4.3 Article

Annual and seasonal survival of trumpeter swans in the upper midwest

期刊

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 129-135

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.280

关键词

annual survival; Cygnus buccinator; migration; reintroduced species; seasonal survival; trumpeter swan; winter

资金

  1. Illinois Department of Natural Resources [W-142-R-04]
  2. Wisconsin Society for Ornithology
  3. Cooperative Wildlife Research Lab
  4. Department of Zoology at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reintroduction of trumpeter swans to the north central United States appears to be a conservation success story. For the most part, population management goals have been met or exceeded. The population cannot be considered self-sustaining, however, because 90% of the swans migrate short distances to wintering sites where supplemental feeding occurs. The remaining 10% migrate longer distances to areas where adequate open water and forage occur naturally. To determine how these 2 different wintering habits might affect mortality, we used mark-resight data gathered between 2000 and 2008 to estimate and compare annual survival rates for long- and short-distance migrant swans marked in Wisconsin. Apparent annual survival rates were similar for long- (0.81, SE = 0.019) and short- (0.81, SE = 0.022) distant adult migrants but were higher for long-distance sub-adult (0.86, SE = 0.036) migrants than for short-distance sub-adult migrants (0.7, SE = 0.046). We also estimated seasonal survival of long-distance migrants to determine if the migratory periods are a time of high mortality. We found little evidence for seasonal variation in survival and estimates for both migratory and non-migratory seasons were very high (>0.97). Overall, the results suggest that little mortality occurs during migration and long-distance migrants are able to survive at rates at least equal to, but probably higher than, short-distance migrants. (C) 2011 The Wildlife Society.

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

4.3
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