Skip to main content

Contribution of Capture-Mark-Recapture Modeling to Studies of Evolution by Natural Selection

  • Chapter
Book cover Modeling Demographic Processes In Marked Populations

Part of the book series: Environmental and Ecological Statistics ((ENES,volume 3))

Abstract

Capture-Mark-Recapture (CMR) modeling is one of the most commonly used estimation methods in population ecology of wild animals. Until recently, much of the emphasis of this method was on the estimation of abundance and survival probability. Despite common interest in estimation of such demographic parameters, evolutionary ecologists have often been more critical of CMR estimation methods than wildlife biologists, mostly because the available models did not allow investigators to address what is at the heart of evolutionary ecology. Evolutionary ecology aims at explaining biological diversity: studies in this area of research necessarily involve assessment of variation in traits among individuals, including fitness components. The main limitation of early CMR models was the inability to handle states among which individuals move in a stochastic manner throughout life (e.g., breeding activity and number of offspring raised, locations, physiological states, etc.). Several important advances have enhanced ecologists' ability to address evolutionary hypotheses using CMR data; namely multistate models and models with individual covariates.

Recently, methodological advances have allowed investigators to handle random effects models. This is bringing CMR models close to modern statistical models (Generalized linear mixed models) whose use is rapidly increasing in quantitative genetics. In quantitative genetics, the animal model aims at disentangling sources of phenotypic variation to draw inferences about heritability of any type of trait (morphological, demographic, behavioral, physiological traits). The animal model partitions variation in the trait of interest using variance components. Understanding evolution by natural selection and predicting its pace and direction requires understanding of the genetic and environmental influences on a trait. Phenotypic characteristics such as morphological or life-history traits (i.e. demographic parameters such as number of offspring raised and survival probability) are likely to be influenced by a large number of genes, the genetic basis of which can be quantified via statistical inferences based on similarities among relatives in a population. The extent of evolutionary responses in a quantitative trait is assumed to be proportional to the force of natural selection and heritability of a trait. Estimating the genetic basis of quantitative traits can be tricky for wild animal populations in natural environments: environmental variation often obscures the underlying evolutionary patterns. However, this genetic basis of traits is at the heart of natural selection, and recently there has been increased interest in applying the animal model to natural populations to understand their evolutionary dynamics. Such models have been applied to estimation of heritability in life history traits, either in the rare study populations where detection probability is close to 1, or without considering the probability of detecting animals that are alive and present in the study area (recapture or resighting probability). Applications of the animal model to demographic parameters (fitness components) such as survival, breeding probability or to lifetime reproductive success in wild animal populations where detection probability is < 1 require trans-disciplinary efforts; this is necessary to address evolutionary processes in such populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jerey, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DR, Cooch EG, Gutiérriez RJ, Krebs CJ, Lindberg MS, Pollock KH, Ribic CA, Shenk TM (2003) Rigorous science: suggestions on how to raise the bar. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnason AN (1973) The estimation of population size, migration rates and survival in a stratified population. Research in Population Ecology 15: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnason AN, Schwarz CJ, Boyer G (1998) POPAN 5: a data maintenance and analysis system for mark–recapture data. Scientific Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Available at http://www.cs.umanitoba.c/~popan

  • Barbraud C, Weimerskirch H (2005) Environmental conditions and breeding experience affect costs of reproduction in blue petrels. Ecology 86: 682–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauplet G, Barbraud C, Dabbin W, Küssener C, Guinet, C (2006) Age–specific survival and reproductive performances in fur seals: evidence of senescence and individual quality. Oikos 112: 430–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkman CW, Colquitt JS, Gould WR, Fetz T, Keenan PC, Santisteban L (2005) Can selection by an ectoparasite drive a population of crossbills from its adaptive peak? Evolution 59: 2025–2032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PM, Owens IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennetts RE, Nichols JD, Lebreton J–D, Pradel R, Hines JE, Kitchens WM (2001) Methods for estimating dispersal probabilities and related parameters using marked animals. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt A, Nichols JD (eds), Disperal, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., pp 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasco A (2001) The Bayesian controversy in animal breeding. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2023–2046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blums P, Nichols JD, Lindberg MS, Hines JE, Mednis A (2003) Estimating natal dispersal movement rates of female European ducks with multistate modeling. Journal of Animal Ecology. 72: 1027–1042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blums P, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Lindberg MS, Mednis A (2005) Individual quality, survival variation and patterns of phenotypic selection on body conditions and timing of nesting in birds. Oecologia 143: 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner SJ, Schwarz CJ (2004) Continuous time–dependent individual covariates and the Cormark–Jolly–Seber model. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 149–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulinier T, McCoy KD, Sorci G (2001) Dispersal and parasitism. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt A, Nichols JD (eds), Disperal, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., pp 169–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brommer JE, Merillä J, Kokko H (2002) Reproductive timing and individual fitness. Ecology Letters 5: 802–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks SP, Catchpole EA, Morgan BJT, Harris M (2002) Bayesian methods for analysing ringing data. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 187–206.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks SP, King R, Morgan BJT (2004) A Bayesian approach to combining animal abundance and demographic data. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 515–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown CR, Bromberger M, Danchin E (2000) The effect of conspecific reproductive success on colony choice in cliff swallows. Journal of Animal Ecology 69: 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown CR, Bromberger M, Brown, Raouf SA, Smith LC, Wingfield JC (2005) Steroid hormone levels are related to choice of colony size in cliff swallows. Ecology 86: 2904–2915.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownie C, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Pollock KH, Hestbeck JB (1993) Capture–recapture studies for multiple strata including non–Markovian transitions. Biometrics 49: 1173–1187.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant MJ, Reznick D (2004) Comparative studies of senescence in natural populations of guppies. American Naturalist 163: 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP (1993) A theory for combined analysis of ring recovery and recapture data. In: Lebreton J-D, North PM (eds) The use of marked individuals in the study of bird population dynamics, Birkhauser, Basel, pp 199–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Rexstad EA (1993 ) Modeling heterogeneity in survival rates of banded waterfowl. Biometrics 49: 1194–1208.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, White GC (2002) Evaluation of some random effects methodology applicable to bird ringing data. Journal Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 245–264.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cam E, Hines JE, Monnat J-Y, Nichols JD, Danchin E (1998) Are nonbreeders prudent parents? The Kittiwake model. Ecology 79: 2917–2930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cam E, Link WA, Cooch EG, Monnat J-Y, Danchin E (2002a) Individual covariation in life history traits: seeing the trees despite the forest. American Naturalist 159: 96–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cam E, Cadiou B, Hines JE, Monnat J-Y (2002b) Influence of behavioural tactics on recruitment and reproductive trajectory in the kittiwake. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cam E, Monnat J-Y, Hines JE (2003) Long-term consequences of early conditions in the kittiwake. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 411–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cam E, Oro D, Pradel R, Jimenez J (2004a) Assessment of hypotheses about dispersal in a long-lived seabird using multistate capture-recapture models. Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 723–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cam E, Monnat J-Y, Royle JA (2004b) Dispersal and individual quality in a long-lived species. Oikos 106: 386–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cam E, Cooch EG, Monnat J-Y (2005) Earlier recruitment or earlier death? On the assumption of homogeneous survival in recruitment studies. Ecological Monographs 75: 419–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers AD (1973) Capture–Recapture methods applied to a population with known parameters. Journal of Animal Ecology 42: 125–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models. Construction, analysis, and interpretation. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmantier A, Perrins C, McCleery RH, Cheldon BC (2006a) Quantitative genetics of age at reproduction in wild swans: support for antagonistic pleiotropy models of senescence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 103: 6587–6592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmantier A, Perrins C, McCleery RH, Cheldon BC (2006b) Evolutionary response to selection on clutch size in a long-term study of the mute swan. American Naturalist 167: 453–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth B (1994) Evolution in age-structured populations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Choquet R, Reboulet AM, Pradel R, Gimenez O, Lebreton J-D (2003) U-Care user’s guide, Mimeographed document, CEFE/CNRS, Montpellier, France. Available at: ftp://ftp.cefe.cnrs-mop.fr/biom/Soft-CR/

  • Clobert J, Lebreton JD (1985) Dependance de facteurs du milieu dans les estimations de survie par capture–recapture. Biometrics 41: 1031–1037. SURGE is available at :http://ftp.cefe.cnrs.fr/biom/Archives/

  • Clobert J (1995) Capture–recapture and evolutionary ecology: a difficult wedding? Journal of Applied Statistics 22: 989–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clobert J (2002) Capture–recapture and evolutionary ecology: further comments. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 53–56.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Conner MM, White GC (1999) Effects of individual heterogeneity in estimating the persistence of small populations. Natural Resource Modeling 12: 109–127.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Conner JK, Hartl DL (2004) A primer of ecological genetics. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy MJ, Senar JC, Domènech J (2002) Analysis of individual- and time-specific covariate effects on survival of Serinus serinusin north-east Spain. Journal of applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 125–142.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy MJ (2008) Some contributions of capture–recapture to evolutionary ecology and population modeling. In: Thomson DL, Cooch EG, Conroy MJ (eds.) Modeling Demographic Processes in Marked Populations. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, Springer, New York, Vol. 3, pp. 131–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooch EG, Lank DB, Rockwell RF, Cooke F (1999) Body size and age of recruitment in snow geese Anser c. caerulescens. Bird Study (supplement) 46: 112–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooch EG, Cam E, Link WA (2002) Occam’s shadow: levels of analysis in evolutionary ecology – where to next? Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 19–48.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cooch EG, White GW (2007) Using MARK – a gentle introduction. Available at ttp:// www.phidot.org/software/

