4.2 Article

Survival rates of the California sea lion, Zalophus californianus, in Mexico

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY
卷 89, 期 4, 页码 1059-1066

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1644/07-MAMM-A-404.1

关键词

demography; mark-recapture; survival probabilities

类别

资金

  1. Comision nacional Para el conocimiento y uso de la biodiversidad [H081]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia [26430-N]
  3. Instituto Politecnico Nacional Direccion de Estudios de Posgrado e Investioacion [968013]
  4. Secretaria de Educacion Publica Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia [22004-C01-46086]
  5. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia
  6. National Science Foundation [0347960]
  7. Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales [240996-213-03, DOO 750-4172/97, DOO 750-4443/98, NUM/SGPA/DGVS 04311, 04160, 05325, 03269]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) in the Gulf of California have declined by 20% over the past 2 decades. The lack of data on life-history parameters for this species has limited the development of demographic models to assess the status of this population. We estimated age- and sex-specific annual survival probabilities for California sea lions using resighting data on 5 pup cohorts from 1981 to 2006. We modeled apparent survival and resighting probability using age-class, sex, and time as potential explanatory variables. Apparent survival rates varied for different age- and sex-classes. Only survival of pups varied by year (from 0.556 to 0.998). Survival was the same for immature males and females (0.90), but differed by sex for young (males = 0.90, females = 0.97) and old (males = 0.75, females = 0.91) adults. Resighting probabilities varied by time, age-class, and sex. Resighting probabilities were higher for females than for males, and lowest for juveniles. The survival estimates presented here provide practical insight into understanding age- and sex-specific survival rates for California sea lions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据