Content uploaded by Nicolas Gaidet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicolas Gaidet on Feb 07, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Editor in Chief: Birgitta Åhman, Technical Editor: Eva Wiklund and Graphic Design: H-G Olofsson, www.rangiferjournal.com 59
Rangifer, 39, (1) 2019
Brief Communication
Are the Jameson Land muskoxen, Northeast Greenland, in decline?
Nicolas Gaidet1,2 & Tanguy Daufresne3
1 CIRAD, UPR GREEN, F-34398 Montpellier, France (Corresponding author: nicolas.gaidet-drapier@cirad.fr).
2 CIRAD, UMR ASTRE, F-34398 Montpellier, France.
3 INRA, UMR 210 Eco & Sols, Montpellier, France.
Abstract: e Jameson Land region contains the largest muskox population in Northeast Greenland. In the period 1980-
1990, late winter population size averaged 3,645. A late winter 2000 survey estimated ca. 1,705 muskoxen. Although
no further late winter surveys for muskox abundance have occurred since, there have been two summer bird surveys,
which recorded incidental observations of muskoxen, i.e., 607 in 2008 and 610 in 2009. We report on muskox obser-
vations obtained in a subarea of Jameson Land during the summer 2016 ground survey for birds. Although in the 1982-
2000 period this subarea averaged 1,153 ± 346 muskoxen, we observed 138 individuals and a low calf number. e few
muskoxen observed and poor calf production suggest population decline. We briey discuss possible factors that could
inuence muskox mortality and population abundance. Surveys specic to muskoxen are necessary to ascertain current
population abundance, demographics and trend.
Key words: abundance; decline; demographics; muskox; Ovibos; recruitment; survey.
Rangifer, 39, (1), 2019: 59-68
DOI 10.7557/2.39.1.4424
Introduction
Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) are endemic to
the Northwest Territories and Nunavut in Can-
ada, and to northern and north-eastern Green-
land (Gunn & Forchhammer, 2008). After ex-
tirpation from large parts of its former range
during the 19th and 20th centuries, the species
has spontaneously recovered part of its range in
the circumpolar region (Gunn & Forchham-
mer, 2008). In addition, translocations or re-
introductions have been successfully conducted
in Alaska, West Greenland, Norway and Rus-
sia. Jameson Land, in north-eastern Greenland,
is a stronghold for muskoxen (Boertmann et
al., 1992). In the period 1982 to 1990, in late
winter, muskoxen were monitored annually in
Jameson Land by unsystematic aerial counts.
Numbers averaged 3,645 ± 617 muskoxen,
with a maximum of 4,679 and a minimum of
2,871 (Aastrup & Mosbech, 2000). A decade
later, in 2000 a further late winter aerial survey
Rangifer, 39, (1) 2019
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Editor in Chief: Birgitta Åhman, Technical Editor: Eva Wiklund and Graphic Design: H-G Olofsson, www.rangiferjournal.com
60
ascertained 1,705 muskoxen in Jameson Land
(Ingerslev, 2000). ereafter, no further late
winter surveys occurred. However, there have
been two summer bird surveys covering a large
part of the Jameson Land (Figure 1). ese re-
corded incidental observations of muskoxen,
i.e., 607 in 2008 and 610 in 2009 (Glahder et
al., 2010; Boertmann & Nielsen, 2010). Albeit
these were surveys for birds and not muskoxen,
and that they were summer rather than late
winter surveys, the low numbers of muskoxen
observed suggests declining abundance. Nev-
ertheless, current status of the Jameson Land
muskox population is unknown.
In July 2016, we conducted a ground survey
for birds in a subarea of Jameson Land known
to contain a third of the total Jameson Land
muskox population in the 1980-1990 period
(Aastrup & Mosbech, 2000). Our observations
of muskox numbers and calf production are
discussed in light of the earlier suggestion of
muskox population decline on Jameson Land.
Material and methods
e Jameson Land is a vast peninsula of about
10,000 km², extending from 70°30’to 72°00’N
(Figure 1). It lies on the junction of the low
and high arctic zones (Bay, 1997). e Jameson
Land has been described in detail by Aastrup
& Mosbech (2000). Most of the peninsula is
a relatively at plateau with maximum eleva-
tions of 500-600 m. Yearly mean temperatures
are -6°C to -10°C, with a mean annual precipi-
tation of 400 mm/year (Aastrup & Mosbech,
2000). e vegetation is characterised by moist
dwarf scrub heath, which is excellent forage for
muskoxen. Most of the plateau is even or mod-
erately sloped, though intersected by numerous
rivers. Valleys are wide, relatively straight and
levelled, providing an opportunity to detect
large animals from a great distance.
