Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 153, Issue 1, pp 205–217 | Cite as

Adjusting age at first breeding of albatrosses and petrels for emigration and study duration

  • Peter W. Dillingham
  • Graeme P. Elliott
  • Kath J. Walker
  • David Fletcher
Original Article

Abstract

The age at first breeding is an important demographic parameter in determining maximum growth rate, population size and generation time and is a key parameter in calculating the potential biological removal of birds. Albatrosses and petrels do not begin breeding for many years, with some first breeding in their teens. This means that even long-term studies of birds banded as chicks may not last long enough to observe the entire process of recruitment to breeding. Estimates based only on observed data (the naive estimate) may be biased by imperfect observation, emigration, and study duration. Instead, modelling approaches should be used to estimate the mean age at first breeding, but these must be used carefully. Here, we show the large negative bias that may be caused by limited study duration and emigration when the naive estimate is used. Capture–mark–recapture methods combined with additional assumptions about emigration can alleviate the bias, provided that an appropriate model is used. Using these methods, we analysed data collected between 1991 and 2006 on 1,246 Gibson’s albatrosses (Diomedea gibsoni) banded as chicks (mostly banded from 1995 onwards) and 1,258 birds banded as adults. While 402 birds banded as chicks were observed returning to the study area, only 42 were observed breeding. With limited data, model-based approaches must be used, and assumptions about recruitment to breeding play an additional role in the estimate of the age at first breeding. In particular, the function chosen for recruitment to breeding for older age classes cannot be compared to data. Three recruitment functions are compared to show the large sensitivity of the estimated mean age at first breeding to the assumed functional form.

Keywords

Bayesian state-space models Capture–recapture Local recruitment Seabirds Procellariiformes Potential biological removal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was partially funded by a grant from the Lenfest Ocean Program. We are also thankful for comments from M. Efford, J.-D. Lebreton, R. P. Scofield, and two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. BirdLife International (2009) Species factsheet: Diomedea gibsoni. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org. Accessed 4 Feb 2009
  2. Brooke M (2004) Albatrosses and petrels across the world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks SP, Gelman A (1998) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat 7:434–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brownie C, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Pollock KH, Hestbeck JB (1993) Capture–recapture studies for multiple strata including non-Markovian transitions. Biometrics 49:1173–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burg TM, Croxall JP (2004) Global population structure and taxonomy of the wandering albatross species complex. Mol Ecol 13:2345–2355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Method Res 33:261–304Google Scholar
  7. Clobert J, Lebreton J-D, Allainé D, Gaillard JM (1994) The estimation of age-specific breeding probabilities from recaptures or resightings in vertebrate populations: II. Longitudinal models. Biometrics 50:375–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. J Anim Ecol 75:228–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillingham PW (2009) Population modelling of seabirds with minimal demographic information. PhD thesis. University of Otago, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillingham PW (2010) Generation time and the maximum growth rate for populations with age-specific fecundities and unknown juvenile survival. Ecol Model 221:895–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillingham PW, Fletcher D (2008) Estimating the ability of birds to sustain additional human-caused mortalities using a simple decision rule and allometric relationships. Biol Conserv 141:1783–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillingham PW, Fletcher D (2011) Potential biological removal of albatrosses and petrels with minimal demographic information. Biol Conserv 144:1885–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dupuis JA (1995) Bayesian estimation of movement and survival probabilities from capture–recapture data. Biometrika 82:761–772Google Scholar
  14. Elliott G, Walker K (2005) Detecting population trends of Gibson’s and antipodean wandering albatrosses. Notornis 53:215–222Google Scholar
  15. Fletcher D, Dillingham PW (2011) Model-averaged confidence intervals for factorial experiments. Comput Stat Data Anal 55: 3041–3048Google Scholar
  16. Fletcher D, MacKenzie D, Dillingham P (2008) Modelling of impacts of fishing-related mortality on New Zealand seabird populations. Prepared for the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  17. Frederiksen M, Bergnballe T (2001) Conspecific reproductive success affects age of recruitment in a great cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis, colony. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 268:1519–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gales R (1998) Albatross populations: status and threats. In: Robertson G, Gales R (eds) Albatross biology and conservation. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, pp 20–45Google Scholar
  19. Hénaux V, Bregnballe T, Lebreton J-D (2007) Dispersal and recruitment during population growth in a colonial bird, the great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis. J Avian Biol 38:44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jenouvrier S, Tavecchia G, Thibault JC, Choquet R, Bretagnolle V (2008) Recruitment processes in long-lived species with delayed maturity: estimating key demographic parameters. Oikos 117:620–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lebreton JD (2005) Age, stages, and the role of generation time in matrix models. Ecol Model 188:22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lebreton JD, Pradel R (2002) Multistate recapture models: modelling incomplete individual histories. J Appl Stat 29:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lebreton J-D, Hemery G, Clobert J, Coquillart H (1990) The estimation of age-specific breeding probabilities from recaptures or resightings in vertebrate populations, I. Transversal models. Biometrics 46:609–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lebreton JD, Hines JE, Pradel R, Nichols JD, Spendelow JA (2003) Estimation by capture–recapture of recruitment and dispersal over several sites. Oikos 101:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D (2000) WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 10:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore JE, Wallace BR, Lewison RL, Zydelis R, Cox TM, Crowder LB (2009) A review of marine mammal, sea turtle and seabird bycatch in USA fisheries and the role of policy in shaping management. Marine Policy 33:435–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Niel C, Lebreton J-D (2005) Using demographic invariants to detect overharvested bird populations from incomplete data. Conserv Biol 19:826–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pradel R (1996) Utilization of capture-mark-recapture for the study of recruitment and population growth rate. Biometrics 52:703–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pradel R, Lebreton J-D (1999) Comparison of different approaches to the study of local recruitment of breeders. Bird Study 46[Suppl]:S74–S81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pradel R, Johnson AR, Viallefont A, Nager RG, Cézilly F (1997) Local recruitment in the greater flamingo: a new approach using capture-mark-recapture data. Ecology 78:1431–1445Google Scholar
  31. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://www.R-project.org
  32. Schwarz CJ, Arnason AN (2000) Estimation of age-specific breeding probabilities from capture–recapture data. Biometrics 56:59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. J Appl Stat 29:385–405Google Scholar
  34. Sturtz S, Ligges U, Gelman A (2005) R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. J Stat Softw 12(3):1–16Google Scholar
  35. Taylor BL, Wade PR, DeMaster DP, Barlow J (2000) Incorporating uncertainty into management models for marine mammals. Conserv Biol 14:1243–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomas A, O’Hara B, Ligges U, Sturtz S (2006) Making BUGS open. R News 6:12–17Google Scholar
  37. Wade PR (1998) Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Mar Mammal Sci 14:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walker K, Elliott G (1999) Population changes and biology of the wandering albatross Diomedea exulans gibsoni at the Auckland Islands. Emu 99:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter W. Dillingham
    • 1
  • Graeme P. Elliott
    • 2
  • Kath J. Walker
    • 2
  • David Fletcher
    • 3
  1. 1.George Perkins Marsh InstituteClark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Research and Development Department of ConservationNelsonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations