose distribution and abundance between the 1940s and the 2010s in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut, explored the effects of light geese on local ecosystems, and increased understanding of the factors driving these changes. Furthermore, we were able to better comprehend ways in which climate change is affecting light goose colonies (e.g., changes in timing of migration and phenology, increases in predator numbers). In the future, light goose colonies identified in this study could be further monitored through community-based monitoring programs led by local Inuit (e.g., banding programs, colony monitoring, colony observations using mobile applications such as SIKU [the Indigenous knowledge social network: https://siku.org]) (CAFF 2021). Future projects could also involve further Inuit knowledge documentation, as well as ecological data collection through Western ecological science methods. Finally, we provide a basis for Area Co-Management Committees to use Inuit knowledge in the development or update of management plans in Migratory Bird Sanctuaries. Inuit knowledge inclusion, leadership, and guidance when conducting research is fundamental to a multifaceted and holistic understanding of wildlife population dynamics, particularly in a changing Arctic.

LITERATURE CITED

Abraham, K. F., and C. D. Ankney. 1986. Summer birds of East Bay, Southampton Island, Northwest Territories. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100:180-185. https://doi.org/10.5962/p.355588

Abraham, K. F., R. L. Jefferies, and R. T. Alisauskas. 2005. The dynamics of landscape change and Snow Geese in mid-continent North America. Global Change Biology 11(6):841-855. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00943.x

Abraham, K. F., C. M. Sharp, and P. M. Kotanen. 2019. Habitat change at a multi-species goose breeding area on Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada, 1979–2010. Arctic Science 6(2):95-113. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2018-0032

Alisauskas, R. T. 2001. Species description and biology. Pages 5-9 in T. J. Moser, editor. The status of Ross’s Geese. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Alisauskas, R. T., A. M. Calvert, J. O. Leafloor, R. F. Rockwell, K. L. Drake, D. K. Kellett, R. W. Brook, and K. F. Abraham. 2022. Subpopulation contributions to a breeding metapopulation of migratory Arctic herbivores: survival, fecundity and asymmetric dispersal. Ecography 2022(7):e05653. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05653

Alisauskas, R. T., J. W. Charlwood, and D. K. Kellett. 2006. Vegetation correlates of the history and density of nesting by Ross’s Geese and Lesser Snow Geese at Karrak Lake, Nunavut. Arctic 59(2):201-210. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic342

Alisauskas, R. T., K. L. Drake, and J. D. Nichols. 2009. Filling a void: abundance estimation of North American populations of Arctic geese using hunter recoveries. Pages 463-489 in D. L. Thomson, E. G. Cooch, and M. J. Conroy, editors. Modeling demographic processes in marked populations. Environmental and ecological statistics, Volume 3. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78151-8_20

Alisauskas, R. T., D. K. Kellett, G. Samelius, and S. M. Slattery. 2024. Geese as keystone species in the Low Arctic of central Canada: the Karrak Lake Research Station. Arctic Science 10:778-798. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2023-0080

Alisauskas, R. T., R. F. Rockwell, K. W. Dufour, E. G. Cooch, G. Zimmerman, K. L. Drake, J. O. Leafloor, T. J. Moser, and E. T. Reed. 2011. Harvest, survival, and abundance of Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese relative to population reduction efforts. Wildlife Monographs 179:1-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.5

Ankney, C. D. 1980. Egg weight, survival, and growth of Lesser Snow Goose goslings. Journal of Wildlife Management 44(1):174-182. https://doi.org/10.2307/3808363

Ankney, C. D. 1996. An embarrassment of riches: too many geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(2):217-223. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802219

Ankney, C. D., and C. D. MacInnes. 1978. Nutrient reserves and reproductive performance of female Lesser Snow Geese. Auk 95(3):459-471.