We conducted a ground survey to inves-
tigate bird u among geese in the period 21
July to 4 August 2016. We walked through
the following subareas of Jameson Land (Fig-
ure 1): Gurreholm plain, lower Schuchert Dal
valley, Ranunkel Dal valley, Colorado Dal val-
ley, and the upper Ørsted Dal valley (Gaidet et
al.,2018). We walked approximately 230 km.
From vantage points of higher elevation (hill-
tops or hillsides), we observed muskoxen by us-
ing binoculars (10x) and telescopes (20-60x).
We also observed muskox carcasses, i.e., those
with esh and hair, and described their state of
decomposition. During the entire survey pe-
riod, dry weather prevailed and created optimal
conditions for detecting wildlife. GPS tracking
recorded our daily routes and animal locations,
which we plotted on a map (1:100,000). We
present our results in comparison to Aastrup &
Mosbech (2000).
Sources of error
Since our ground survey took two weeks at
walking speed, we recognize that there was
the possibility of double counting muskox-
en, which would overestimate the number of
muskoxen observed. Underestimating muskox
number could have occurred for two reasons.
First, we were unable to dierentiate one group
from another and group size was uniform and
small. Since we repeated walking routes, if new
groups appeared in a similar location to a group
of the same size from a previous day, we could
not recognize them as a new group. Secondly,
although the terrain was primarily open, terrain
features could hide muskoxen from view.
anks to David Boertmann (Arctic Re-
search Centre, Aarhus University, Denmark)
we had access to all incidental muskox obser-
vations obtained during the 2008 and 2009
unsystematic aerial bird surveys of the Jameson
Land region. We present these muskox loca-
tions and group sizes beside our 2016 results in
gure 1 and use both for discussions in relation
to the 1982-1990 muskox surveys by Aastrup
& Mosbech (2000).
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Editor in Chief: Birgitta Åhman, Technical Editor: Eva Wiklund and Graphic Design: H-G Olofsson, www.rangiferjournal.com 61
Rangifer, 39, (1) 2019
1a
1b
1d1c
Figure 1. Jameson Land region, illustrating routes flown (a) and observed muskox locations and group sizes (b)
recorded during unsystematic aerial bird survey, July 2008 (from Glahder et al., 2010). July 2016 walking routes
and censused area (c) and observed muskox locations and group sizes (d).
Rangifer, 39, (1) 2019
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Editor in Chief: Birgitta Åhman, Technical Editor: Eva Wiklund and Graphic Design: H-G Olofsson, www.rangiferjournal.com
62
Results
In July 2016, we recorded a total of 138 in-
dividuals, including eight calves. Hence, calves
represented 5.8% of the total number of indi-
viduals recorded. Our detection range varied
from less than 100m to ca. 3km. We observed
80 muskoxen in the Colorado Dal valley, 17
in lower Schuchert Dal valley, 16 in upper
Schuchert Dal valley, 12 in Ranunkel Dal val-
ley and 12 in upper Orsted Dal valley (Figure
1). We sighted one individual only in the Gur-
reholm area; however, there were tracks, wool
and old skulls.
Most individuals were observed in small
groups, with more than 70% of the sightings
consisting of 1 to 3 individuals (Figure 2).
Calves were sighted in only 4 groups. e me-
dian group size was 2 individuals.
We also observed 12 muskox carcasses: 3 in
the lower Schuchert Dal valley, 8 in Colorado
Dal valley, and 1 in upper Orsted Dal valley.
All were adults. In contrast to live animals, we
could detect carcasses at distances of only 100-
200m from our path. All were isolated occur-
rences and evidenced scavenging (Figure 3). We
did not observe wolves (Canis lupus) or wolf
tracks, but we found scats that appeared wolf-
like at two separate sites.
Discussion
Historically, Jameson Land contained the ma-
jority of muskoxen in northeastern Green-
land (Boertmann et al., 1992; Boertmann &
Nielsen, 2010). Available data suggest that the
Jameson Land population uctuated within
rather stable limits through the last century.
