# Are the Jameson Land muskoxen, Northeast Greenland, in decline?

Nicolas Gaidet, Tanguy Daufresne

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Nicolas Gaidet, Tanguy Daufresne. Are the Jameson Land muskoxen, Northeast Greenland, in decline?. Rangifer, 2019, 39 (1), pp.59-68. 10.7557/2.39.1.4424. hal-05179817

HAL Id: hal-05179817

https://hal.science/hal-05179817v1

Submitted on 23 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Are the Jameson Land muskoxen, Northeast Greenland, in decline?

Nicolas Gaidet<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> & Tanguy Daufresne<fnref n="3" />

*Abstract:* The 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 observations 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. The few muskoxen observed and poor calf production suggest population decline. We briefly discuss possible factors that could influence muskox mortality and population abundance. Surveys specific 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 Canada, and to northern and north-eastern Greenland (Gunn & Forchhammer, 2008). After extirpation 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 & Forchhammer, 2008). In addition, translocations or reintroductions have been successfully conducted

in Alaska, West Greenland, Norway and Russia. 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

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹CIRAD, UPR GREEN, F-34398 Montpellier, France (Corresponding author: nicolas.gaidet-drapier@cirad.fr).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²CIRAD, UMR ASTRE, F-34398 Montpellier, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³INRA, UMR 210 Eco & Sols, Montpellier, France.</footnote>
ascertained 1,705 muskoxen in Jameson Land (Ingerslev, 2000). Thereafter, no further late winter surveys occurred. However, there have been two summer bird surveys covering a large part of the Jameson Land (Figure 1). These recorded 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. Nevertheless, 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

The 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). The Jameson Land has been described in detail by Aastrup & Mosbech (2000). Most of the peninsula is a relatively flat plateau with maximum elevations of 500-600 m. Yearly mean temperatures are -6°C to -10°C, with a mean annual precipitation of 400 mm/year (Aastrup & Mosbech, 2000). The vegetation is characterised by moist dwarf scrub heath, which is excellent forage for muskoxen. Most of the plateau is even or moderately 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 investigate bird flu among geese in the period 21 July to 4 August 2016. We walked through

the following subareas of Jameson Land (Figure 1): Gurreholm plain, lower Schuchert Dal valley, Ranunkel Dal valley, Colorado Dal valley, and the upper Ørsted Dal valley (Gaidet *et al.*, 2018). We walked approximately 230 km. From vantage points of higher elevation (hilltops or hillsides), we observed muskoxen by using binoculars (10x) and telescopes (20-60x). We also observed muskox carcasses, i.e., those with flesh and hair, and described their state of decomposition. During the entire survey period, 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 muskoxen, which would overestimate the number of muskoxen observed. Underestimating muskox number could have occurred for two reasons. First, we were unable to differentiate 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.

Thanks to David Boertmann (Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University, Denmark) we had access to all incidental muskox observations obtained during the 2008 and 2009 unsystematic aerial bird surveys of the Jameson Land region. We present these muskox locations and group sizes beside our 2016 results in figure 1 and use both for discussions in relation to the 1982-1990 muskox surveys by Aastrup & Mosbech (2000).
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>1a</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>1b</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>1c</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>1d</figcaption></figure>

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).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
## Results

In July 2016, we recorded a total of 138 individuals, including eight calves. Hence, calves represented 5.8% of the total number of individuals 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 valley and 12 in upper Orsted Dal valley (Figure 1). We sighted one individual only in the Gurrehholm 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. The median 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 occurrences 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 majority of muskoxen in northeastern Greenland (Boertmann *et al.*, 1992; Boertmann & Nielsen, 2010). Available data suggest that the Jameson Land population fluctuated 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><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

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.
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 fluctuation, 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 configura-
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. Third, 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
reflects 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). The 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 population of Jameson Land (Hansen et al. 2012). Further, our total of 108 individuals that we recorded in the Colorado Dal strata (which 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, respectively (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). This may have influenced 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 individuals, 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
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>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.</figcaption></figure>

calf percentage if sustained over several years would cause population decline. Further, our low calf productivity indicates possible fecundity or nutritional problems.

We recorded 12 relatively “fresh” carcasses (still covered with dry flesh 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, combined with our inability to ascertain the year of death, a quantitative evaluation of an annual mortality rate from our carcass count is inappropriate. Nevertheless, in light of the 12 adult carcasses observed in 2016, this suggests that increased mortality may also be influencing the low calf production that year. The observed low
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 off 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 affect 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, harvest 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 reflect 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 influence 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., 2014;
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. The 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 confirm 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

The field operation was conducted in the frame-
work of the Lost Worlds project “Expédition
RENLAND” organized by Nature Evolution
who provided transport and logistic support.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
A Survey Licence (number G16-058) was obtained under the authority of the Government of Greenland. We are grateful to David Boertmann 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 Annelise Tran (Cirad) for assistance in satellite image processing before and after the field survey.

## References

Aastrup, P. 2003. Muskox site fidelity 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. Biologiske beskyttelsesområder i Nationalparkområdet, Nordog Østgrønland. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet. 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. Distribution and abundance of muskoxen (*Ovibos 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

zonation of Greenland in relevance to a circumpolar 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 Record* 41: 125–129.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0032247404004127

Blake, J.E., McLean, B.D. & Gunn, A. 1991. Yersiniosis in free-ranging muskoxen on Banks Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. — *Journal of Wildlife Diseases* 27(4): 527-533.
https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-27.4.527

Boertmann, D., Forchhammer, M., Olesen, C.R., Aastrup, P. & Thing, H. 1992. The Greenland muskox population status 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 Northeast 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 occurrence of muskoxen, *Ovibos moschatus* in Labrador. — *The Canadian Field-Naturalist* 121(1): 81-84.
https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v12i1.398

Forchhammer, M. & Boertmann, D. 1993. The muskoxen *Ovibos moschatus* in north and northeast Greenland: population trends and the influence of abiotic parameters on population dynamics. — *Ecography* 16(4): 299-308.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1993.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,
Q., Daufresne, T. & Manuguerra, J.C. 2018. Avian Influenza 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/44.2.109

Kutz, S., Bollinger, T., Branigan, M., Checkley, S., Davison, T., et al. 2015. Ery- sipelothrix rhusiopathiae associated with re- cent widespread muskox mortalities in the Canadian Arctic. — *The Canadian Veteri- nary Journal* 56(6): 560.

Lent, 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 21st 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 received 20 March 2018*
*revision accepted 5 November 2019*
*manuscript published 3 December 2019*

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>