  • Cormack RM (1964) Estimates of survival from the sighting of marked animals. Biometrics 51: 429–438.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Coulson T, Benton TG, Lunberg P, Dall SRX, Kendall BE, Gaillard J–M (2006) Estimating individual contributions to population growth: evolutionary fitness in ecological time. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B: 273: 547–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespin L, Harris MP, Lebreton J-D, Frederiksen M, Wanless S (2006) Recruitment to a seabird population depends on environmental factors and on population size. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 228–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curio E (1983) Why do young birds reproduce less well? Ibis 125: 400–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danchin E, Boulinier T, Massot M (1998) Conspecific reproductive success and breeding habitat selection: implications for the evolution of coloniality. Ecology 79: 2415–2428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danchin E, Heg D, Doligez B (2001) Public information and breeding habitat selection. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt A, Nichols JD (eds), Dispersal, Oxford University Press, Oxford UK pp 243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doligez B, Danchin E, Clobert J, Gustafsson L (1999) The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding habitat selection in a non-colonial, hole-nesting species, the collared flycatcher. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 1193–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doligez B, Clobert J, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe M, Gustafsson L, Perrins CM, McCleery RH (2002) Costs of reproduction: assessing responses to brood size manipulation on life-history and behavioural traits using multi-state capture-recapture models. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 407–423.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Doligez B, Pärt T, Danchin E, Clobert J, Gustafsson L (2004) Availability and use of public information and conspecific density for settlement decisions in the collared flycatcher. Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty Jr. PF, Sorci G, Royle JA, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2003) Sexual selection affects local extinction and turnover in bird communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U.S.A.: 100: 5858–5862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugger BD, Blums P (2001) Effect of conspecific brood parasitism on host fitness for tufted duck and common pochard. The Auk 118: 717–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis JA (1995) Bayesian estimation of movement and survival probabilities from capture–recapture data. Biometrika 82: 761–772.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis JA (2002) Prior distributions for stratified capture–recapture models. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 225–237.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis JA, Badia J, Maublanc M, Bon R (2002) Survival and spatial fidelity of mouflons (Ovis gmelini): a Bayesian analysis of age-dependant capture–recapture model. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 7: 277–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM (1984) Population biology – the coevolution of population dynamics and behaviour. Macmillan, New York, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis JA, Joachim J (2006) Bayesian estimation of species richness from quadrat sampling data in the presence of prior information. Biometrics 62: 706–712.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton, University Press, Princeton, New Jerey, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ens JB, Weissing FJ, Drent R (1995) The despotic distribution and deferred maturity: two sides of the same coin. The American Naturalist 146: 625–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrmeir L, Tutz G (1994) Multivariate statistics modelling based on generalized linear models. Springer-Verlag, New-York, Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn DJ, Reeve JP (2001) Natural Selection. In: Fox CW, Roff DA, Fairbairn DJ (eds) Evolutionary Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition, Longman, Harlow, U.K.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrière R, Dieckmann U, Couvet D (2004) Introduction. In: Ferrière R, Dieckmann U, Couvet D (eds) Evolutionary conservation biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festa-Bianchet M, Gaillard J-M, Jorgenson JT, Jullien J-M, Loison A (1999) Age-specific survival in five populations of ungulates: evidence of senescence. Ecology 80: 2539–2554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox CW, Roff DA, Fairbain DA (2001) Preface. In: Fox CW, Roff DA, Fairbairn DJ (eds), Evolutionary Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox GA, Kendall BE (2002) Demographic stochasticity and the variance reduction effect. Ecology 83: 1928–1934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox GA, Kendall BE, Fitzpatrick JW, Woolfenden GE (2006) Consequences of heterogeneity in survival probability in a population of Florida scrub-jay. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 921–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forslund P, Pärt T (1995) Age and reproduction in birds – hypotheses and tests. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 374–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R, Kingsolver J (2004) Responses to environmental change: adaptation or extinction. In: Ferrière R, Dieckmann U, Couvet D (eds) evolutionary conservation biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman S, Herron JC (2000) Evolutionary analysis. Prentice Hall 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jerey, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen M, Bregnballe T (2001) Conspecific reproductive success affects age of recruitment in a great cormorant, Phalacrocorax sinensis, colony. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lonbon B: 268: 1519–1526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frétey T, Cam E, Le Garff B, Monnat J-Y (2004) Adult survival and temporary emigration in the common toad. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 859–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheoretica 19: 16–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry JD (1992) The mixed-model analysis of variance applied to quantitative genetics: biological meaning of parameters. Evolution 46: 540–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma DJ (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer. Sunderland, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard, J-M, Viallefont A, Loison A, Festa-Bianchet M (2004) Assessing senescence patterns in populations of large mammals. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27:47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert RO (1973) Approximation of the bias in the Jolly–Seber capture–recapture model. Biometrics 29: 501–526.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gimenez O, Covas R, Brown CR, Anderson MD, Brown MB, Lenormand T (2006) Nonparametric estimation of natural selection on a quantitative trait using mark-recapture data. Evolution 60: 460–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoire A, Preault M, Cezilly F, Wood MJ, Pradel R, Faivre B (2004) Stabilizing selection on the early expression of a secondary sexual trait in a passerine bird. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 1152–1156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green P (1995) Reversible jump Markoc chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination. Biometrika 82: 711–732.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hadley GL, Rotella JJ, Garrott RA, Nichols JD (2006) Variation in probability of first reproduction of Weddell seals. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 1058–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry AP, Kinnison MT (1999) The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53: 1637–1653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Lloreda MV, Colmenarez F, Arias RM (2003) Application of hierarchical linear modeling to the study of trajectories in behavioural development. Animal Behaviour 66: 607–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestbeck JB, Nichols JD, Malecki RA (1991) Estimates of movement and site fidelity using mark-resight data of wintering Canada geese. Ecology 72: 523–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines JE (1994) MSSURVIV Users Manual. National Biological Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD 0708–4017. Available at: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/ software.html