Aubry, L. M., R. F. Rockwell, E. G. Cooch, R. W. Brook, C. P. H. Mulder, and D. N. Koons. 2013. Climate change, phenology, and habitat degradation: drivers of gosling body condition and juvenile survival in Lesser Snow Geese. Global Change Biology 19(1):149-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12013

Baldwin, F. B., R. T. Alisauskas, and J. O. Leafloor. 2011. Nest survival and density of Cackling Geese (Branta hutchinsii) inside and outside a Ross’s Goose (Chen rossii) colony. Auk 128(2):404-414. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2011.10266

Baldwin, F. B., R. T. Alisauskas, and J. O. Leafloor. 2022. Dynamics of pre-breeding nutrient reserves in subarctic staging Lesser Snow Geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens) and Ross’s Geese (Anser rossii): implications for reproduction. Avian Conservation and Ecology 17(2):38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-02326-170238

Batt, B. D. J. 1997. Arctic ecosystems in peril: report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA.

Bos, D. G., and M. G. Pellatt. 2012. The water chemistry of shallow ponds around Wapusk National Park of Canada, Hudson Bay Lowlands. Canadian Water Resources Journal 37(3):163-175. https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj2011-900

Brook, R. K., and S. M. McLachlan. 2005. On using expert-based science to “test” local ecological knowledge. Ecology and Society 10(2):r3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01478-1002r03

Bullinger, M., R. Anderson, D. Cella, and N. Aaronson. 1993. Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Quality of Life Research 2:451-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422219

Campbell, T. K. F., T. C. Lantz, and R. H. Fraser. 2018. Impacts of climate change and intensive Lesser Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens caerulescens) activity on surface water in High Arctic pond complexes. Remote Sensing 10(12):1892. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10121892

Canadian Wildlife Service Waterfowl Committee. 2022. Population status of migratory game birds in Canada – 2021. Canadian Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds Regulatory Report Number 55.

Carter, N. A., D. A. Henri, V. Johnston, L. Emiktaut, B. Saviakjuk, P. Smith, B. Chaudhary, A. Murray, and G. Ljubicic. 2018a. Inuit knowledge about light geese in the Kivalliq region, Nunavut. Report prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada for the Irniurviit Area Co-Management Committee and the Aiviit Hunters and Trappers Organization, Coral Harbour, Nunavut.

Carter, N. A., D. A. Henri, V. Johnston, A. Irkok, S. Nipisar, P. Smith, B. Chaudhary, A. Murray, and G. Ljubicic. 2018b. Inuit knowledge about light geese in the Kivalliq region, Nunavut. Report prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada for the Nivvialik Area Co-Management Committee and the Arviat Hunters and Trappers Organization, Arviat, Nunavut.

Carter, N. A., S. Tagalik, and G. Ljubicic. 2025. Applying the Aajiiqatigiingniq Research Methodology: approaches and lessons learned through collaborative survey development and analysis. Arctic Science 11:1-33. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2023-0057

Conservation of Artic Flora and Fauna (CAFF). 2021. Working with Indigenous communities on migratory birds-case studies of relevance to the Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative (AMBI). Akureyri, Iceland.

Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research design – qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Third edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Didiuk, A. B., and R. S. Ferguson. 2005. Land cover mapping of the Queen Maud Gulf Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Nunavut. Occasional Paper No. 111. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Flemming, S. A., A. Calvert, E. Nol, and P. A. Smith. 2016. Do hyperabundant Arctic-nesting geese pose a problem for sympatric species? Environmental Reviews 24(4):393-402. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2016-0007

Flemming, S. A., E. Nol, L. V. Kennedy, A. Bédard, M. A. Giroux, and P. A. Smith. 2019. Spatio-temporal responses of predators to hyperabundant geese affect risk of predation for sympatric-nesting species. PLoS ONE 14(8):e0221727. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221727

Flemming, S. A., P. A. Smith, L. V. Kennedy, A. M. Anderson, and E. Nol. 2022. Habitat alteration and fecal deposition by geese alter tundra invertebrate communities: implications for diets of sympatric birds. PLoS ONE 17(7):e0269938. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269938

Fox, A. D., and J. O. Leafloor. 2018. A global audit of the status and trends of Arctic and northern hemisphere goose populations. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland.

Gagnon, C. A., and D. Berteaux. 2009. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and ecological science: a question of scale. Ecology and Society 14(2):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02923-140219

Gilchrist, H. G., M. L. Mallory, and F. Merkel. 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society 10(1):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01275-100120

Giroux, J.-F., C. J. Idrobo, and M. Sorais. 2024. Bridging Cree knowledge and Western science to understand the decline in hunting success of migratory Canada geese. Socio-Ecological Practice Research 6:131-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-024-00182-0

Giroux, M.-A., D. Berteaux, N. Lecomte, G. Gauthier, G. Szor, and J. Bêty. 2012. Benefiting from a migratory prey: spatio-temporal patterns in allochthonous subsidization of an Arctic predator. Journal of Animal Ecology 81(3):533-542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01944.x

Gormezano, L. J., and R. F. Rockwell. 2013. What to eat now? Shifts in polar bear diet during the ice-free season in western Hudson Bay. Ecology and Evolution 3(10):3509-3523. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.740

Government of Canada. 2014. Evaluation of the Protected Areas program. Final report prepared by the Audit and Evaluation Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Government of Canada. 2016. 2016 to 2023 Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries in the Nunavut Settlement Area. Between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Kitikmeot Inuit Association, the Kivalliq Inuit Association, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and the Minister of the Environment.

Government of Canada and Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut. 1993. Agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada.

Government of Nunavut. 2013. Incorporating Inuit societal values. Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada.

Harwood, J. 1977. Summer feeding ecology of Lesser Snow Geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(1):48-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/3800089

Healy, G., and A. Tagak Sr. 2014. Piliriqatigiiniq ‘Working in a collaborative way for the common good’: a perspective on the space where health research methodology and Inuit epistemology come together. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 7(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcis.v7i1.117

Henri, D. A., N. A. Carter, A. Irkok, S. Nipisar, L. Emiktaut, B. Saviakjuk, Salliq Project Management Committee, Arviat Project Management Committee, G. J. Ljubicic, P. A. Smith, and V. Johnston. 2020. Qanuq ukua kanguit sunialiqpitigu ? (What should we do with all of these geese ?) Collaborative research to support wildlife co-management and Inuit self-determination. Arctic Science 6:173-207. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2019-0015

Henri, D. A., N. A. Carter, V. Johnston, and P. Smith. 2019. Bringing together Inuit knowledge and science to manage light geese in the Kivalliq region, Nunavut. Proceedings of the 2018 Light Goose Management Workshop, Winnipeg, Canada, September 23-25, 2018.

Henri, D. A., J. F. Provencher, E. Bowles, J. J. Taylor, J. Steele, C. Chelick, J. N. Popp, S. J. Cooke, T. Rytwinski, D. McGregor, A. T. Ford, and S. M. Alexander. 2021. Weaving Indigenous knowledge systems and Western sciences in terrestrial research, monitoring and management in Canada: a protocol for a systematic map. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 2:e12057. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12057

Huntington, H. P. 2011. The local perspective. Nature 478:182-183. https://doi.org/10.1038/478182a

Jefferies, R. L., A. P. Jano, and K. F. Abraham. 2006. A biotic agent promotes large-scale catastrophic change in the coastal marshes of Hudson Bay. Journal of Ecology 94(1):234-242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01086.x

Jefferies, R. L., R. F. Rockwell, and K. F. Abraham. 2003. The embarrassment of riches: agricultural food subsidies, high goose numbers, and loss of Arctic wetlands – a continuing saga. Environmental Reviews 11(4):193-232. https://doi.org/10.1139/a04-002

Karetak, J., F. Tester, and S. Tagalik. 2017. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: what Inuit have always known to be true. Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, Nova Scotia and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Kellett, D. K., and R. T. Alisauskas. 2022. Reduction in biomass of freshwater Arctic vegetation by foraging and nesting hyperabundant herbivores shows recovery. Ecosphere 13(11):e4275. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4275

Kellett, D. K., and R. T. Alisauskas. 2025. Ornithogenic alteration of a tundra ecosystem from decades of intense herbivory and dense nesting. Ecosphere 16(2):e70169. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70169

