Abstract
In order for mark–recapture models to provide unbiased estimates of population parameters, it is critical that uniquely identifying tags or marks are not lost. We double-banded male and female wild turkeys with aluminum rivet bands and estimated the probability that a bird would be recovered with both bands < 1–225 wk since banding (mean = 51.2 wk, SD = 44.0). We found that 100% of females (n = 37) were recovered with both bands. For males, we recovered 6 of 188 turkeys missing a rivet band for a retention probability of 0.984 (95% CI = 0.96–0.99). If male turkeys are doublebanded with rivet bands the probability of recovering a turkey without any marks is < 0.001. We failed to detect a change in band retention over time or differences between adults and juveniles. Given the low cost and high retention rates of rivet aluminum bands, we believe they are an effective marking technique for wild turkeys and, for most studies, will minimize any concern about the assumption that marks are not lost.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Article number | e1944-687X |
| Pages (from-to) | 162-164 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs |
|
| State | Published - Jun 1 2016 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
- Ecology
- Animal Science and Zoology
- Nature and Landscape Conservation
Cite this
}
Retention of riveted aluminum leg bands by wild Turkeys. / Diefenbach, Duane R; Vreeland, Wendy C.; Casalena, Mary Jo; Schiavone, Michael V.
In: Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, e1944-687X, 01.06.2016, p. 162-164.Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate
TY - JOUR
T1 - Retention of riveted aluminum leg bands by wild Turkeys
AU - Diefenbach, Duane R
AU - Vreeland, Wendy C.
AU - Casalena, Mary Jo
AU - Schiavone, Michael V.
PY - 2016/6/1
Y1 - 2016/6/1
N2 - In order for mark–recapture models to provide unbiased estimates of population parameters, it is critical that uniquely identifying tags or marks are not lost. We double-banded male and female wild turkeys with aluminum rivet bands and estimated the probability that a bird would be recovered with both bands < 1–225 wk since banding (mean = 51.2 wk, SD = 44.0). We found that 100% of females (n = 37) were recovered with both bands. For males, we recovered 6 of 188 turkeys missing a rivet band for a retention probability of 0.984 (95% CI = 0.96–0.99). If male turkeys are doublebanded with rivet bands the probability of recovering a turkey without any marks is < 0.001. We failed to detect a change in band retention over time or differences between adults and juveniles. Given the low cost and high retention rates of rivet aluminum bands, we believe they are an effective marking technique for wild turkeys and, for most studies, will minimize any concern about the assumption that marks are not lost.
AB - In order for mark–recapture models to provide unbiased estimates of population parameters, it is critical that uniquely identifying tags or marks are not lost. We double-banded male and female wild turkeys with aluminum rivet bands and estimated the probability that a bird would be recovered with both bands < 1–225 wk since banding (mean = 51.2 wk, SD = 44.0). We found that 100% of females (n = 37) were recovered with both bands. For males, we recovered 6 of 188 turkeys missing a rivet band for a retention probability of 0.984 (95% CI = 0.96–0.99). If male turkeys are doublebanded with rivet bands the probability of recovering a turkey without any marks is < 0.001. We failed to detect a change in band retention over time or differences between adults and juveniles. Given the low cost and high retention rates of rivet aluminum bands, we believe they are an effective marking technique for wild turkeys and, for most studies, will minimize any concern about the assumption that marks are not lost.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975226420&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975226420&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3996/072015-JFWM-064
DO - 10.3996/072015-JFWM-064
M3 - Comment/debate
VL - 7
SP - 162
EP - 164
JO - Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management
JF - Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management
SN - 1944-687X
IS - 1
M1 - e1944-687X
ER -