  • Holt RD, Barfield M (2001) On the relationship between the ideal free distribution and the evolution of dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt A, Nichols JD (eds), Dispersal, Oxford University Press, Oxford UK pp 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houle D (1991) Genetic covariance of fitness correlates: what genetic correlations are made of and why it matters. Evolution 45: 630–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houle D (1992) Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130: 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hougaard P (1991) Modeling heterogeneity in survival data. Journal of Applied Probability 28: 695–701.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ims RA, Hjermann DØ (2001) Condition-dependent dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt A, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal, Oxford University Press, Oxford UK pp 203–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolly GM (1965) Explicit estimates from capture–recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52: 225–247.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jolly GM (1993) Instinctive statistics. In: Lebreton J-D, North PM (eds) Marked individuals in the study of bird populations. Birkhäuser Verlag Basel, Switzerland, pp 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones IL, Hunter FM, Robertson GJ, Fraser G (2002) Natural variation in the sexually selected feather ornaments of crested auklets (Aethia cristatella) does not predict future survival. Behavioral Ecology 15: 332–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall WL, Nichols JD (1995) On the use of secondary capture–recapture samples to estimate temporary emigration and breeding proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics 22: 751–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall BE, Fox GA (2001) Variation among individuals and reduced demographic stochasticity. Conservation Biology 16: 109–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall BE, Fox GA (2003) Unstructured individual variation and demographic stochasticity. Conservation Biology 17: 1170–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall WL, Bjorkland R (2001) Using open robust design models to estimate temporary emigration from capture–recapture data. Biometrics 57: 1113–1122

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall WL, Gould WR (2002) An appeal to undergraduate wildlife programs: send scientists to learn statistics. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 623–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall WL, Nichols LD (2002) Estimating state-transition probabilities for unobservable states using capture–recapture/resighting data. Ecology 83: 3276–3284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall WL, Hines JE, Nichols JD (2003) Adjusting multi-state capture–recapture models for mis-classification bias: manatee breeding proportions. Ecology 84: 1058–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall WL (2004) Copying with unobservable and mis-classified states in capture-recapture studies. Invited paper. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 97–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall WL, Nichols JD (2004) On the estimation of dispersal and movement of birds. The Condor 106: 720–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M, Royle JA (2008) Inference about species richness and community structure using species-specific occupancy model in the national swiss breeding bird survey MHB. In: Thomson DL, Cooch EG, Conroy MJ (eds.) Modeling Demographic Processes in Marked Populations. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, Springer, New York, Vol. 3, pp. 639–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • King R, Brooks SP (2002) Bayesian model discrimination for multiple strata capture–recapture data. Biometrika 89: 785–806.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • King R, Brooks SP (2004) Bayesian analysis of the Hector’s dolphin data. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 343–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinghorn B, Kinghorn S (2007) Pedigree. Available at http://www.personal.une.edu.au/~bkinghor/pedegree.htm