Although ‘guesstimates’, the population may
have been 3,000 animals in the early 1930s,
4,500 (including some adjacent areas) in 1945,
and 5,000 in 1969-1970 (Aastrup & Mosbech,
2000). Meanwhile, for the period 1982-1990,
late winter aerial surveys for muskox abun-
Figure 2. Summer group sizes of muskoxen in Jameson Land reported during the bird surveys of 2008 and 2009
(from Glahder et al., 2010) and our ground count in 2016.
0
10
20
30
40
123456-10 11-15 16-20 >20
% of groups recorded
Group size
2008
2009
2016
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Editor in Chief: Birgitta Åhman, Technical Editor: Eva Wiklund and Graphic Design: H-G Olofsson, www.rangiferjournal.com 63
Rangifer, 39, (1) 2019
dance in Jameson Land estimated an average
3,645 (± 617 SD) muskoxen (Aastrup & Mos-
bech, 2000). A similar aerial survey in 2000
estimated 1,705 muskoxen (Ingerslev, 2000),
which suggests decline. Alternately, it could
just be the result of natural uctuation, for
which causes are typically poorly understood
(Krebs, 2002). Nevertheless, summer bird sur-
veys conducted in 2008 and 2009 observed
relatively few muskoxen, albeit these surveys
were unsystematic, covered only a portion of
the region and were not designed to estimate
muskox abundance.
Overall, the detection probability of our
ground survey was high, given the congura-
tion of the landscape (levelled and open ter-
rain, low vegetation cover and detection dis-
tance >1km) and the regular use of vantage
points. Survey procedure, however, may have
introduced several biases impairing our count.
First, despite high visibility we cannot exclude
the possibility that terrain features may have
hidden some individuals, leading to an un-
derestimation. Second, because the duration
of the survey (over two-weeks), and of the low
travel speed, we cannot exclude the possibil-
ity of double counting, leading to an overes-
timation. Indeed, some individuals may have
moved between valleys during the time of the
survey, hence may have been counted twice on
subsequent days. Conversely, some individuals
may not have been counted because they were
found in a similar location and of similar group
size to a previous group at that location on a
previous day, hence not recognized as a new
group. ird, our survey covered only a small
portion of the entire Jameson Land region. We
cannot exclude the possibility that muskoxen
may have shifted their range in 2016. Regard-
less, we observed only 138 muskoxen, which
reects few animals in the areas surveyed.
Studies since 2000 suggest a decline in the
muskox population of Jameson Land during
the 2000-2010 decade (Ingerslev, 2000; Glah-
der et al., 2010; Boertmann & Nielsen, 2010).
e few muskoxen and the low number of large
groups (>5 individuals) recorded during our
ground survey support this suggestion. Earlier
studies indicated that the Colorado Dal area
hosts, at least during summer, the core popu-
lation of Jameson Land (Hansen et al. 2012).
Further, our total of 108 individuals that we re-
corded in the Colorado Dal strata (wich covers
the valleys Colorado Dal, Ranunkel Dal, and
Upper Schuchert Dal; see Aastrup & Mosbech,
2000) is markedly lower than the 241 and 266
individuals observed in 2008 and 2009, respec-
tively (Aastrup & Boertmann, 2009; Glahder et
al., 2010). Regarding group size, this is known
to vary across seasons, being larger in winter
and early spring (about 1.7 times larger) than
in summer (Heard, 1992). is may have inu-
enced the relatively small average group size we
observed in summer 2016. Our median group
of two muskoxen was similar to that reported in
the 2008 and 2009 aerial counts. However, we
had a lower proportion of large groups (>5 in-
dividuals, Fig. 2). Causes may include that the
2008-2009 aerial surveys’ bird observers were
better able to detect large groups of muskoxen
as opposed to small groups.
