Methods for estimating vital rates of greater sage-grouse broods: a review

IF 1.7 3区生物学 Q3 ECOLOGY

Wildlife Biology Pub Date : 2020-10-08 DOI:10.2981/wlb.00700

Ian P. Riley, C. Conway

{"title":"Methods for estimating vital rates of greater sage-grouse broods: a review","authors":"Ian P. Riley, C. Conway","doi":"10.2981/wlb.00700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Biologists use a variety of methods to estimate productivity and resource selection of birds. The effectiveness and suitability of each method depends on the study's objectives, but is also influenced by many important traits, including detection probability, disturbance of focal birds and sampling frequency. We reviewed 504 greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus papers published from 1990 to 2019 to document the most common brood survey methods used by investigators and summarized if and how they used brood survey data to estimate brood survival and detection probability. Of the 504 papers, 16.1% (n = 81) had useful information relevant to the review. The most common methods included daytime visual surveys (46.9%; n = 38), daytime flush surveys (33.3%; n = 27), nocturnal spotlight surveys (19.8%; n = 16), radio-tagged chicks (16.0%; n = 13), wing surveys (9.9%; n = 8), brood routes (4.9%; n = 4) and pointing dogs (4.9%; n = 4). Fifty-nine of the 81 papers used >1 method, only 2 of the 81 papers measured or reported detection probability, and none reported the level of disturbance caused by the method. Studies varied widely regarding the age of the brood when brood fate was confirmed (x̄ = 44.4 days post-hatch, range 14–84 days). The frequency of brood sampling visits also varied greatly among studies (range = 1.19–3.85 surveys/brood/week) and this variation complicates comparison in fecundity and survival estimates across studies. Furthermore, 35 papers used >1 maternal behavior as purported indicators of brood fate, but none of them documented how accurate their indicators were. Future studies could reduce variance in estimates of sage-grouse fecundity and brood survival by employing empirical methods to estimate detection probability, standardizing brood sampling methods and conducting trials to document the effects of hen or brood capture, handling and flushing on brood survival estimates. Moreover, the accuracy of commonly used indicators of brood fate, including maternal behaviors, flocking behavior and distance moved after flush needs verification.","PeriodicalId":54405,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Biology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00700","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Biologists use a variety of methods to estimate productivity and resource selection of birds. The effectiveness and suitability of each method depends on the study's objectives, but is also influenced by many important traits, including detection probability, disturbance of focal birds and sampling frequency. We reviewed 504 greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus papers published from 1990 to 2019 to document the most common brood survey methods used by investigators and summarized if and how they used brood survey data to estimate brood survival and detection probability. Of the 504 papers, 16.1% (n = 81) had useful information relevant to the review. The most common methods included daytime visual surveys (46.9%; n = 38), daytime flush surveys (33.3%; n = 27), nocturnal spotlight surveys (19.8%; n = 16), radio-tagged chicks (16.0%; n = 13), wing surveys (9.9%; n = 8), brood routes (4.9%; n = 4) and pointing dogs (4.9%; n = 4). Fifty-nine of the 81 papers used >1 method, only 2 of the 81 papers measured or reported detection probability, and none reported the level of disturbance caused by the method. Studies varied widely regarding the age of the brood when brood fate was confirmed (x̄ = 44.4 days post-hatch, range 14–84 days). The frequency of brood sampling visits also varied greatly among studies (range = 1.19–3.85 surveys/brood/week) and this variation complicates comparison in fecundity and survival estimates across studies. Furthermore, 35 papers used >1 maternal behavior as purported indicators of brood fate, but none of them documented how accurate their indicators were. Future studies could reduce variance in estimates of sage-grouse fecundity and brood survival by employing empirical methods to estimate detection probability, standardizing brood sampling methods and conducting trials to document the effects of hen or brood capture, handling and flushing on brood survival estimates. Moreover, the accuracy of commonly used indicators of brood fate, including maternal behaviors, flocking behavior and distance moved after flush needs verification.

查看原文本刊更多论文

估算大鼠尾草雏鸟存活率的方法综述

生物学家使用各种方法来估计鸟类的生产力和资源选择。每种方法的有效性和适用性取决于研究的目标，但也受到许多重要特征的影响，包括检测概率、焦点鸟的干扰和采样频率。我们回顾了1990年至2019年发表的504篇大鼠尾草齿尾(Centrocercus urophasianus)论文，记录了调查人员使用的最常见的育雏调查方法，并总结了他们是否以及如何使用育雏调查数据来估计育雏存活率和检测概率。504篇论文中，16.1% (n = 81)有与综述相关的有用信息。最常见的方法包括白天目视调查(46.9%);N = 38)，白天冲洗调查(33.3%;N = 27)，夜间聚光灯调查(19.8%;N = 16)，无线电标记雏鸡(16.0%;N = 13)，机翼调查(9.9%;N = 8)，孵化路线(4.9%;N = 4)和指向犬(4.9%;n = 4)。81篇论文中有59篇使用了>1方法，81篇论文中只有2篇测量或报告了检测概率，没有一篇报道了该方法造成的干扰程度。在确定孵蛋命运时，关于孵蛋年龄的研究差异很大(孵化后44.4天，范围14-84天)。在不同的研究中，雏鸟取样访问的频率也有很大差异(范围= 1.19-3.85次/窝/周)，这种差异使不同研究之间的繁殖力和存活率估算比较变得复杂。此外，有35篇论文使用bbb1母亲行为作为所谓的育儿命运指标，但没有一篇论文记录了这些指标的准确性。未来的研究可以通过采用经验方法估计检测概率，规范雏鸡抽样方法，并进行试验来记录母鸡或雏鸡捕获、处理和冲洗对雏鸡存活率估计的影响，从而减少对鼠尾草繁殖力和雏鸡存活率估计的差异。此外，母性行为、蜂群行为、冲后移动距离等常用的育雏命运指标的准确性有待验证。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Wildlife Biology 生物-动物学

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： WILDLIFE BIOLOGY is a high-quality scientific forum directing concise and up-to-date information to scientists, administrators, wildlife managers and conservationists. The journal encourages and welcomes original papers, short communications and reviews written in English from throughout the world. The journal accepts theoretical, empirical, and practical articles of high standard from all areas of wildlife science with the primary task of creating the scientific basis for the enhancement of wildlife management practices. Our concept of ''wildlife'' mainly includes mammal and bird species, but studies on other species or phenomena relevant to wildlife management are also of great interest. We adopt a broad concept of wildlife management, including all structures and actions with the purpose of conservation, sustainable use, and/or control of wildlife and its habitats, in order to safeguard sustainable relationships between wildlife and other human interests.