  • Kingsolver JG, Smith SG (1995) Estimating selection on quantitative traits using capture–recapture data. Evolution 49: 384–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruuk LEB, Clutton-Brock TH, Slate J, Pemberton JM, Brotherstone S, Guinness FE (2000) Heritability of fitness in a wild mammal population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 97: 698–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruuk LEB, Merilä J, Sheldon BC (2001) Phenotypic selection on a heritable size trait revisited. American Naturalist 158: 557–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruuk LEB (2004) Estimating genetic parameters in natural populations using the ‘animal model’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B. 359: 873–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurie WA, Brown D (1990) Population biology of marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) II. Changes in annual survival rates and the effects of size, sex, age and fecundity in a population crash. Journal of Animal Ecology 59: 529–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebreton J-D, Clobert J (1986) User’s Manual for program SURGE, Montpellier, France: CEPE/CNRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebreton J-D, Burnham KP, Clobert J, Anderson DR (1992) Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecological Monographs 62: 67–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebreton J-D, Hines JE, Pradel R, Nichols JD, Spendelow JA (2003) Estimation by capture–recapture of recruitment and dispersal over several sites. Oikos 101: 253–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liker A, Székely T (2005) Mortality costs of sexual selection and parental care in natural populations of birds. Evolution 59: 890–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg MS, Kendall WL, Hines JE, Anderson MG (2001) Combining band recovery data and Pollock’s robust design to model temporary and permanent emigration. Biometrics 57: 273–281.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Link WA, Cooch EG, Cam E (2002a) Model-based estimation of individual fitness. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link WA, Cam E, Nichols JD (2002b) Of BUGS and birds. An introduction to Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 277–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link WA (2004) Individual heterogeneity and identifiability in capture–recapture models. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 87–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link WA, Barker RJ (2004) Hierarchical mark–recapture models: a framework for inference about demographic processes. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 441–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukacs PL, Burnham KP (2005) Review of capture–recapture methods applicable to noninvasive genetic sampling. Molecular Ecology 14: 3909–3919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates Inc. Publishers. Sunderland, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Kendall WK (2002) How should detection probability be incorporated into estimates of relative abundance? Ecology 83: 2387–2393.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Lagtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83: 2248–2255.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Bailey LL (2004) Assessing the fit of site occupancy models. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 9: 300–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Bailey LL, Nichols JD (2004) Investigating species co–occurrence patterns when species are detected imperfectly. Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 546–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD (2004) Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance estimation. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 461–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle AJ, Pollock KH, BaileyLL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling. Inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, Elsevier Inc. Burlington, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin TE, Clobert J, Anderson DR (1995) Return rates in studies of life history evolution: are biases large? Journal of Applied Statistics 22: 863–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin J, Nichols JD, Kitchens WM, Hines JE (2006) Multiscale patterns of movement in fragmented landscape and consequences on demography of the snail kite in Florida. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 527–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massot M, Clobert J, Lecompte J, Barbault R (1994) Incumbent advantage in common lizards and their colonizing ability. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 431–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massot M, Clobert J (2000) Processes at the origin of similarities in dispersal behaviour among siblings. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13: 707–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matos CAP, Thomas DL, Gianola D, Tempelman RJ, Young LD (1997) Genetic analysis of discrete reproductive traits in sheep using linear and nonlinear models: I. Estimation of genetic parameters. Journal of Animal Science 75: 76–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1997) This is biology: the science of the living world. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazer SJ, Damuth J (2001) Nature and causes of variation. Evolutionary significance of variation. In: Fox CW, Roff DA, Fairbairn DJ (eds) Evolutionary Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElligott AG, Altwegg R, Hayden TJ (2002) Age-specific survival and reproductive probabilities: evidence for senescence in male fallow deer (Dama dama). Proceedings: Biological Sciences 269 : 1129–1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw JB, Caswell H (1996) Estimation of individual fitness from life–history data. American Naturalist 147: 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertz DB (1975) Senescent decline in flour beetle straints selected for early adult fitness. Physiological Zoölogy 48: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz JAJ, Nisbet RM, Geritz SAH (1992) How should we define ‘fitness’ for general ecological scenarios? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 198–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau TA, Fox CW (1998) The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 403–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nager RG, Monaghan P, Griffiths R, Houston DC, Dawson R (1999) Experimental demonstration that offspring sex ratio varies with maternal condition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U. S. A. 96: 570–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Pollock KH (1983) Estimating taxonomic diversity, extinction rates and speciation from fossil data using capture–recapture models. Paleobiology 9: 150–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Hines JE, Pollock KH, Hinz RL, Link WA (1994) Estimating breeding proportions and testing hypotheses about costs of reproduction with capture–recapture data. Ecology 75: 2052–2065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Kendall WL (1995) The use of multi-state capture–recapture models to address questions in evolutionary ecology. Journal of Applied Statistics 22: 835–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Hines JE, Blums P (1997) Tests for senescent decline in annual survival probabilities of Common Pochards, Aythya ferina. Ecology 78: 1009–1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Boulinier T, Hines JE, Pollock KH, Sauer JR (1998a) Estimating rates of local extinction colonization and turnover in animal communities. Ecological Applications 8: 1213–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Boulinier T, Hines JE, Pollock KH, Sauer JR (1998b) Inference methods for spatial variation in species richness and community composition when not all species are detected. Conservation Biology 12: 1390–1398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Hines JE, Lebreton J-D, Pradel R (2000) The relative contribution of demographic components to population growth: a direct estimation approach based on reverse-time capture–recapture. Ecology 81: 3362–3376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD (2002) Discussion comments on: “Occam’s shadow: levels of analysis in evolutionary ecology – where to next?” by Cooch, Cam and Link. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 49–52.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Kendall WL, Hines JE, Spendelow JA (2004) Estimation of sex-specific survival from capture–recapture data when sex is not always known. Ecology 85: 3192–3201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris JL, Pollock KH (1996) Nonparametric MLE under two closed capture–recapture models with heterogeneity. Biometrics 52:639–649.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Oro D, Pradel R (2000) Determinant of local recruitment in a growing colony of Audouin’s gull. Journal of Animal Ecology 69: 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orzack SH, Tuljapurkar S (2001) Reproductive effort in variable environments, or environmental variation is for the birds. Ecology 82: 2659–2665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otis DL, White GC (2004) Evaluation of ultrastuctural and random effects band recovery models for estimating relationships between survival and harvest rates in exploited populations. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 157–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens IPF, Bennett PM (1994) Mortality costs of parental care and sexual dimorphism in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences 257: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit E, Valière N (2006) Estimating population size with non-invasive capture–recapture data. Conservation Biology 20: 1062–1073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettifor RE, Perrins CM, McCleery RH (1988) Individual optimization of clutch size in great tits. Nature 336: 160–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettifor RE, Perrins CM, McCleery RH (2001) Individual optimization of fitness: variation in reproductive output, including clutch size, mean nestling mass and offspring recruitment, in manipulated broods of great tits Parus major. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 62–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2006) Genetic variance–covariance matrices: a critique of the evolutionary quantitative genetics research program. Biology and Philosophy 21: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pledger S, Efford M (1998) Correction of bias due to heterogeneous capture probability in capture–recapture studies of open populations. Biometrics 54: 898.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pledger S, Schwarz CJ (2002) Modelling heterogeneity of survival as a random effect using finite mixtures. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 315–327.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990) Statistical inference for capture–recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107: 1–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock KP (2002) The use of auxiliary variables in capture–recapture modeling: an overview. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 85–102.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pradel R, Cooch EG, Cooke F (1995) Transient animals in a resident population of snow geese: local emigration or heterogeneity? Journal of Applied Statistics 22: 695–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradel R (1996) Utilization of capture-mark-recapture for the study of recruitment and population growth rate. Biometrics 52: 703–709.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pradel R, Lebreton JD (1999) Comparison of different approaches to the study of local recruitment of breeders. Bird Study 46 (supplement): 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradel R, Wintrebert CMA, Gimenez O (2003) A proposal for a goodness-of-fit test to the Arnason–Schwarz multisite capture–recapture model. Biometrics 59: 43–53.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Promislow DEL, Montgomerie R, Martin TE (1992) Mortality costs of sexual dimorphism in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences 250: 143–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JL, Charmantier A, Garant D, Scheldon BC (2006) Data depth, data completeness and their influence on quantitative genetics estimation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19: 994–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Réale D, Festa-Bianchet M (2000) Quantitative genetics of life-history traits in a long-lived wild mammal. Heredity 85: 593–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Réale D, Berteaux D, McAdam AG, Boutin S (2003) Lifetime selection on heritable life-history traits in a natural population of red squirrels. Evolution 57: 2416–2423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed ET, Gautier G, Giroux JF (2004) Effects of spring conditions on breeding propensity of greater snow goose females. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed WL, Clark ME, Parker PG, Raouf SA, Arguedas N, Monk DS, Snajdr E, Nolan Jr V, Ketterson ED (2006) Physiological effects on demography: a long-term experimental study of testosterone’s effects on fitness. American Naturalist 167: 667–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reekie EG, Budge S, Baltzer JL (2002) The shape of the trade-off function between reproduction and future performance in Plantago majorand Plantago rugelii. Canadian Journal of Botany 80: 140–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rexstad E, Burnham KP (1991) User’s guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Fort Collins, Colorado, U. S. A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznick D, Nunney L, Tessier A (2000) Big houses, big cars, superfleas and the cost of reproduction. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 421–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznick D, Rodd H, Nunnery L (2004) Empirical evidence for rapid evolution. In: Ferrière R, Dieckmann U, Couvet D (eds) Evolutionary conservation biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE (2000) Intrinsic aging-related mortality in birds. Journal of Avian biology 31: 103–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE, Scheuerlein A (2001) Comparison of age-related mortality among birds and mammals. Experimental Gerontology 36: 845–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff DA (1992) The evolution of life histories. Chapman and Hall, New York, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff DA (2001) Age and size at maturity. In: Fox CW, Roff DA, Fairbairn DJ (eds), Evolutionary Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronce O, Clobert J, Massot M (1998) Natal dispersal and senescence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U. S. A. 95: 600–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronce O, Oliviery I, Clobert J, Danchin E (2001) Perspectives on the study of dispersal evolution. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt A, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford UK pp 341–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA, Link WA (2002) Random effects and schrinkage estimation in capture–recapture models. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 329–351.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA, Nichols JD, Kéry M (2005) Modeling occurrence and abundance of species when detection is imperfect. Oikos 110: 353–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA (2007) Modeling individual effects in the Cormack-Jolly-Seber model: a state-space formulation. Biometrics 63: 568–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA (2008) Analysis of capture-recapture models with individual covariates using data augmentation. Biometrics. 2008 Apr 15. [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA, Kéry M (2007) Analysis of multinomial models with unknown index using data augmentation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16: 67–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge MC, Johnson FA (2002) The importance of functional form in optimal control solutions of problems in population dynamics. Ecology 83:1357–1371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saccheri I, Hanski I (2006) Natural selection and population dynamics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 341–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxton AM (2004) Genetic analysis of complex traits using SAS. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer LR (2004) Application of random regression models in animal breeding. Livestock Production Science 86: 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt BR, Schaub M, Anholt BR (2002) Why you should use capture–recapture methods when estimating survival and breeding probabilities: on bias, temporary emigration, overdispersion and common toads. Amphibia-Reptilia 23: 375–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz CJ, Arnason AN (2000) Estimation of age-specific breeding probabilities from capture–recapture data. Biometrics 56: 59–61.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz CJ, Stobo WT (2000) Estimation of juvenile survival, adult survival, and age-specific pupping probabilities for the female grey seal (Halichoerus gryprus) on Sable Island from capture–recapture data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 247–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz CJ, Arnason AN (2001) Comment on Schwarz and Arnason: estimation of age-specific breeding probabilities from capture–recapture data – authors reply. Biometrics 57: 976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seber GAF (1965) A note on the multiple recapture census. Biometrika 52: 249–259.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Seber GAF, Schwarz CJ (2002) Capture–recapture: before and after EURING 2000. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 5–18.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano D, Tella JL, Forero MG, Donázar JA (2001) Factors affecting breeding dispersal in the facultatively colonial lesser kestrel: individual experience vs. conspecific cues. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 568–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrano D, Tella JL (2003) Dispersal within a spatially structured population of lesser kestrels: the role of spatial isolation and conspecific attraction. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 400–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrano D, Oro D, Ursúa E, Tella JL (2005) Colony size selection determines adult survival and dispersal preferences: Allee effects in a colonial bird. American Naturalist 166: 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senar JC, Conroy MJ, Borras A (2002) Asymetric exchange between populations differing in habitat quality: a metapopulation analysis of the Citril Finch. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 425–442.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Service PM (2000) Heterogeneity in individual mortality risk and its importance for evolutionary studies of senescence. The American Naturalist 156:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Service PM (2004) Demographic heterogeneity explains age-specific patterns of genetic variance in mortality rates. Experimental Gerontology 39: 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon BC, Kruuk LEB, Merilä J (2003) Natural selection and inheritance of breeding time and clutch size in collared flycatcher. Evolution 57: 406–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalski JR, Hoffman A, Smith SG (1993) Testing the significance of individual- and cohort-level covariates in animal survival studies. In: Lebreton JD, North PM (eds) Marked individuals in the study of bird population. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, pp 9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skvarla JL, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Waser PM (2004) Modeling interpopulation dispersal by banner-tailed kangaroo rats. Ecology 85: 2737–2746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenseth NC, Saetre G-P (2003) Sexual selection forms the structure and dynamics of ecological communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U.S.A. 100: 5576–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith SG, Skalski JM, Schlethe JW, Hoffman A, Cassen V (1994) SURPH. Statistical survival analysis of fish and wildlife tagging studies. Center for Quantitative Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Wahington, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG, Gilks WR (1996) BUGS 1.4. Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling Manual http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/.

