4.3 Article

Effects of neck bands on survival of greater snow geese

期刊

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 544-552

出版社

WILDLIFE SOC
DOI: 10.2307/3803252

关键词

band recovery; capture-recapture; Chen caerulescens atlantica; greater snow goose; marker; neck bands; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neck bands are a widely used marker in goose research. However; few studies have investigated a possible negative effect of this marl;er on survival. We tested the effect of neck bands on the survival of adult female greater snow geese (Chen caerulescens atlantica) by marking birds with either a neck band and a metal leg band or a leg band only on Bylot Island (Nunavut, formerly included in the Northwest Territories, Canada) from 1990 to 1996. Annual survival was estimated using leg-band recoveries in fall and winter and using neckband sightings in spring and fall. Recapture rates were estimated using summer recaptures. Using recovery data, the selected model yielded a survival similar for die neck-banded and leg-banded only birds (S = 0.845 +/- 0.070 vs. S = 0.811 +/- 0.107). The hypothesis of equality of survival between the 2 groups was easily accepted under most constraints imposed on survival or recovery rates. However, failure to account for a different direct recovery rate for neck-banded birds would lead us to incorrectly conclude a possible negative effect of neck bands on survival. Using sighting data, mean annual survival of neck-banded birds was independently estimated at 0.833 +/- 0.057, a value very similar to that estimated with band-recovery analysis. Raw recapture rates during summer were significantly lower for neck-banded birds compared to those marked with leg bands only (4.6% vs. 12.1%), but in this analysis, survival, site fidelity reproductive status, and recapture rates were confounded. We conclude that neck bands did not affect survival of greater snow geese, but could possibly affect other demographic traits such as breeding propensity and emigration.

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