Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 2781–2800 | Cite as

To catch or to sight? A comparison of demographic parameter estimates obtained from mark-recapture and mark-resight models

  • K. A. Lee
  • C. Huveneers
  • O. Gimenez
  • V. Peddemors
  • R. G. Harcourt
Original Paper

Abstract

Accurate assessments of population parameters, such as survival and abundance, are critical for effective wildlife conservation. In order for wildlife managers to undertake long-term monitoring of populations, the data collection must be as cost-effective as possible. Two demographic modelling techniques commonly used are mark-recapture and mark-resight. Mark-resight can be used in conjunction with biotelemetry methods and offers a more cost effective alternative to the traditional mark-recapture models. However, there has been no empirical comparison of the demographic parameters obtained from the two modelling techniques. This study used photographs of natural markings to individually identify wobbegong sharks (Orectolobus maculatus) sighted during underwater surveys over a 2 year period, during eight distinct sampling periods, and analysed with Pollock’s robust design mark-recapture models. These estimates were then compared, using z tests, with Poisson-lognormal mark-resight models that used resightings of sharks previously tagged with telemetry transmitters, and the telemetry data to calculate the number of marked animals present in each sampling period. Sharks were categorised into four groups according to their sex and age-class (adult/juvenile). The results indicated that there was a high degree of transience in the population, with 62 % of sharks only being sighted in one sampling period. Based on normalized Akaike weights, there was no single ‘best’ model for either type of modelling technique and model averaging was used to determine the demographic estimates. Both models showed higher abundance of wobbegongs in the austral spring and summer seasons, however, the models produced statistically different results for five of the eight sampling periods. The mark-recapture model estimated apparent survival between 78 and 95 %, whereas the mark-resight models estimated it between 48 and 97 %. Crucially, there was no statistical difference between the survival estimates from corresponding sex/age-class. The temporary emigration parameters differed substantially between the model types. The mark-recapture model showed support for Markovian movement, whereas the mark-resight supported random emigration. The timing of the tagging events likely biased the abundance and temporary emigration parameters estimated by mark-resight models and must be taken into consideration when designing a mark-resight study. Despite this, this study shows that robust demographic estimates, that are comparable to labour intensive mark-recapture estimates, can still be obtained using mark-resight methods. Given the substantial increase in biotelemetry studies of medium and large sized vertebrates, mark-resight models may play an important future role in estimating demographic parameters.

Keywords

Abundance Acoustic telemetry Orectolobus maculatus Photo-identification Pollock’s robust design Poisson-lognormal mark-resight Survival Temporary emigration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This Project was funded by Grants from PADI Aware, SEA LIFE Conservation Fund and co-investment from the Office of Environment NSW. Thanks to the Integrated Marine Observing System- Australian Animal Tagging and Monitoring System (IMOS-AATAMS) for in-kind contributions and in particular Andrew Boomer for his on-going support. KL was supported by a Macquarie University Research of Excellence Scholarship. Thanks to all the volunteers who helped with the collection of the data. This Project was approved by the NSW Fisheries Animal Care and Ethics Committee (ACEC ref: 07/08).

Supplementary material

10531_2014_748_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31002 kb)