Kerbes, R. H. 1975. The nesting population of Lesser Snow Geese in the eastern Canadian Arctic: a photographic inventory of June 1973. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Kerbes, R. H., P. M. Kotanen, and R. L. Jefferies. 1990. Destruction of wetland habitats by Lesser Snow Geese: a keystone species on the west coast of Hudson Bay. Journal of Applied Ecology 27(1):242-258. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403582

Kerbes, R. H., K. M. Meeres, and R. T. Alisauskas. 2014. Surveys of nesting Lesser Snow Geese and Ross’s Geese in Arctic Canada, 2002–2009. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Kerbes, R. H., K. M. Meeres, R. T. Alisauskas, F. D. Caswell, K. F. Abraham, and R. K. Ross. 2006. Surveys of nesting mid-continent Lesser Snow Geese and Ross’s Geese in eastern and central Arctic Canada, 1997–98. Technical Report Series No. 447, Canadian Wildlife Service, Prairie and Northern Region, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Kimmerer, R. W. 2015. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.

Lamarre, J.-F., P. Legagneux, G. Gauthier, E. T. Reed, and J. Bêty. 2017. Predator-mediated negative effects of overabundant Snow Geese on Arctic-nesting shorebirds. Ecosphere 8(5):e01788. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1788

Leafloor, J. O., T. J. Moser, and B. D. J. Batt. 2012. Evaluation of special management measures for Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese and Ross’s Geese. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Lieff, B. C. 1973. The summer feeding ecology of Blue and Canada Geese at the McConnell River, Northwest Territories. University of Western Ontario.

Lima, S. L. 2009. Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biological Reviews 84(3):485–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00085.x

Ljubicic, G., S. Okpakok, S. Robertson, and R. Mearns. 2018. Inuit approaches to naming and distinguishing caribou: considering language, place, and homeland toward improved co-management. Arctic 71(3):309-333. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4734

MacInnes, C. D., and R. H. Kerbes. 1987. Growth of the Snow Goose, Chen caerulescens, colony at McConnell River, Northwest Territories: 1940–1980. Canadian Field Naturalist 101:33-39. https://doi.org/10.5962/p.355851

Mallory, M. L., H. G. Gilchrist, A. J. Fontaine, and J. A. Akearok. 2003. Local ecological knowledge of Ivory Gull declines in Arctic Canada. Arctic 56(3):293-299. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic625

Mallory, M. L., H. G. Gilchrist, M. Janssen, H. L. Major, F. Merkel, J. F. Provencher, and H. Strøm. 2018. Financial costs of conducting science in the Arctic: examples from seabird research. Arctic Science 4(4):624-633. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2017-0019

Mariash, H. L., P. A. Smith, and M. Mallory. 2018. Decadal response of Arctic freshwaters to burgeoning goose populations. Ecosystems 21(6):1230-1243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-017-0215-z

Martinez-Levasseur, L. M., C. M. Furgal, M. O. Hammill, and G. Burness. 2017. Challenges and strategies when mapping local ecological knowledge in the Canadian Arctic: the importance of defining the geographic limits of participants’ common areas of observations. Polar Biology 40:1501-1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-016-2071-2

Martinez-Levasseur, L. M., C. M. Furgal, M. O. Hammill, D. A. Henri, and G. Burness. 2021. New migration and distribution patterns of Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) around Nunavik (Québec, Canada) identified using Inuit knowledge. Polar Biology 44(9):1833-1845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-021-02920-6

McCracken, K. G., A. D. Afton, and R. T. Alisauskas. 1997. Nest morphology and body size of Ross’ Geese and Lesser Snow Geese. Auk 114(4):610-618. https://doi.org/10.2307/4089280

McLandress, M. R. 1983. Temporal changes in habitat selection and nest spacing in a colony of Ross’ and Lesser Snow Geese. Auk 100:335-343. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/100.2.335

Mclaren, P. L., and M. A. Mclaren. 1982. Migration and summer distribution of Lesser Snow Geese in interior Keewatin. Wilson Bulletin 94(4):494-504.

