2006
DOI: 10.1578/am.32.1.2006.58
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Temporary Captivity as a Research Tool: Comprehensive Study of Wild Pinnipeds Under Controlled Conditions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
68
3

Year Published

2008
2008
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(72 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
68
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Previously published control studies with animals monitored during temporary captivity (21-71 d) and tracked for a mean postrelease period of 86 d (SD 55; range: 10-242 d; n=35) for implanted animals and of 76 d (SD 54;n=30) for nonimplanted animals-with all animals having conventional satellite transmitters externally attached after their release (Wildlife Computers SDRT-16 and SPLASH-5 tags)-confirmed that 1) implant surgery results in mild to moderate wound healing responses and temporary elevation of white cell counts and haptoglobin concentrations, with full physiological recovery within 45 d following surgery; 2) tags and surgery result in zero mortality to 45 d; 3) postrelease foraging and ranging behavior does not differ between implanted and nonimplanted animals or between temporarily captive and free-ranging animals; and 4) the cumulative survival of animals over the ages of 14-60 months was 0.415 (95% confidence intervals [CI]=0.26-0.63), compared with 0.413 (95% CI=0.27-0.55) for mark-resight studies based on hot iron branding conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service, providing no evidence of any effects of LHX tags or implant surgery on survival to the age of 5 years (Mellish et al, 2006(Mellish et al, , 2007Thomton et al, 2008;Petrauskas et al, 2008;Walker et al, 2009;Horning and Mellish, 2012).…”
Section: Tag Deployments and Controlsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previously published control studies with animals monitored during temporary captivity (21-71 d) and tracked for a mean postrelease period of 86 d (SD 55; range: 10-242 d; n=35) for implanted animals and of 76 d (SD 54;n=30) for nonimplanted animals-with all animals having conventional satellite transmitters externally attached after their release (Wildlife Computers SDRT-16 and SPLASH-5 tags)-confirmed that 1) implant surgery results in mild to moderate wound healing responses and temporary elevation of white cell counts and haptoglobin concentrations, with full physiological recovery within 45 d following surgery; 2) tags and surgery result in zero mortality to 45 d; 3) postrelease foraging and ranging behavior does not differ between implanted and nonimplanted animals or between temporarily captive and free-ranging animals; and 4) the cumulative survival of animals over the ages of 14-60 months was 0.415 (95% confidence intervals [CI]=0.26-0.63), compared with 0.413 (95% CI=0.27-0.55) for mark-resight studies based on hot iron branding conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service, providing no evidence of any effects of LHX tags or implant surgery on survival to the age of 5 years (Mellish et al, 2006(Mellish et al, , 2007Thomton et al, 2008;Petrauskas et al, 2008;Walker et al, 2009;Horning and Mellish, 2012).…”
Section: Tag Deployments and Controlsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subsequently, two tags per animal were used to increase and estimate data return probability. For initial deployments animals were held in extended captivity up to eight weeks after surgery prior to release to allow comprehensive assessments of postoperative effects including physiological changes [56][57][58][59], stress response [60], as well as behavioral indicators of pain [61,62]. Following release, all animals were tracked via externally attached satellite telemetry transmitters for periods ranging from one week to four months [57,63].…”
Section: Life-long Implanted Vital Rate Transmittersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To directly measure mortality and predation in the endangered western Steller sea lion, we deployed LHX tags (Horning & Hill 2005) in 21 juveniles (N = 5 females and 16 males) from 2005 through 2008 in the Kenai Fjords -Prince William Sound (KF-PWS) region of the Gulf of Alaska. Animals were captured in the wild, transported to and held in temporary captivity at a quarantined facility at the Alaska Sea Life Center (Seward, AK) for periods of 6 to 12 wk, and subsequently released into the wild (Mellish et al 2006). Single (N = 2 sea lions) or dual LHX tags (N = 19) were surgically implanted into the abdominal cavity under inhalant gas anesthesia ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Single (N = 2 sea lions) or dual LHX tags (N = 19) were surgically implanted into the abdominal cavity under inhalant gas anesthesia ). All animals were monitored for health and clinical chemistry indicators during captivity, and had to meet previously established rigorous health criteria prior to release (Mellish et al 2006(Mellish et al , 2007. All animals were monitored following their release via externally attached, satellite-linked data transmitters (Mellish et al 2007, Thomton et al 2008, and through opportunistic re-sighting of hot-iron brand markings (N = 20) or plastic flipper tags (N = 1).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%