Our 2016 calf percentage (5.8%, calf age
< 5-months) is a low recruitment. Freeman
(1970) indicates that a percentage of 10.5%
late-winter calves (i.e. age almost 1-year) is re-
quired to balance natural mortality in muskox
populations. Our summer calf percentage was
already below this threshold, and the calves have
yet to survive to late winter. It was markedly
lower than the late-winter average of 18.4%
(min. 14.0%, max. 27.9%) recorded in Jame-
son Land during the 1982-1990 period (Aas-
trup & Mosbech, 2000), the 23.9% recorded
in West Greenland (Olesen, 1993), the 22.3%
in Labrador (Chubbs & Brazil, 2007)), and the
16%-22% in Ellesmere Island (Anderson &
Kingsley, 2017). Although calf percentages for
2000-2015 period are unknown, the low 2016
Rangifer, 39, (1) 2019
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Editor in Chief: Birgitta Åhman, Technical Editor: Eva Wiklund and Graphic Design: H-G Olofsson, www.rangiferjournal.com
64
calf percentage if sustained over several years
would cause population decline. Further, our
low calf productivity indicates possible fecun-
dity or nutritional problems.
We recorded 12 relatively “fresh” carcasses
(still covered with dry esh and hair but no
soft tissues, Figure 3) in 2016. More carcasses
were likely present. Given the lower detectabil-
ity of carcasses compared to live animals, com-
bined with our inability to ascertain the year of
death, a quantitative evaluation of an annual
mortality rate from our carcass count is inap-
propriate. Nevertheless, in light of the 12 adult
carcasses observed in 2016, this suggests that
increased mortality may also be inuencing the
low calf production that year. e observed low
Figure 3. Pictures of carcasses found in July 2016 in the lower Schuchert Dal valley (top)
and the Colorado Dal valley (bottom). Photos: T. Daufresne.
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Editor in Chief: Birgitta Åhman, Technical Editor: Eva Wiklund and Graphic Design: H-G Olofsson, www.rangiferjournal.com 65
Rangifer, 39, (1) 2019
reproductive success and possibly high mortal-
ity among adults could be the result of several
adverse factors including climatic conditions
restricting resource availability (Forchhammer
& Boertmann, 1993; Gunn & Forchhammer,
2008), overhunting (Lent, 1999; Bennike &
Andreasen, 2005), increased predation pres-
sure (Marquard-Pedersen, 1998), infectious
diseases (Blake et al., 1991; Kutz et al., 2004;
Kutz et al., 2015), and perhaps disturbance
from mineral exploration activities (Aastrup &
Mosbech, 2000).
In the past, winter forage availability for
muskoxen in Northeast Greenland was good
because ice drift o the coast prevented deep
snow or ice crust formation (Forchhammer
& Boertmann, 1993). Currently in North-
east Greenland, climate change will cause
warmer wetter winters, i.e., increased precipi-
tation and extreme weather events, that are
expected to negatively aect muskox popula-
tions by restricting forage availability through
more frequent icing and deeper snow (Gunn &
Forchhammer, 2008). Understanding the role
of abiotic factors on muskox populations will
require further studies.
In 1958, muskox hunting in Jameson Land
began with annual quotas allocated by the
Government of Greenland (Sandell & Sandell,
1998; Linnell et al., 2000). In the 1990s annual
quotas were ca. 200 muskoxen, however, har-
vest reporting was absent (Boertmann et al.,
1992; Linnell et al., 2000).
Recent quotas have been ca. 80 animals
(Hansen et al., 2012), which is 4.7% of the
population size (1705 individuals) estimated by
the aerial survey of muskoxen in 2000 (Inger-
slev, 2000), but may represent a much higher
percentage of the present population size. If 80
animals reect the actual harvest, it may con-
tribute to the population decline.
Although muskoxen dominate the diet
of Arctic wolves in north and north-eastern
Greenland (Marquard-Petersen, 1998), few are
present in Jameson Land (Hansen et al., 2012),
and we found no evidence of wolf presence. If
wolves are present in Jameson Land, their low
numbers and infrequent visits likely do not
negatively inuence muskox abundance (Aas-
trup, 2003).
Muskoxen are susceptible to a range of infec-
tious pathogens (Afema et al., 2017) and sever-
al are implicated in muskox population change
(Kutz et al., 2004; Handeland et al., 2 014;
Kutz et al., 2015). We found 12 adult carcasses
during our short survey. Yet, without investiga-
tion on pathology, we cannot conclude on the
respective role of nutritional limitation or dis-
ease on mortality.