Moser, T. J., and D. C. Duncan. 2001. Harvest of Ross’ Geese. Pages 38–54 in T. J. Moser, editor. The status of Ross’ Geese. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). 2018. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan – 2012 revision.

Nunavut Department of Education. 2007. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Education framework for Nunavut curriculum. Nunavut Department of Education, Curriculum and School Services Division.

Pardo-de-Santayana, M., and M. J. Macía. 2015. Biodiversity: the benefits of traditional knowledge. Nature 518(7540):487-488. https://doi.org/10.1038/518487a

Pezzanite, B. 2003. The foraging behavior of Lesser Snow Geese and Ross’s Geese on La Pérouse Bay. City University of New York, New York, USA.

Prevett, J. P., I. F. Marshall, and V. G. Thomas. 1979. Fall foods of Lesser Snow Geese in the James Bay Region. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(3):736-742. https://doi.org/10.2307/3808752

Richards, J. M., and A. J. Gaston. 2018. Birds of Nunavut. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Rockwell, R. F., L. J. Gormezano, and D. N. Koons. 2011. Trophic matches and mismatches: Can polar bears reduce the abundance of nesting Snow Geese in western Hudson Bay? Oikos 120(5):696-709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18837.x

Ross, M. V., R. T. Alisauskas, D. C. Douglas, D. K. Kellett, and K. L. Drake. 2018. Density-dependent and phenological mismatch effects on growth and survival in Lesser Snow and Ross’s goslings. Journal of Avian Biology 49(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01748

Ryder, J. P., and R. T. Alisauskas. 1995. Ross’s Goose (Chen rossii). Number 162 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA.

Sammler, J. E., D. E. Andersen, and S. K. Skagen. 2008. Population trends of tundra-nesting birds at Cape Churchill Manitoba, in relation to increasing goose populations. Condor 110(2):325-334. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2008.8438

Service, C. N., M. S. Adams, K. A. Artelle, P. Paquet, L. V. Grant, and C. T. Darimont. 2014. Indigenous knowledge and science unite to reveal spatial and temporal dimensions of distributional shift in wildlife of conservation concern. PLoS ONE 9(7):e101595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101595

Smith, P. A., K. H. Elliott, A. J. Gaston, and H. G. Gilchrist. 2010. Has early ice clearance increased predation on breeding birds by polar bears? Polar Biology 33(8):1149-1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-010-0791-2

Statistics Canada. 2016. Census profile, 2016. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

Statistics Canada. 2021. Census profile, 2021 census of population. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

Tomaselli, M., D. A. Henri, Pangnirtung Hunters and Trappers Organization, Mayukalik Hunters and Trappers Organization, N. Akavak, D. Kanayuk, R. Kanayuk, P. Pitsiulak, P. Wong, E. S. Richardson, and M. Dyck. 2022. Nunavut Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit on the health of the Davis Strait polar bear population.

Tugend, C. 2017. Effects of geese and caribou on nutrient and carbon cycling in southwest Greenland. Thesis. University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA.

Webber, Q. M. R., K. M. Ferraro, J. G. Hendrix, and E. Vander Wal. 2022. What do caribou eat? A review of the literature on caribou diet. Canadian Journal of Zoology 100(3):197-207. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2021-0162

Weegman, M. D., R. T. Alisauskas, D. K. Kellett, Q. Zhao, S. Wilson, and T. Telenský. 2022. Local population collapse of Ross’s and Lesser Snow Geese driven by failing recruitment and diminished philopatry. Oikos 2022(5):e09184. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.09184

Wilson, S. D., R. T. Alisauskas, and D. K. Kellett. 2016. Factors influencing emigration of Ross’s and Snow Geese from an Arctic breeding area. Journal of Wildlife Management 80:117-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.960

Yua, E., J. Raymond-Yakoubian, R. Aluaq Daniel, and C. Behe. 2022. A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecology and Society 27(1):34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12960-270134

Xiao, K., Z. Lu, J. Wang, and M. Cai. 2023. 52 organic pesticides in feathers of three species of migratory birds overwintering in the Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Indicators 149:110164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110164