Survival and Recovery Rates of American Woodcock Banded in Michigan

Krementz, David G.; Hines, James E.; Luukkonen, David R.

doi:10.2307/3802780

Cited by 9 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We caution, however, that the contribution of hunting mortality to annual mortality remains unclear, and that hunting mortality on the breeding grounds may be compensated for at least in part during the remainder of the year. We found no evidence that low annual survival rates of juvenile woodcock (Krementz et al , Mayhew and Luukkonen ) resulted from age‐specific mortality during the fall. Decisions about woodcock harvest management will still have to be made with incomplete information on the overall influence of hunting on woodcock population dynamics, but our results provide a better understanding of the effect of hunting mortality that occurs in breeding ground states relative to other sources of mortality in the Central Region.…”

Section: Management Implicationscontrasting

confidence: 63%

“…Annual survival of female woodcock was greater than that of males in the Eastern Region, and annual survival of adults was greater than that of juveniles in the Eastern and Central Regions. Annual survival rate estimates of adult and juvenile woodcock were 0.490 and 0.265, respectively, in Michigan during 1978–1998 (Krementz et al ). The reasons for the discrepancy between the results of most telemetry‐based studies and analyses of banding data regarding sex and age‐related differences in survival of woodcock are unknown.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fall survival of American woodcock in the western Great Lakes Region

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimated fall (10 Sep–8 Nov) survival rates, cause‐specific mortality rates, and determined the magnitude and sources of mortality of 1,035 radio‐marked American woodcock (Scolopax minor) in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin during 2001–2004. In all 3 states, we radio‐marked woodcock on paired study areas; 1 of which was open to hunting and expected to receive moderate to high hunter use and the other of which was either closed to hunting (Michigan and Minnesota) or was relatively inaccessible to hunters (Wisconsin). We used Program MARK to estimate fall survival rates, to evaluate a set of candidate models to examine the effects of hunting and several covariates (sex, age, year, state) on survival, and to examine the relationship between survival rates and kill rates due to hunting. Hunting accounted for 70% of the 86 woodcock deaths in the hunted areas, followed by predation (20%) and various other sources of mortality (10%). Woodcock deaths that occurred in the non‐hunted and lightly hunted areas (n = 50) were caused by predators (46%), hunting (32%), and various other sources (22%). Based on small‐sample corrected Akaike's Information Criterion values, variation in fall survival of woodcock was best explained by treatment (i.e., hunted vs. non‐hunted), year, and period (pre‐hunting season intervals vs. hunting season intervals). The average fall survival estimate from our best model for woodcock in the non‐hunted areas (0.893, 95% CI = 0.864–0.923) was greater than the average for the hunted areas (0.820, 95% CI = 0.786–0.854 [this estimate includes data from the lightly hunted area in Wisconsin]), and the average treatment effect (i.e., greater survival rates in non‐hunted areas) was 0.074 (95% CI = 0.018–0.129). The kill rate due to hunting was 0.120 (95% CI = 0.090–0.151) when data were pooled among states and years. We detected a negative relationship between hunting kill rates and survival in our hunted areas, which suggests that hunting mortality was at least partially additive during fall. Our results illustrate the influence of hunting relative to other sources of mortality in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and indicate that managers may be able to influence fall survival rates by manipulating hunting regulations or access on public land. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Management Implicationscontrasting

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fall survival of American woodcock in the western Great Lakes Region

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Krementz et al. , Zimmerman et al. , Seamans and Rau ) are based on data collected over different temporal (1963–2006 vs. 1967–1982 vs. 1982–1984, 1968–2016) and spatial scales (Michigan‐only vs. Maine‐only vs. eastern and central population units vs. continent‐wide).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), and band‐recovery analyses (Krementz et al. , Mayhew and Luukkonen ), there have been few attempts to combine these data (e.g., Zimmerman et al. , Sullins et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling data discrepancies with integrated population models

Saunders

Farr

Wright

et al. 2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common challenge for studying wildlife populations occurs when different survey methods provide inconsistent or incomplete inference on the trend, dynamics, or viability of a population. A potential solution to the challenge of conflicting or piecemeal data relies on the integration of multiple data types into a unified modeling framework, such as integrated population models (IPMs). IPMs are a powerful approach for species that inhabit spatially and seasonally complex environments. We provide guidance on exploiting the capabilities of IPMs to address inferential discrepancies that stem from spatiotemporal data mismatches. We illustrate this issue with analysis of a migratory species, the American Woodcock (Scolopax minor), in which individual monitoring programs suggest differing population trends. To address this discrepancy, we synthesized several long‐term data sets (1963–2015) within an IPM to estimate continental‐scale population trends, and link dynamic drivers across the full annual cycle and complete extent of the woodcock's geographic range in eastern North America. Our analysis reveals the limiting portions of the life cycle by identifying time periods and regions where vital rates are lowest and most variable, as well as which demographic parameters constitute the main drivers of population change. We conclude by providing recommendations for resolving conflicting population estimates within an integrated modeling approach, and discuss how strategies (e.g., data thinning, expert opinion elicitation) from other disciplines could be incorporated into ecological analyses when attempting to combine multiple, incongruent data types.

show abstract

“…1985; Krementz et al. 2003), and we address this point with regard to Lincoln's estimator of abundance below. Since not all hunters report banded birds that they recover, the probability of band reporting, , must be estimated separately (Henny and Burnham 1976), and applied to the probability of band recovery, , to arrive at an estimate of harvest rate, .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lincoln estimates of mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) abundance in North America

Alisauskas

Arnold

Leafloor

et al. 2013

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimates of range-wide abundance, harvest, and harvest rate are fundamental for sound inferences about the role of exploitation in the dynamics of free-ranging wildlife populations, but reliability of existing survey methods for abundance estimation is rarely assessed using alternative approaches. North American mallard populations have been surveyed each spring since 1955 using internationally coordinated aerial surveys, but population size can also be estimated with Lincoln's method using banding and harvest data. We estimated late summer population size of adult and juvenile male and female mallards in western, midcontinent, and eastern North America using Lincoln's method of dividing (i) total estimated harvest, , by estimated harvest rate, , calculated as (ii) direct band recovery rate, , divided by the (iii) band reporting rate, . Our goal was to compare estimates based on Lincoln's method with traditional estimates based on aerial surveys. Lincoln estimates of adult males and females alive in the period June–September were 4.0 (range: 2.5–5.9), 1.8 (range: 0.6–3.0), and 1.8 (range: 1.3–2.7) times larger than respective aerial survey estimates for the western, midcontinent, and eastern mallard populations, and the two population estimates were only modestly correlated with each other (western: r = 0.70, 1993–2011; midcontinent: r = 0.54, 1961–2011; eastern: r = 0.50, 1993–2011). Higher Lincoln estimates are predictable given that the geographic scope of inference from Lincoln estimates is the entire population range, whereas sampling frames for aerial surveys are incomplete. Although each estimation method has a number of important potential biases, our review suggests that underestimation of total population size by aerial surveys is the most likely explanation. In addition to providing measures of total abundance, Lincoln's method provides estimates of fecundity and population sex ratio and could be used in integrated population models to provide greater insights about population dynamics and management of North American mallards and most other harvested species.

show abstract

Survival and Recovery Rates of American Woodcock Banded in Michigan

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Fall survival of American woodcock in the western Great Lakes Region

Fall survival of American woodcock in the western Great Lakes Region

Disentangling data discrepancies with integrated population models

Lincoln estimates of mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) abundance in North America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About