  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society, Series B. 64: 583–639.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Spendelow JA, Nichols JD, Nisbet ICT, Hays H, Cormons GD, Burger J, Safina C, Hines JE, Gochfeld M (1995) Estimating annual survival and movement rates of adults within a metapopulation of roseate terns. Ecology 76: 2415–2428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spendelow JA, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Lebreton J-D, Pradel R (2002) Modelling postfledging survival and age-specific breeding probabilities in species with delayed maturity: a case study of Roseate terns at Falkner island, Connecticut. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 385–405.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tatar M (2001) Senescence. In: Fox CW, Roff DA, Fairbairn DJ (eds) Evolutionary ecology. Oxford University Press. Oxford, pp 128–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen JM, Sanz JJ (2002) Strong evidence for selection for larger brood size in a great tit population. Behavioral Ecology 15: 525–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen JM, Both C (1999) Is clutch size individually optimized? Behavioral Ecology 10: 504–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas SC, Coltman DW, Pemberton JM (2002) The use of marker-based relationship information to estimate the heritability of body weight in a natural population: a cautionary tale. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15: 92–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Török J, Hegvi G, Tóth L, Könczey R (2004) Unpredictable food supply modifies costs of reproduction and hampers individual optimization. Oecologia 141: 432–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomi J, Hakala T, Haukioja E (1983) Alternative concept of reproductive effort, costs of reproduction and selection in life-history evolution. American Zoologist 23: 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uller T, Massot M, Richard M, Lecompte J, Clobert J (2004) Long-lasting fitness consequences of prenatal sex-ratio in a viviparous lizard. Evolution 58: 2511–2516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Pol M, Verhulst S (2006) Age-dependent traits: a new statistical model to separate within- and between-individual effects. American Naturalist 167: 766–773

