A Capture–Recapture Model with Double-Marking, Live and Dead Encounters, and Heterogeneity of Reporting Due to Auxiliary Mark Loss
- 243 Downloads
Capture–recapture (CR) models assume marked individuals remain at risk of capture, which may not be true if individuals lose their mark or emigrate definitively from the study area. Using a double-marking protocol, with a main and auxiliary mark, and both live encounters and dead recoveries at a large scale, partially frees CR models from this assumption. However, the auxiliary mark may fall off and its presence is often not mentioned when dead individuals are reported. We propose a new model to deal with heterogeneity of detection and uncertainty of the presence of an auxiliary mark in a multi-event framework. Our general model, based on a double-marking protocol, uses information from physical captures/recaptures, distant observations and main mark recoveries from dead animals. We applied our model to a 13-year data set of a harvested species, the Greater Snow Goose. We obtained seasonal survival estimates for adults of both sexes. Survival estimates differed between models where the presence of the auxiliary mark upon recovery was ignored versus those where the presence was accounted for. In the multi-event framework, seasonal survival estimates are no longer biased because the heterogeneity due to the presence of an auxiliary mark is accounted for in the estimation of recovery rates.
Note: An illustration of the implementation of our model in E-SURGE is available online.
Key WordsE-SURGE Mixture of information Multi-event Recoveries Tag loss
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Brownie, C. (1985), Statistical inference from band recovery data: a handbook, no. 156 in Resource Publication, 2nd ed., Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Google Scholar
- Burnham, K. P. (1993), “A theory for combined analysis of ring recovery and recapture data,” in Marked Individuals in the Study of Bird Population, eds. J.-D. Lebreton, P. M. North, Basel: Birkhauser, pp. 199–213. Google Scholar
- Choquet, R., Rouan, L., and Pradel, R. (2009), “Program E-SURGE: a software application for fitting multievent models,” in Modeling Demographic Processes in Marked Populations, Series: Environmental and Ecological Statistics, Vol. 3, eds. D. L. Thomson, E. G. Cooch, and M. J. Conroy, New York: Springer, pp. 845–865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Menu, S., Gauthier, G., and Reed, A. (2001), “Survival of juvenile Greater Snow Geese immediately after banding,” Journal of Field Ornithology, 72, 282–290. Google Scholar
- Nichols, J. D., and Hines, J. E. (1993), “Survival rate estimation in the presence of tag loss using joint analysis of capture–recapture and resighting data,” in Marked Individuals in the Study of Bird Population, eds. J.-D. Lebreton, and P. M. North, Basel: Birkhauser, pp. 229–243. Google Scholar
- Pradel, R., Gimenez, O., and Lebreton, J.-D. (2005), “Principles and interest of GOF tests for multistate capture–recapture models,” Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 28, 189–204. Google Scholar
- Zicus, M. C., Schultz, D. F., and Cooper, J. A. (1983), “Canada goose mortality from neckband icing,” Wildlife Society Bulletin, 11, 286–290. Google Scholar