2023
DOI: 10.1071/wr22046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do high recapture rates indicate representative sampling? The relationship between recapture probability, risk-taking, and personality

Abstract: Monitoring programs provide valuable information on wildlife populations, thereby underpinning strategies for conservation and control. For threatened species, where every animal represents a substantial portion of the population, representative sampling is vital. One fundamental challenge during sampling is understanding drivers of survey bias; for instance, behavioural heterogeneity in trap response. Methods such as capture-mark-recapture have long been used to estimate capture and recapture heterogeneity; y… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 45 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results did suggest that the cumulative capture count did not have any significant impact on docility in any of our three species. However, we did find a weak positive correlation between cumulative capture count and exploration most prominently observed in deer mice, such that, individuals that were more likely to be captured, were more likely to be highly explorative in the Open Field Test, a commonly reported result (Johnstone et al, 2023;Boon et al, 2008;Boyer et al, 2010;Carter et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…Our results did suggest that the cumulative capture count did not have any significant impact on docility in any of our three species. However, we did find a weak positive correlation between cumulative capture count and exploration most prominently observed in deer mice, such that, individuals that were more likely to be captured, were more likely to be highly explorative in the Open Field Test, a commonly reported result (Johnstone et al, 2023;Boon et al, 2008;Boyer et al, 2010;Carter et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 49%