References

  1. Arnason AN, Mills KH (1981) Bias and loss of precision due to tag loss in Jolly-Seber estimates for mark-recapture experiments. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1077–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradshaw CJA, Mollet HF, Meekan MG (2007) Inferring population trends for the world’s largest fish from mark-recapture estimates of survival. J Anim Ecol 76:480–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodal inference: a practical information–theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Carraro R, Gladstone W (2006) Habitat preferences and site fidelity of the ornate wobbegong shark (Orectolobus ornatus) on rocky reefs of New South Wales. Pac Sci 60:207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro ALF, Rosa RS (2005) Use of natural marks on population estimates of the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum, at Atol das Rocas Biological Reserve, Brazil. Environ Biol Fish 72:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conn PB, Kendall WL, Samuel MD (2004) A general model for the analysis of mark-resight, mark-recapture, and band-recovery data under tag loss. Biometrics 60:900–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Wikelski M, Andrews RD, Kuchel LJ, Wolcott TG, Butler PJ (2004) Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 19:334–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Department of Environment, CCAWN (2010) Cabbage Tree Bay Aquatic Reserve: draft fisheries management (Aquatic Reserve) regulation 2009 and implementation strategy. Department of Environment (ed.), Sydney, NSWGoogle Scholar
  9. Dudgeon CL, Noad MJ, Lanyon JM (2008) Abundance and demography of seasonal aggregation of zebra sharks Stegostoma fasciatum. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 368:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dudgeon CL, Broderick D, Ovenden JR (2009) IUCN classification zones concord with, but underestimate, the population genetic structure of the zebra shark Stegostoma fasciatum in the Indo-West Pacific. Mol Ecol 18:248–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Froget G, Gautier-Clerc M, Le Maho Y, Handrich Y (1998) Is penguin banding harmless? Polar Biol 20:409–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goffe WL, Ferrier GD, Rogers J (1994) Global optimization of statistical functions with simulated annealing. J Econ 60:65–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hebblewhite M, Haydon DT (2010) Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:2303–2312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heupel MR, Hueter RE (2001) Use of an automated acoustic telemetry system to passively track juvenile blacktip shark movements. In: Sibert NJ Jr (ed) Electronic tagging and tracking in marine fisheries. Kluwer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  15. Heupel MR, Semmens JM, Hobday AJ (2006) Automated acoustic tracking of aquatic animals: scales, design and deployment of listening station arrays. Mar Freshw Res 57:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heyman WD, Graham RT, Kjerfve BR, Johannes RE (2001) Whale sharks Rhincodon typus aggregate to feed on fish spawn in Belize. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 215:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huggins RM (1989) On the statistical analysis of capture experiments. Biometrika 76:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huveneers C, Harcourt RG, Otway NM (2006) Observation of localised movements and residence times of the wobbegong shark Orectolobus halei at Fish Rock, NSW, Australia. Cybium 30:103–111Google Scholar
  19. Huveneers C, Walker TI, Otway NM, Harcourt RG (2007) Reproductive synchrony of three sympatric species of wobbegong shark (genus Orectolobus) in New South Wales, Australia: reproductive parameter estimates necessary for population modelling. Mar Freshw Res 58:765–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huveneers C, Stead J, Bennett MB, Lee KA, Harcourt RG (2013) Age and growth determination of three sympatric wobbegong sharks: how reliable is growth band periodicity in Orectolobidae? Fish Res 147:413–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kendall WL, Nichols JD (1995) On the use of secondary capture–recapture samples to estimate temporary emigration and breeding proportions. J Appl Stat 22:751–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kendall WL, Nichols JD, Hines JE (1997) Estimating temporary emigration using capture–recapture data with Pollock’s robust design. Ecology 78:563–578Google Scholar
  23. Last PR, Stevens JD (2009) Sharks and rays of Australia. CSIRO, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. Ecol Monogr 62:67–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lele SR, Dennis B, Lutscher F (2007) Data cloning: easy maximum likelihood estimation for complex ecological models using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Ecol Lett 10:551–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marshall AD, Pierce SJ (2012) The use and abuse of photographic identification in sharks and rays. J Fish Biol 80:1361–1379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall AD, Dudgeon C, Bennett MB (2011) Size and structure of a photographically identified population of manta rays Manta alfredi in southern Mozambique. Mar Biol 158:1111–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mcclintock BT, White GC (2007) Bighorn sheep abundance following a suspected pneumonia epidemic in Rocky Mountain National Park. J Wildl Manag 71:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mcclintock BT, White GC (2009) A less field-intensive robust design for estimating demographic parameters with mark-resight data. Ecology 90:313–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mcclintock B, White G (2012) From NOREMARK to MARK: software for estimating demographic parameters using mark-resight methodology. J Ornithol 152:641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Millspaugh JJ, Kesler DC, Kays RW, Gitzen RA, Schulz JH, Rota CT, Bodinof CM, Belant JL, Keller BJ (2012) Wildlife radiotelemetry and remote monitoring. In: Silvy NJ (ed) The wildlife techniques manual Baltimore. The John Hopkins University Press, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  32. Minta S, Mangel M (1989) A simple population estimate based on simulation for capture–recapture and capture-resight data. Ecology 70:1738–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mintzer VJ, Martin AR, Da Silva VMF, Barbour AB, Lorenzen K, Frazer TK (2013) Effect of illegal harvest on apparent survival of amazon river dolphins (Inia geoffrensis). Biol Conserv 158:280–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norris KEN (2004) Managing threatened species: the ecological toolbox, evolutionary theory and declining-population paradigm. J Appl Ecol 41:413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildl Monogr 62:7–135Google Scholar
  36. Pollock KH (1982) A capture–recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. J Wildl Manag 46:752–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990) Statistical inference for capture–recapture experiments. Wildl Monogr 107:1–97Google Scholar
  38. Reed ET, Gauthier G, Pradel R, Sheaffer SE (2005) Effects of neck bands on reproduction and survival of female greater snow geese. J Wildl Manag 69:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rowat D, Speed CW, Meekan MG, Gore MA, Bradshaw CJ (2009) Population abundance and apparent survival of the vulnerable whale shark Rhincodon typus in the Seychelles aggregation. Oryx 43:591–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Servanty S, Gaillard J-M, Ronchi F, Focardi S, Baubet É, Gimenez O (2011) Influence of harvesting pressure on demographic tactics: implications for wildlife management. J Appl Ecol 48:835–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Speakman TR, Lane SM, Schwacke LH, Fair PA, Zolman ES (2010) Mark-recapture estimates of seasonal abundance and survivorship for bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) near Charleston, South Carolina, USA. J Cetacean Res Manag 11:153–162Google Scholar
  42. Speed CW, Meekan MG, Field IC, Mcmahon CR, Stevens JD, Mcgregor F, Huveneers C, Berger Y, Bradshaw CJA (2011) Spatial and temporal movement patterns of a multi-species coastal reef shark aggregation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 429:261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suthers IM, Young JW, Baird ME, Roughan M, Everett JD, Brassington GB, Byrne M, Condie SA, Hartog JR, Hassler CS (2011) The strengthening East Australian Current, its eddies and biological effects: an introduction and overview. Deep Sea Res II 58:538–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor J (1996) Seasonal occurrence, distribution and movements of the whale shark, Rhincodon typus, at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. Mar Freshw Res 47:637–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomkiewicz SM, Fuller MR, Kie JG, Bates KK (2010) Global positioning system and associated technologies in animal behaviour and ecological research. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:2163–2176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Underwood AJ, Kingsford MJ, Andrew NL (1991) Patterns in shallow marine assemblages along the coast of New South Wales. Aust J Ecol 6:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:S120–S139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  49. Yoshizaki J, Pollock KH, Brownie C, Webster RA (2009) Modeling misidentification errors in capture–recapture studies using photographic identification of evolving marks. Ecology 90:3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. A. Lee
    • 1
  • C. Huveneers
    • 2
    • 3
  • O. Gimenez
    • 4
  • V. Peddemors
    • 1
    • 5
  • R. G. Harcourt
    • 1
  1. 1.Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species SubprogramSARDI – Aquatic SciencesAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Centre d’Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive, Campus CNRS, UMR 5175MontpellierFrance
  5. 5.Fisheries New South Wales, NSW DPISydney Institute of Marine ScienceSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations