You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea: A 30-Year Mark-Recapture Case History
S. C. Amstrup, T. L. McDonald and I. Stirling
Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics
Vol. 6, No. 2, Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters (Jun., 2001), pp. 221-234
Published by: International Biometric Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1400471
Page Count: 14
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Population estimates, Polar bears, Population size, Female animals, Mark release recapture, Coefficients, Modeling, Wildlife management, Statistical models, Animals
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Knowledge of population size and trend is necessary to manage anthropogenic risks to polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Despite capturing over 1,025 females between 1967 and 1998, previously calculated estimates of the size of the southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) population have been unreliable. We improved estimates of numbers of polar bears by modeling heterogeneity in capture probability with covariates. Important covariates referred to the year of the study, age of the bear, capture effort, and geographic location. Our choice of best approximating model was based on the inverse relationship between variance in parameter estimates and likelihood of the fit and suggested a growth from approximately 500 to over 1,000 females during this study. The mean coefficient of variation on estimates for the last decade of the study was 0.16--the smallest yet derived. A similar model selection approach is recommended for other projects where a best model is not identified by likelihood criteria alone.
Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics © 2001 International Biometric Society