Complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: An elephant seal case study
Abstract In capture–recapture studies, recycled individuals occur when individuals lose all of their tags and are recaptured as though they were new individuals. Typically, the effect of these recycled individuals is assumed negligible. Through a simulation‐based study of double‐tagging experiments,...
Published in: | Ecology and Evolution |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6052 https://doaj.org/article/923f76370caf4750abfdb025215ecf68 |
id |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:923f76370caf4750abfdb025215ecf68 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:923f76370caf4750abfdb025215ecf68 2023-05-15T16:05:08+02:00 Complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: An elephant seal case study Emily Malcolm‐White Clive R. McMahon Laura L. E. Cowen 2020-03-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6052 https://doaj.org/article/923f76370caf4750abfdb025215ecf68 EN eng Wiley https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6052 https://doaj.org/toc/2045-7758 2045-7758 doi:10.1002/ece3.6052 https://doaj.org/article/923f76370caf4750abfdb025215ecf68 Ecology and Evolution, Vol 10, Iss 5, Pp 2377-2384 (2020) abundance capture–mark–recapture complete tag loss demography double tagging elephant seal Ecology QH540-549.5 article 2020 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6052 2022-12-31T09:29:18Z Abstract In capture–recapture studies, recycled individuals occur when individuals lose all of their tags and are recaptured as though they were new individuals. Typically, the effect of these recycled individuals is assumed negligible. Through a simulation‐based study of double‐tagging experiments, we examined the effect of recycled individuals on parameter estimates in the Jolly–Seber model with tag loss (Cowen & Schwarz, 2006). We validated the simulation framework using long‐term census data of elephant seals. Including recycled individuals did not affect estimates of capture, survival, and tag‐retention probabilities. However, with low tag‐retention rates, high capture rates, and high survival rates, recycled individuals produced overestimates of population size. For the elephant seal case study, we found population size estimates to be between 8% and 53% larger when recycled individuals were ignored. Ignoring the effects of recycled individuals can cause large biases in population size estimates. These results are particularly noticeable in longer studies. Article in Journal/Newspaper Elephant Seal Elephant Seals Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Ecology and Evolution 10 5 2377 2384 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles |
op_collection_id |
ftdoajarticles |
language |
English |
topic |
abundance capture–mark–recapture complete tag loss demography double tagging elephant seal Ecology QH540-549.5 |
spellingShingle |
abundance capture–mark–recapture complete tag loss demography double tagging elephant seal Ecology QH540-549.5 Emily Malcolm‐White Clive R. McMahon Laura L. E. Cowen Complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: An elephant seal case study |
topic_facet |
abundance capture–mark–recapture complete tag loss demography double tagging elephant seal Ecology QH540-549.5 |
description |
Abstract In capture–recapture studies, recycled individuals occur when individuals lose all of their tags and are recaptured as though they were new individuals. Typically, the effect of these recycled individuals is assumed negligible. Through a simulation‐based study of double‐tagging experiments, we examined the effect of recycled individuals on parameter estimates in the Jolly–Seber model with tag loss (Cowen & Schwarz, 2006). We validated the simulation framework using long‐term census data of elephant seals. Including recycled individuals did not affect estimates of capture, survival, and tag‐retention probabilities. However, with low tag‐retention rates, high capture rates, and high survival rates, recycled individuals produced overestimates of population size. For the elephant seal case study, we found population size estimates to be between 8% and 53% larger when recycled individuals were ignored. Ignoring the effects of recycled individuals can cause large biases in population size estimates. These results are particularly noticeable in longer studies. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Emily Malcolm‐White Clive R. McMahon Laura L. E. Cowen |
author_facet |
Emily Malcolm‐White Clive R. McMahon Laura L. E. Cowen |
author_sort |
Emily Malcolm‐White |
title |
Complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: An elephant seal case study |
title_short |
Complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: An elephant seal case study |
title_full |
Complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: An elephant seal case study |
title_fullStr |
Complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: An elephant seal case study |
title_full_unstemmed |
Complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: An elephant seal case study |
title_sort |
complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: an elephant seal case study |
publisher |
Wiley |
publishDate |
2020 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6052 https://doaj.org/article/923f76370caf4750abfdb025215ecf68 |
genre |
Elephant Seal Elephant Seals |
genre_facet |
Elephant Seal Elephant Seals |
op_source |
Ecology and Evolution, Vol 10, Iss 5, Pp 2377-2384 (2020) |
op_relation |
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6052 https://doaj.org/toc/2045-7758 2045-7758 doi:10.1002/ece3.6052 https://doaj.org/article/923f76370caf4750abfdb025215ecf68 |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6052 |
container_title |
Ecology and Evolution |
container_volume |
10 |
container_issue |
5 |
container_start_page |
2377 |
op_container_end_page |
2384 |
_version_ |
1766400887568203776 |