    Google Scholar 

  • Van-Noordwijk AJ, de Jong G (1986) Acquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life-history tactics. The American Naturalist 128: 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaupel JW, Yashin AI (1985a) Heterogeneity's ruses: some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. The American Statistician 39: 176–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaupel JW, Yashin AI (1985b) The deviant dynamics of death in heterogeneous populations. In: Brandon Tuma N (ed) Sociological methodology. Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers. San Fransisco, California, U.S.A. pp 180–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Viallefont A, Cooch EG, Cooke F (1995a) Estimation of trade-offs with capture–recapture models: a case study on the lesser snow goose. Journal of Applied Statistics 22: 847–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viallefont A, Cooke F, Lebreton J-D (1995b) Age-specific costs of first-time breeding. Auk 112: 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vounatsou P, Smith AFM (1995) Bayesian analysis of ring-recovery data via Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Biometrics 51: 687–708.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Webb JK (2006) Effects of tail autotomy on survival, growth and territory occupation in free-ranging juvenile geckos (Oedura lesueurii). Austral Ecology 31: 432–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimerskirch H, Lallemand J, Martin J (2005) Population sex ratio in a monogamous long-lived bird, the wandering albatross. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 285–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • White GC, Burnham KP, Otis DL, Anderson DR (1978) Users Manual for Program CAPTURE, Utah State Univ. Press, Logan, Utah. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/software.html

  • White GC (1983) Numerical estimation of survival from recovery and biotelemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 716–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46 (supplement): 120–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • White GC (2002) Discussion comments on: the use of auxiliary variables in capture–recapture modeling. An overview. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue) 103–106.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins DA (1989) Heritability of body size in cross-fostered tree swallow broods. Evolution 43: 1808–1811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikelski M, Trillmich F (1997) Body size and sexual dimorphism in marine iguanas fluctuate as a result of opposing natural and sexual selection: an island comparison. Evolution 51: 922–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson AJ, Kruuk LEB, Coltman DW (2005) Ontogenetic patterns in heritable variation for body size: using random regression models in a wild ungulate population. American Naturalist 166: 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego, California, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wintrebert CMA, Zwinderman AH, Cam E, Pradel R, van Houwelingen JC (2004) Joint modelling of breeding and survival in the kittiwake using frailty models. Ecological modelling 181: 203–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams GC (1992) Natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams PD, Day T, Fletcher Q, Rowe L (2006) The shaping of senescence in the wild. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 458–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yashin AI, Iachine IA, Begun AZ, Vaupel JW (2001) Hidden frailty: myths and reality. Working paper. University of southern Denmark, Department of Statistics. ISBN 87-90700-41-4. Available at: http://demografie.de

  • Yoccoz NG, Erikstad KE, Bustnes JO, Hanssen SA, Tveraa T (2002) Costs of reproduction in common eiders (Someteria mollissima): an assessment of relationships between reproduction effort and future survival and reproduction based on observational and experimental studies. Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (Special Issue): 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuelle Cam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cam, E. (2009). Contribution of Capture-Mark-Recapture Modeling to Studies of Evolution by Natural Selection. In: Thomson, D.L., Cooch, E.G., Conroy, M.J. (eds) Modeling Demographic Processes In Marked Populations. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, vol 3. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78151-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics