Using novel spatial mark–resight techniques to monitor resident Canada geese in a suburban environment

Rutledge, M. Elizabeth; Sollmann, Rachel; Washburn, Brian E.; Moorman, Christopher E.; DePerno, Christopher S.

doi:10.1071/wr14069

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Resighting can be carried out using area searches (e.g. Rutledge, Sollmann, Washburn, Moorman, & DePerno, ) or with passive detectors such as camera traps (e.g. Sollmann, Gardner, Chandler, et al., ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalized spatial mark–resight models with an application to grizzly bears

Whittington

Hebblewhite

Chandler

2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract1. The high cost associated with capture-recapture studies presents a major challenge when monitoring and managing wildlife populations. Recently developed spatial mark-resight (SMR) models were proposed as a cost-effective alternative because they only require a single marking event. However, existing SMR models ignore the marking process and make the tenuous assumption that marked and unmarked populations have the same encounter probabilities. This assumption will be violated in most situations because the marking process results in different spatial distributions of marked and unmarked animals.2. We developed a generalized SMR model that includes sub-models for the marking and resighting processes, thereby relaxing the assumption that marked and unmarked populations have the same spatial distributions and encounter probabilities.3. Our simulation study demonstrated that conventional SMR models produce biased density estimates with low credible interval coverage (CIC) when marked and unmarked animals had differing spatial distributions. In contrast, generalized SMR models produced unbiased density estimates with correct CIC in all scenarios.4. We applied our SMR model to grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) data where the marking process occurred along a transportation route through Banff and Yoho National Parks, Canada. Twenty-two grizzly bears were trapped, fitted with radiocollars and then detected along with unmarked bears on 214 remote cameras. Closed population density estimates (posterior median ± 1 SD) averaged from 2012 to 2014 were much lower for conventional SMR models (7.4 ± 1.0 bears per 1,000 km 2 ) than for generalized SMR models (12.4 ± 1.5). When compared to previous DNA-based estimates, conventional SMR estimates erroneously suggested a 51% decline in density. Conversely, generalized SMR estimates were similar to previous estimates, indicating that the grizzly bear population was relatively stable. Synthesis and applications.Mark-resight studies often cost less than capture-recapture studies, but require that marked and unmarked animals have equal encounter rates. Generalized spatial mark-resight models relax this assumption by including sub-models for both the marking and resighting processes. They produce unbiased density estimates even when marked and unmarked animals have differing spatialThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalized spatial mark–resight models with an application to grizzly bears

Whittington

Hebblewhite

Chandler

2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resident Canada geese have high survival rates in suburban areas because of ample resources (e.g., water bodies and open areas of grass) and protection from natural predators (McCoy 2000, Rutledge et al 2015. The adaptability of geese to human-dominated environments and opposition to lethal management have made efforts to control goose populations difficult (Ankney 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of resident Canada goose movements to reduce the risk of goose‐aircraft collisions at suburban airports

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resident (non‐migratory) Canada goose (Branta canadensis) populations in suburban environments pose risks to human health and safety. Specifically, the relatively large size and gregarious behavior of geese combined with an overlap in aircraft flight space pose substantial risk of property damage and human fatalities from goose‐aircraft collisions. We estimated home range and core use areas of resident Canada geese and evaluated goose movements to better define the risk of goose‐aircraft collisions around Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, USA. We placed satellite transmitters on 16 of 763 neck‐ and leg‐banded geese to identify and track individuals over an 18‐month study period. The frequency of satellite‐tagged goose movements peaked daily within the first 2 hours after sunrise (28.1%) and again near sunset (27.2%). All in‐flight goose movements occurred ≤64 m above ground level. Geese flying at these altitudes posed a risk to aircraft in the take‐off and landing phases of flight. For all in‐flight movements, the number of movements per day was 0.13 during the molt (1 Jun–15 Jul), 0.42 during early post‐molt 2008 (16 Jul–31 Oct), 0.36 during late post‐molt (1 Nov–31 Jan), 0.58 during breeding/nesting (1 Feb–31 May), and 0.58 during the early post‐molt 2009. Satellite‐tagged geese traveled a mean distance ranging from 2.0 km (SE = 0.3) to 4.9 km (SE = 0.4) per day, depending on sex and season, which supports the need for intensive goose management within a minimum distance of 8 km from airports. Mean fixed 95% kernel home range and 50% core use area were 991.8 ha (SE = 241.1) and 120.4 ha (SE = 24.6), respectively. Additionally, we monitored site recolonization of nuisance geese after the controlled removal of 60 resident geese from 1 site, which eliminated 24.2% of those initially banded at the site in 2008, but other geese began to recolonize the site within 27 days. Rapid recolonization of the removal site suggests that lethal removal should be conducted at all molt locations within a minimum distance of 8 km of suburban airports and any additional removal or management resources should be applied to greater distances to prevent recolonization of these sites by geese in close proximity to the removal site. Published 2015. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

show abstract

“…We did not limit time of day the plot surveys were completed, because visibility of geese is similar throughout the day (Heusmann and Sauer ). Similarly, Rutledge et al () showed that satellite‐tagged geese had relatively constant movement probabilities during daylight hours during the breeding–nesting period.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 91%

A comparison of field methods to estimate Canada goose abundance

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a 2-year study (2014)(2015) in North Carolina, USA, to compare precision and efficiency between 2 methods used to estimate Canada goose (Branta canadensis) abundance. The first method (i.e., band-return estimation) used hunter band-returns and harvest estimates. The second (i.e., plot survey) used surveys of 1-km 2 plots randomly located across potential goose habitat in the state. To quantify efficiency, we recorded all expenses and time dedicated to goose banding and plot surveys. In June 2014, we banded 2,102 adult geese at 44 sites. During the 2014-2015 hunting season, we received 173 direct band recoveries from birds banded as adults. We used the Lincoln-Peterson formula to calculate an abundance estimate of 148,839 (coeff. of variation ¼ 7.9) and determined the band-return method required US $72,858 and 2,317 person-hours to complete. We surveyed 300 1-km 2 plots across North Carolina in April 2015, and calculated an abundance estimate of 155,655 Canada geese (coeff. of variation ¼ 308.9). We determined the plot-survey method required US $80,767 and 2,857 person-hours to complete. Although population estimates were similar, we recommend the band-return technique to estimate Canada goose abundance because it provided a more precise estimate with similar overall costs and, if continued for multiple years, will allow calculation of additional population metrics including survival, recovery rates, and harvest distributions. Ó 2017 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Using novel spatial mark–resight techniques to monitor resident Canada geese in a suburban environment

Cited by 7 publications

References 22 publications

Generalized spatial mark–resight models with an application to grizzly bears

Generalized spatial mark–resight models with an application to grizzly bears

Evaluation of resident Canada goose movements to reduce the risk of goose‐aircraft collisions at suburban airports

A comparison of field methods to estimate Canada goose abundance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About