Influence of Neck Bands on Recovery and Survival Rates of Canada Geese

Samuel, Michael D.; Rusch, Donald H.; Craven, Scott R.

doi:10.2307/3808899

Cited by 41 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Testing for negative effects of neck collars, however, has been hampered by our and others' inability to follow a sample of alternatively marked birds to serve as an appropriate control group (but see Samuel et al 1990). An additional or alternate source of bias in mark-resight estimates of survival may be a consequence of philopatric behavior of migrating geese.…”

Section: Et Al 1983) Observed Increases In Feather Wear Beneath Colmentioning

confidence: 98%

Relative Effects of Survival and Reproduction on the Population Dynamics of Emperor Geese

Schmutz¹,

Rockwell²,

Petersen³

1997

The Journal of Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management.

show abstract

Section: Et Al 1983) Observed Increases In Feather Wear Beneath Colmentioning

confidence: 98%

Relative Effects of Survival and Reproduction on the Population Dynamics of Emperor Geese

Schmutz¹,

Rockwell²,

Petersen³

1997

The Journal of Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Survival probability is dependent upon the presence or not of the auxiliary mark. We allowed this distinction because auxiliary marks such as neckbands can sometimes increase mortality for some populations (Zicus, Schultz, and Cooper 1983;Samuel, Rusch, and Craven 1990;Alisauskas and Lindberg 2002).…”

Section: • S (T−1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Capture–Recapture Model with Double-Marking, Live and Dead Encounters, and Heterogeneity of Reporting Due to Auxiliary Mark Loss

Juillet

Choquet

Gauthier

et al. 2010

JABES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Capture-recapture (CR) models assume marked individuals remain at risk of capture, which may not be true if individuals lose their mark or emigrate definitively from the study area. Using a double-marking protocol, with a main and auxiliary mark, and both live encounters and dead recoveries at a large scale, partially frees CR models from this assumption. However, the auxiliary mark may fall off and its presence is often not mentioned when dead individuals are reported. We propose a new model to deal with heterogeneity of detection and uncertainty of the presence of an auxiliary mark in a multi-event framework. Our general model, based on a double-marking protocol, uses information from physical captures/recaptures, distant observations and main mark recoveries from dead animals. We applied our model to a 13-year data set of a harvested species, the Greater Snow Goose. We obtained seasonal survival estimates for adults of both sexes. Survival estimates differed between models where the presence of the auxiliary mark upon recovery was ignored versus those where the presence was accounted for. In the multi-event framework, seasonal survival estimates are no longer biased because the heterogeneity due to the presence of an auxiliary mark is accounted for in the estimation of recovery rates.Note: An illustration of the implementation of our model in E-SURGE is available online.

show abstract

“…With survival estimates from an independent source (that of capture-resighting, as recommended by Summers & Underhill 1991), annual population sizes can in turn be estimated. Ideally, data on the first autumn-to-autumn survival of juvenile birds should also be available because juvenile survival is typically lower than that of adult birds (Samuel et al 1990, Francis et al 1992, although the difference is less pronounced once the birds have reached the wintering areas. Because no juveniles were marked until their first spring (when they were about nine months old), these data are unavailable for Svalbard Pink-footed Geese, and we have to work with the simple assumption that autumn-to-autumn survival of first-year birds equals that of older birds.…”

Section: Estimation Of Population Size From Survival and Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our simplifying assumption that juvenile survival equals adult survival cannot explain the discrepancies because in the years of poor agreement between the methods the survival/productivity estimates are lower than the count estimates. If true juvenile survival is lower than adult survival (Samuel et al 1990, Francis et al 1992, this would lower the estimates even further (although it is likely that the differences would be minor: if, for instance, autumn-to-autumn survival of first-year birds was 80% of that of adults, the predicted population size for 1996 would be lowered by 4.7% or about 1600 birds, despite 1995 being the year with the highest proportion of juveniles in autumn). Thus, we cannot entirely resolve the problem that there is a good match between the two estimation methods in some years but not in others.…”

Section: Accuracy Of Estimates Based On Survival and Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%