In conclusion, we acknowledge our summer
2016 ground count of muskoxen had limita-
tions. However, the low number of individuals
recorded, combined with the low calf percent-
age and number of adult carcasses, suggest that
2016 was not a good year for the Jameson Land
muskox population and that the population
may be declining. Ascertaining the current
status for the Jameson Land muskox popula-
tion requires further investigations, including
assessment of abundance, health and demog-
raphy, as well as collaboration with hunters in
the Ittoqqortoormiit community. e latter
would provide valuable local knowledge on re-
cent trends in muskox abundance and distribu-
tion and could highlight general condition of
harvested muskoxen. If assessments and local
knowledge conrm a decline in the Jameson
Land muskox population, this could require
harvest management change and actions ap-
propriate to facilitating long-term sustainable
use of this muskox population as a secure food
source for the Ittoqqortoormiit community.
Acknowledgments
e eld operation was conducted in the frame-
work of the Lost Worlds project “Expédition
RENLAND” organized by Nature Evolution
who provided transport and logistic support.
Rangifer, 39, (1) 2019
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Editor in Chief: Birgitta Åhman, Technical Editor: Eva Wiklund and Graphic Design: H-G Olofsson, www.rangiferjournal.com
66
zonation of Greenland in relevance to a cir-
cumpolar arctic vegetation map: 27-31. In:
Walker, S. & Lillie, A.C. (Eds.). Proceedings
of the second circumpolar arctic vegetation
mapping workshop, Arendal, Norway, 19-
24. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr96251
Bennike, O. & Andreasen. C. 2005. New
dates of muskox (Ovibos moschatus) remains
from northwest Greenland. — Polar Re-
cord 41: 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s0032247404004127
Blake, J.E., McLean, B.D. & Gunn, A. 19 91.
Yersiniosis in free-ranging muskoxen on
Banks Island, Northwest Territories, Cana-
da. — Journal of Wildlife Diseases 27(4): 527-
533. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-
27.4.527
Boertmann, D., Forchhammer, M., Oles-
en, C.R., Aastrup, P. & Thing, H. 1992.
The Greenland muskox population sta-
tus 1990. — Rangifer 12: 5-12. https://doi.
org/10.7557/2.12.1.1013
Boertmann, D. & Nielsen, R.D. 2010. Geese,
seabirds and mammals in North and North-
east Greenland. Aerial surveys in summer
2009. National Environmental Research
Institute, Aarhus University. 66 pp. NERI
Technical Report No. 773.
Chubbs, T.E. & Brazil, J. 2007. The occur-
rence of muskoxen, Ovibos moschatus in
Labrador. — The Canadian Field-Naturalist
121(1): 81-84. https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.
v121i1.398
Forchhammer, M. & Boertmann, D.
1993. The muskoxen Ovibos moschatus in
north and northeast Greenland: popula-
tion trends and the inf luence of abiotic
parameters on population dynamics. —
Ecography 16(4): 299-308. https://doi.
or g/10.1111/j.160 0- 0 587.1993.tb00219.x
Freeman, M.M.R. 1970. Productivity studies
of high arctic muskoxen. — Arctic Circular
20: 58-65.
Gaidet, N., Leclercq, I., Batéjat, C., Grassin,
References
Aastrup, P. 2003. Muskox site delity and
group cohesion in Jameson Land, East
Greenland. — Polar Biology 27(1): 50-55.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-003-0565-
1
Aastrup, P. & Boertmann, D. 2009. Bi-
ologiske beskyttelsesområder i Nation-
alparkområdet, Nordog Østgrønland.
Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Uni-
versitet. 90 pp. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr.
729 (in Danish).
Aastrup, P. & Mosbech, A. 2000. Population
demography of the muskoxen in Jameson
Land, 1982-1990. — Rangifer 20(4): 229-
238. https://doi.org/10.7557/2.20.4.1518
Afema, J.A., Beckmen, K.B., Arthur, S.M.,
Huntington, K.B. & Mazet, J.A. 2017.
Disease complexity in a declining Alaskan
muskox (Ovibos moschatus) population. —
Journal of Wildlife Diseases 53(2): 311-329.
https://doi.org/10.7589/2016-02-035
Anderson, M. & Kingsley, M.C. 2017. Dis-
tribution and abundance of muskoxen (Ovi-
bos moschatus) and Peary caribou (Rangifer
tarandus pearyi) on Graham, Buckingham,
and southern Ellesmere islands, March
2015. — Rangifer 37(1): 97-114. https://
doi.org/10.7557/2.37.1.4269
Bay, C. 1997. Floristic division and vegetation
A Survey Licence (number G16-058) was ob-
tained under the authority of the Government
of Greenland. We are grateful to David Boert-
mann for sharing raw data from the 2008 and
2009 muskoxen count in the Jameson Land,
and for his comments and advises on an earlier
version of the manuscript. We also thank An-
nelise Tran (Cirad) for assistance in satellite im-
age processing before and after the eld survey.
