Cargando…

Band reporting rates of waterfowl: does individual heterogeneity bias estimated survival rates?

In capture–recapture studies, the estimation accuracy of demographic parameters is essential to the efficacy of management of hunted animal populations. Dead recovery models based upon the reporting of rings or bands are often used for estimating survival of waterfowl and other harvested species. Ho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: White, Gary C, Cordes, Line S, Arnold, Todd W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24324871
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.791
_version_ 1782294648428953600
author White, Gary C
Cordes, Line S
Arnold, Todd W
author_facet White, Gary C
Cordes, Line S
Arnold, Todd W
author_sort White, Gary C
collection PubMed
description In capture–recapture studies, the estimation accuracy of demographic parameters is essential to the efficacy of management of hunted animal populations. Dead recovery models based upon the reporting of rings or bands are often used for estimating survival of waterfowl and other harvested species. However, distance from the ringing site or condition of the bird may introduce substantial individual heterogeneity in the conditional band reporting rates (r), which could cause bias in estimated survival rates (S) or suggest nonexistent individual heterogeneity in S. To explore these hypotheses, we ran two sets of simulations (n = 1000) in MARK using Seber's dead recovery model, allowing time variation on both S and r. This included a series of heterogeneity models, allowing substantial variation on logit(r), and control models with no heterogeneity. We conducted simulations using two different values of S: S = 0.60, which would be typical of dabbling ducks such as mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), and S = 0.80, which would be more typical of sea ducks or geese. We chose a mean reporting rate on the logit scale of −1.9459 with SD = 1.5 for the heterogeneity models (producing a back-transformed mean of 0.196 with SD = 0.196, median = 0.125) and a constant reporting rate for the control models of 0.196. Within these sets of simulations, estimation models where σ(S) = 0 and σ(S) > 0 (σ(S) is SD of individual survival rates on the logit scale) were incorporated to investigate whether real heterogeneity in r would induce apparent individual heterogeneity in S. Models where σ(S) = 0 were selected approximately 91% of the time over models where σ(S) > 0. Simulation results showed < 0.05% relative bias in estimating survival rates except for models estimating σ(S) > 0 when true S = 0.8, where relative bias was a modest 0.5%. These results indicate that considerable variation in reporting rates does not cause major bias in estimated survival rates of waterfowl, further highlighting the robust nature of dead recovery models that are being used for the management of harvested species.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3853565
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38535652013-12-09 Band reporting rates of waterfowl: does individual heterogeneity bias estimated survival rates? White, Gary C Cordes, Line S Arnold, Todd W Ecol Evol Original Research In capture–recapture studies, the estimation accuracy of demographic parameters is essential to the efficacy of management of hunted animal populations. Dead recovery models based upon the reporting of rings or bands are often used for estimating survival of waterfowl and other harvested species. However, distance from the ringing site or condition of the bird may introduce substantial individual heterogeneity in the conditional band reporting rates (r), which could cause bias in estimated survival rates (S) or suggest nonexistent individual heterogeneity in S. To explore these hypotheses, we ran two sets of simulations (n = 1000) in MARK using Seber's dead recovery model, allowing time variation on both S and r. This included a series of heterogeneity models, allowing substantial variation on logit(r), and control models with no heterogeneity. We conducted simulations using two different values of S: S = 0.60, which would be typical of dabbling ducks such as mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), and S = 0.80, which would be more typical of sea ducks or geese. We chose a mean reporting rate on the logit scale of −1.9459 with SD = 1.5 for the heterogeneity models (producing a back-transformed mean of 0.196 with SD = 0.196, median = 0.125) and a constant reporting rate for the control models of 0.196. Within these sets of simulations, estimation models where σ(S) = 0 and σ(S) > 0 (σ(S) is SD of individual survival rates on the logit scale) were incorporated to investigate whether real heterogeneity in r would induce apparent individual heterogeneity in S. Models where σ(S) = 0 were selected approximately 91% of the time over models where σ(S) > 0. Simulation results showed < 0.05% relative bias in estimating survival rates except for models estimating σ(S) > 0 when true S = 0.8, where relative bias was a modest 0.5%. These results indicate that considerable variation in reporting rates does not cause major bias in estimated survival rates of waterfowl, further highlighting the robust nature of dead recovery models that are being used for the management of harvested species. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2013-10 2013-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3853565/ /pubmed/24324871 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.791 Text en © 2013 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.
spellingShingle Original Research
White, Gary C
Cordes, Line S
Arnold, Todd W
Band reporting rates of waterfowl: does individual heterogeneity bias estimated survival rates?
title Band reporting rates of waterfowl: does individual heterogeneity bias estimated survival rates?
title_full Band reporting rates of waterfowl: does individual heterogeneity bias estimated survival rates?
title_fullStr Band reporting rates of waterfowl: does individual heterogeneity bias estimated survival rates?
title_full_unstemmed Band reporting rates of waterfowl: does individual heterogeneity bias estimated survival rates?
title_short Band reporting rates of waterfowl: does individual heterogeneity bias estimated survival rates?
title_sort band reporting rates of waterfowl: does individual heterogeneity bias estimated survival rates?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24324871
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.791
work_keys_str_mv AT whitegaryc bandreportingratesofwaterfowldoesindividualheterogeneitybiasestimatedsurvivalrates
AT cordeslines bandreportingratesofwaterfowldoesindividualheterogeneitybiasestimatedsurvivalrates
AT arnoldtoddw bandreportingratesofwaterfowldoesindividualheterogeneitybiasestimatedsurvivalrates