比较标记技术对鸻雏鸟存活率的影响

IF 1.3 4区 生物学 Q2 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Christy N. Wails, Daniel H. Catlin, Samantha G. Robinson, Henrietta A. Bellman, Katie W. Oliver, Hope L. VanDerwater, Sharon S. Dorsey, Audrey DeRose-Wilson, Sarah M. Karpanty, James D. Fraser
{"title":"比较标记技术对鸻雏鸟存活率的影响","authors":"Christy N. Wails, Daniel H. Catlin, Samantha G. Robinson, Henrietta A. Bellman, Katie W. Oliver, Hope L. VanDerwater, Sharon S. Dorsey, Audrey DeRose-Wilson, Sarah M. Karpanty, James D. Fraser","doi":"10.1007/s10336-024-02211-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The use of unique markers in ornithology has a long history and is predicated on the assumption that markers have negligible effects on behavior and survival. The assumption that marks are harmless is particularly important with imperiled species. We studied the effects of two different marking schemes on Piping Plovers (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>), a small shorebird protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act that is intensively monitored and managed. We used two marking schemes, (1) color bands and (2) uniquely engraved flags during breeding seasons from 2013 to 2023 to determine whether the injuries were causing additive mortality and thus actually limiting populations. We estimated the effect of perceived limping and injury (e.g., swelling, laceration, etc.) on chick and hatch-year survival. We detected injuries in some years and associated with both marking schemes (range 0.0–6.0%, average = 2.7% of marked chicks each year). Interval survival for banded chicks was like that of flagged chicks (<span>\\(\\beta \\)</span> = − 0.55, 95% BCI: − 1.30–0.33, <i>f</i> = 0.92). Mean survival to fledging, however, was higher in years where flags were used (<span>\\(\\overline{\\phi }=\\)</span> 0.55 ± 0.14) than when bands were used (<span>\\(\\overline{\\phi }=\\)</span> 0.34 ± 0.14), but we surmise that this difference was partly conflated with negative density-dependent factors (<span>\\(\\beta \\)</span> = − 0.49, 95% BCI: − 0.73 to − 0.25, <i>f</i> = 1.00) and predation. Our results show that pre-fledge survival of birds with uniquely coded flags was similar to that of birds receiving color bands. There was also no evidence that injured birds had a significantly lower hatch-year survival than those that were not injured. However, the relatively high (up to 6%) injury rate in some years remains a concern. Injury and survival rates need to be considered and evaluated when deciding on whether to mark individuals. Ultimately, wildlife practitioners should strive to use the best methods for information gathering and management, without negatively impacting the species.</p>","PeriodicalId":54895,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ornithology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the effects of marking techniques on the survival of Piping Plover chicks\",\"authors\":\"Christy N. Wails, Daniel H. Catlin, Samantha G. Robinson, Henrietta A. Bellman, Katie W. Oliver, Hope L. VanDerwater, Sharon S. Dorsey, Audrey DeRose-Wilson, Sarah M. Karpanty, James D. Fraser\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10336-024-02211-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The use of unique markers in ornithology has a long history and is predicated on the assumption that markers have negligible effects on behavior and survival. The assumption that marks are harmless is particularly important with imperiled species. We studied the effects of two different marking schemes on Piping Plovers (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>), a small shorebird protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act that is intensively monitored and managed. We used two marking schemes, (1) color bands and (2) uniquely engraved flags during breeding seasons from 2013 to 2023 to determine whether the injuries were causing additive mortality and thus actually limiting populations. We estimated the effect of perceived limping and injury (e.g., swelling, laceration, etc.) on chick and hatch-year survival. We detected injuries in some years and associated with both marking schemes (range 0.0–6.0%, average = 2.7% of marked chicks each year). Interval survival for banded chicks was like that of flagged chicks (<span>\\\\(\\\\beta \\\\)</span> = − 0.55, 95% BCI: − 1.30–0.33, <i>f</i> = 0.92). Mean survival to fledging, however, was higher in years where flags were used (<span>\\\\(\\\\overline{\\\\phi }=\\\\)</span> 0.55 ± 0.14) than when bands were used (<span>\\\\(\\\\overline{\\\\phi }=\\\\)</span> 0.34 ± 0.14), but we surmise that this difference was partly conflated with negative density-dependent factors (<span>\\\\(\\\\beta \\\\)</span> = − 0.49, 95% BCI: − 0.73 to − 0.25, <i>f</i> = 1.00) and predation. Our results show that pre-fledge survival of birds with uniquely coded flags was similar to that of birds receiving color bands. There was also no evidence that injured birds had a significantly lower hatch-year survival than those that were not injured. However, the relatively high (up to 6%) injury rate in some years remains a concern. Injury and survival rates need to be considered and evaluated when deciding on whether to mark individuals. Ultimately, wildlife practitioners should strive to use the best methods for information gathering and management, without negatively impacting the species.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54895,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ornithology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ornithology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-024-02211-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ornithology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-024-02211-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在鸟类学中使用独特标记由来已久,其前提是假定标记对行为和生存的影响可以忽略不计。对于濒危物种来说,标记无害的假设尤为重要。我们研究了两种不同标记方案对鸻(Charadrius melodus)的影响,鸻是一种受美国濒危物种法案保护的小型岸鸟,受到严格监控和管理。在 2013 年至 2023 年的繁殖季节,我们使用了两种标记方案:(1)色带和(2)独特雕刻的旗帜,以确定伤害是否会导致额外死亡率,从而限制种群数量。我们估算了跛行和受伤(如肿胀、撕裂等)对雏鸟和孵化年存活率的影响。我们在某些年份发现了受伤现象,并与两种标记方案有关(范围为 0.0-6.0%,平均 = 每年 2.7% 的标记雏鸟)。带环雏鸟的存活率与标记雏鸟的存活率相似(\(\beta \) = - 0.55, 95% BCI:- 1.30-0.33, f = 0.92).然而,在使用旗帜的年份,平均出雏存活率(\(\overline{\phi }=\)0.55 ± 0.14)高于使用带子的年份(\(\overline{\phi }=\)0.34 ± 0.14),但我们推测,这种差异部分与密度依赖性负因子(\(\beta \) = - 0.49, 95% BCI:- 0.73 to - 0.25, f = 1.00)和捕食。我们的研究结果表明,悬挂唯一编码旗帜的鸟类在确认前的存活率与佩戴色带的鸟类相似。也没有证据表明受伤鸟类的孵化年存活率明显低于未受伤的鸟类。然而,某些年份相对较高(高达 6%)的受伤率仍然令人担忧。在决定是否标记个体时,需要考虑和评估受伤率和存活率。归根结底,野生动物从业者应努力使用最佳方法收集和管理信息,同时不对物种造成负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparing the effects of marking techniques on the survival of Piping Plover chicks

