Proportion of Recovered Duck Bands That Are Reported

Martinson, R.K.

doi:10.2307/3797812

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our analysis confirmed that the most important source of variation was a rapid increase in reporting probability in the years immediately following the 1996 adoption of toll‐free (1‐800) telephone numbers on band inscriptions (Royle and Garrettson ). Other previously identified sources of variation confirmed by our meta‐analysis included evidence of higher reporting for a few species of highly regarded trophy ducks (Geis and Atwood , Martinson ) and lower reporting for waterfowl harvested in eastern Canada (Zimmerman et al , Boomer et al , Garrettson et al ). We also documented higher estimates of reporting probability for studies using data from the waterfowl harvest or Parts Collection surveys (Geis and Atwood , Padding and Royle ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

“…We originally hoped to treat species as a random effect, thereby allowing species‐specific estimates for all species providing data, but there have been relatively few multi‐species studies (Geis and Atwood , Martinson , Zimmerman et al , Garrettson et al ) and preliminary modeling efforts resulted in poor convergence. We therefore assessed potential species effects by contrasting ducks versus geese (Martinson , Martinson and McCann ), and by recognizing northern pintails ( Anas acuta ), canvasbacks ( Aythya valisineria ), and redheads ( Aythya americana ) as trophy ducks based on findings by Geis and Atwood (: table 4) and Martinson (: table 3).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We suspect that harvest survey methods may overestimate band reporting probabilities because surveyed hunters may be reluctant to report that they harvested banded birds if they failed to report those bands to the Bird Banding Laboratory. Nevertheless, this method provides some of the only available data during the interval between the reward‐band studies of Bellrose () and Henny and Burnham (), and it also provides estimates for species other than mallards (Geis and Atwood , Martinson ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Meta‐Analysis of Band Reporting Probabilities for North American Waterfowl

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of band reporting is important for converting band encounter data into estimates of harvest probabilities, which can then be used to assess harvest management goals or estimate population size and other vital rates. Historical estimates of band reporting probabilities have come from reward‐band studies or joint analysis of band recovery and harvest survey data, but there are long gaps between estimates, and most studies have focused exclusively on mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). We compiled 337 estimates of band reporting probabilities for North American waterfowl and conducted a Bayesian state‐space analysis to provide a continuous time series of estimated reporting probability from 1948 to 2010. Band reporting probability increased sharply between 1996 and 2000 when toll‐free phone numbers were added to band inscriptions and agencies implemented electronic methods for band reporting, but our analysis also identified gradual long‐term trends in reporting probability throughout the time series. We found little evidence for among‐species variation in reporting probability, but a few species that are widely regarded as trophies by waterfowl hunters (canvasbacks [Aythya valisineria], redheads [Aythya americana], and northern pintails [Anas acuta]) had higher historical reporting probabilities than mallards. We also found little evidence of geographic variation in reporting probabilities, although we confirmed lower reporting probabilities for eastern Canada. We recommend using our estimates of band reporting probabilities and their variances as informed priors in future analyses of band recovery data to fully embrace uncertainty about how this parameter affects estimates of other population parameters. Retrospective studies using parts collection data are needed to explore potential among‐species variation in reporting probabilities during recent decades. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Meta‐Analysis of Band Reporting Probabilities for North American Waterfowl

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We showed earlier that in some geographic areas, bands were less likely to be reported than in others. Similar biases in reporting of waterfowl bands have been considered by Bell rose ( 1955), Geis and Atwood ( 1961), Martinson ( 1966), and Martinson and McCann (1%6). The seasonal pattern of recoveries ( Fig.…”

Section: Band Reporting Biasessupporting

confidence: 73%

Structure of the New England Herring Gull Population

Kadlec¹,

Drury²

1968

Ecology

202

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.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology.In the present study, however, this species overwintered in several instars excluding the ultimate stage. Such "summer species," according to Corbet's definition, do not have a final instar diapause, though it is inferred that a diapause may occur in an earlier stage(s). This study does not clearly show if there were diapausing stages in the later instars of L. eurinus.The results obtained clearly show that both temperature and photoperioAi were involved in seasonal regulation by influencing the rate of larval development and by inferring a degree of synchrony to molting and emergence. Both factors were operative, but their combined influence was most instrumental in controlling larval development. This combined effect was further complicated by changing responses due to maturation of larvae in nature during the winter months. Temperature, photoperiod, and degree of maturity of odonate larvae should be the object of further studies to more clearly elucidate their separate and combined effects on seasonal regulation. ACK NOWLEDGMENTS

show abstract

“…Bellrose 1955, Tomlinson 1968, Henny and Burnham 1976, Reeves 1979, Conroy and Blandin 1984, Nichols et al 1991). Furthermore, questionnaires and active surveys of hunters can provide information on reporting probabilities (Geis and Atwood 1961, Martinson 1966, Martinson and McCann 1966). However, these methods require an enormous effort and they do not give information about reporting probabilities for non‐hunted species.…”

Section: Approach 1 Direct Measurement Of Re‐encounter Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the analysis of movement data from marked individuals through explicit estimation of observer heterogeneity

Korner‐Nievergelt¹,

Sauter²,

Atkinson³

et al. 2010

Journal of Avian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ring re‐encounter data, in particular ring recoveries, have made a large contribution to our understanding of bird movements. However, almost every study based on ring re‐encounter data has struggled with the bias caused by unequal observer distribution. Re‐encounter probabilities are strongly heterogeneous in space and over time. If this heterogeneity can be measured or at least controlled for, the enormous number of ring re‐encounter data collected can be used effectively to answer many questions. Here, we review four different approaches to account for heterogeneity in observer distribution in spatial analyses of ring re‐encounter data. The first approach is to measure re‐encounter probability directly. We suggest that variation in ring re‐encounter probability could be estimated by combining data whose re‐encounter probabilities are close to one (radio or satellite telemetry) with data whose re‐encounter probabilities are low (ring re‐encounter data). The second approach is to measure the spatial variation in re‐encounter probabilities using environmental covariates. It should be possible to identify powerful predictors for ring re‐encounter probabilities. A third approach consists of the comparison of the actual observations with all possible observations using randomization techniques. We encourage combining such randomisations with ring re‐encounter models that we discuss as a fourth approach. Ring re‐encounter models are based on the comparison of groups with equal re‐encounter probabilities. Together these four approaches could improve our understanding of bird movements considerably. We discuss their advantages and limitations and give directions for future research.

show abstract

Proportion of Recovered Duck Bands That Are Reported

Cited by 12 publications

References 4 publications

A Meta‐Analysis of Band Reporting Probabilities for North American Waterfowl

A Meta‐Analysis of Band Reporting Probabilities for North American Waterfowl

Structure of the New England Herring Gull Population

Improving the analysis of movement data from marked individuals through explicit estimation of observer heterogeneity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About