Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:

login

Log in through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This 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.

Modeling Tag Loss in New Zealand Fur Seal Pups

Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Richard J. Barker and Lloyd S. Davis
Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics
Vol. 5, No. 4 (Dec., 2000), pp. 475-485
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1400661
Page Count: 11
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($14.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
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.
Modeling Tag Loss in New Zealand Fur Seal Pups
Preview not available

Abstract

Mark-recapture studies of pinnipeds commonly use double-tagging to reduce bias of parameter estimates and to allow estimation of tag retention rates. However, most tag retention estimates assume independence of tag loss. Here we were able to identify when individual New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri) pups had lost both tags; therefore, we tested the assumption of no association between the tag-loss rates of left and right tags. We also tested for differences in tag retention among three different types of plastic tag (Allflex® cattle, mini and button tags), between two attachment types (i.e., fixed or swivel), and whether retention varied among years and colonies sampled. We found strong evidence of within-individual tag loss association for most tags in most years, but little evidence that this varied among colonies. We found that ignoring within-individual association of tag loss led to a bias in estimated tag retention of 7.4-10.1%. Smaller rocks and greater crevice and ledge densities in colonies were associated with lower probabilities of tag retention. We suggest researchers should attempt to use permanent marks in combination with tags to assess unbiased estimates of tag retention.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
475
    475
  • Thumbnail: Page 
476
    476
  • Thumbnail: Page 
477
    477
  • Thumbnail: Page 
478
    478
  • Thumbnail: Page 
479
    479
  • Thumbnail: Page 
480
    480
  • Thumbnail: Page 
481
    481
  • Thumbnail: Page 
482
    482
  • Thumbnail: Page 
483
    483
  • Thumbnail: Page 
484
    484
  • Thumbnail: Page 
485
    485