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Editor in Chief: Birgitta Åhman, Technical Editor: Eva Wiklund and Graphic Design: H-G Olofsson, www.rangiferjournal.com 67
Rangifer, 39, (1) 2019
Q., Daufresne, T. & Manuguerra, J.C.
2018. Avian Inf luenza Virus Surveillance
in High Arctic Breeding Geese, Greenland.
— Avian diseases 62(2): 237-240. https://doi.
org/10.1637/11793-010418-resnote.1
Glahder, C.M., Boertmann, D., Madsen,
J., Tamstorf, M., Johansen, K., Hansen,
J., Walsh, A., Jaspers, C. & Bjerrum, M.
2010. Biological baseline study in the Ram-
sar site “Heden” and the entire Jameson
Land, East Greenland. National Environ-
mental Research Institute, Aarhus Univer-
sity. 86 p. NERI Technical Report no. 769.
Gunn, A. & Forchhammer, M. 2008. Ovibos
moschatus. The IUCN Red List of Threat-
ened Species 2008: e.T29684A86066477.
https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.uk.2008.rlts.
t29684a9526203.en
Handeland, K., Tengs, T., Kokotovic, B.,
Vikøren, T., Ayling, R.D., et al. 2014. My-
coplasma ovipneumoniae - A primary cause
of severe pneumonia epizootics in the Nor-
wegian muskox (Ovibos moschatus) popula-
tion. — PLoS One 9(9): e106116. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106116
Hansen, J., Asmund, G., Aastrup, P., Mos-
bech, A., Bay, C., Tamstorf, M. & Boert-
mann, D. 2012. Jameson Land. A strategic
environmental impact assessment of hydro-
carbon and mining activities. Aarhus Uni-
versity, Danish Centre for Environment and
Energy, 94 pp. Scientific Report No. 41.
Heard, D.C. 1992. The effect of wolf preda-
tion and snow cover on musk-ox group size.
— The American Naturalist 139(1): 190-204.
https://doi.org/10.1086/285320
Ingerslev, T. 2000. Feltrapport vedr. tællinger
af moskusokser i Jameson Land 6/4-10/4,
2000. Upublished field report, Grønlands
Naturinstitut. Greenland Institute of Natu-
ral Resources (in Danish).
Krebs, C.J. 2002. Beyond population regula-
tion and limitation. — Wildlife Research 29:
1-10.
Kutz, S. J., Hoberg, E. P., Nagy, J., Polley, L.
& Elkin, B. 2004. Emerging parasitic infec-
tions in arctic ungulates. — Integr. Comp.
Biol. 44: 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1093/
icb/4 4.2.109
Kutz, S., Bollinger, T., Branigan, M.,
Checkley, S., Davison, T., et al. 2 015. E r y -
sipelothrix rhusiopathiae associated with re-
cent widespread muskox mortalities in the
Canadian Arctic. — The Canadian Veteri-
nary Journal 56(6): 560.
Le n t , P.C . 1999. Muskoxen and their hunters:
A History. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 324 pp.
Linnell, J.D.C., Cuyler, C., Loison, A.,
Lund, P.M., Motzfeldt, K.G., Ingerslev,
T. & Landa, A. 2000. The scientific ba-
sic for managing the sustainable harvest of
caribou and muskoxen in Greenland for the
21th century: an evaluation and agenda.
Technical report no. 34, Pinngortitaleriffik,
Greenland Institute of Natural resources. 55
pp.
Marquard-Petersen, U. 1998. Food habits
of arctic wolves in Greenland. — Journal
of Mammalogy 79(1): 236-244. https://doi.
org /10.2307/1382859
Olesen, C.R. 1993. Rapid population increase
in an introduced muskox population, West
Greenland. — Rangifer 13(1): 27-32. https://
doi.org/10.7557/2.13.1.1069
Manuscript recieved 20 March 2018
revision accepted 5 November 2019
manuscript published 3 December 2019
