4.3 Article

Estimating age-specific hazards from wildlife telemetry data

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL STATISTICS
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 209-222

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10651-009-0128-x

关键词

Hazard; Maximum likelihood; Penalized likelihood; Siler hazard; Survival; Telemetry; White-tailed deer

资金

  1. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
  2. Minnesota Environmental and Natural Resources Trust
  3. Minnesota Deer Hunters Association
  4. Special Projects Foundation of the Minneapolis Big Game Club

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We illustrate 2 techniques for estimating age-specific hazards with wildlife telemetry data: Siler's (Ecology 60:750-757, 1979) competing risk model fit using maximum likelihood and a penalized likelihood estimate that only assumes the hazard varies smoothly with age. In most telemetry studies, animals enter at different points in time (and at different ages), leading to data that are left-truncated. In addition, death times may only be known to occur within an interval of time (interval-censoring). Observations may also be right-censored (e.g., due to the end of the study, radio-collar failure, or emigration from the study area). It is important to consider the observation process, since the contribution of each individual's data to the likelihood will depend on whether data are left-truncated or censored. We estimate age-specific hazards using telemetry data collected in two Phases during a 13-year study of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in northern Minnesota. The hazards estimated from the two methods were similar for the full data set that included 302 adults and 76 neonates (followed since or shortly after birth). However, estimated hazards for early-aged individuals differed considerably for subsets of the data that did not include neonates. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these two modeling approaches and also compare the estimators using a short simulation study.

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