Comparing the effects of marking techniques on the survival of Piping Plover chicks

The use of unique markers in ornithology has a long history and is predicated on the assumption that markers have negligible effects on behavior and survival. The assumption that marks are harmless is particularly important with imperiled species. We studied the effects of two different marking schemes on Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus), a small shorebird protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act that is intensively monitored and managed. We used two marking schemes, (1) color bands and (2) uniquely engraved flags during breeding seasons from 2013 to 2023 to determine whether the injuries were causing additive mortality and thus actually limiting populations. We estimated the effect of perceived limping and injury (e.g., swelling, laceration, etc.) on chick and hatch-year survival. We detected injuries in some years and associated with both marking schemes (range 0.0–6.0%, average = 2.7% of marked chicks each year). Interval survival for banded chicks was like that of flagged chicks (\(\beta \) = − 0.55, 95% BCI: − 1.30–0.33, f = 0.92). Mean survival to fledging, however, was higher in years where flags were used (\(\overline{\phi }=\) 0.55 ± 0.14) than when bands were used (\(\overline{\phi }=\) 0.34 ± 0.14), but we surmise that this difference was partly conflated with negative density-dependent factors (\(\beta \) = − 0.49, 95% BCI: − 0.73 to − 0.25, f = 1.00) and predation. Our results show that pre-fledge survival of birds with uniquely coded flags was similar to that of birds receiving color bands. There was also no evidence that injured birds had a significantly lower hatch-year survival than those that were not injured. However, the relatively high (up to 6%) injury rate in some years remains a concern. Injury and survival rates need to be considered and evaluated when deciding on whether to mark individuals. Ultimately, wildlife practitioners should strive to use the best methods for information gathering and management, without negatively impacting the species.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Ornithology
Journal of Ornithology 生物-鸟类学
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ornithology (formerly Journal für Ornithologie) is the official journal of the German Ornithologists'' Society (http://www.do-g.de/ ) and has been the Society´s periodical since 1853, making it the oldest still existing ornithological journal worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信