The importance of sampling design for unbiased estimation of survival using joint live-recapture and live resight modelsuse asterix (*) to get italics

Maria C. Dzul, Charles B. Yackulic, William L. KendallPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2024

<p>Survival is a key life history parameter that can inform management decisions and life history research. Because true survival is often confounded with permanent and temporary emigration from the study area, many studies must estimate apparent survival (i.e., probability of surviving and remaining inside the study area), which can be much lower than true survival for highly mobile species. &nbsp;One method for estimating true survival is the Barker joint live-recapture/live-resight (JLRLR) model, which combines capture data from a study area (hereafter the capture site) with resighting data from a broader geographic area. This model assumes that live resights occur throughout the entire area where animals can disperse to and this assumption is often not met in practice. Here we use simulation to evaluate survival bias from a JLRLR model under study design scenarios that differ in the site selection for resights: global, random, fixed including the capture site, and fixed excluding the capture site. Simulation results indicate that fixed designs that included the capture site showed negative survival bias, whereas fixed designs that excluded the capture site exhibited positive survival bias. The magnitude of the bias was dependent on movement and survival, where scenarios with high survival and frequent movement had minimal bias. In effort to help minimize bias, we developed a multistate version of the JLRLR and demonstrated reductions in survival bias compared to the single-state version for most designs. Our results suggest minimizing bias can be accomplished by: 1) using a random resight design when feasible and global sampling is not possible, 2) using the multistate JLRLR model when appropriate, 3) including the capture site in the resight sampling frame when possible, and 4) reporting survival as apparent survival if fixed sites are used for resight with the single state JLRLR model.</p>

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13288693You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13288693You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

mark-recapture, dispersal, apparent survival, survival, emigration, Barker

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Dispersal & Migration, Euring Conference, Population ecology, Statistical ecology

Thomas Riecke thomas.riecke@umontana.edu, Jaume Adria Badia-Boher : jabadia@ub.edu, Paul Acker [paul.acker@ntnu.no] suggested: Hi Matthieu,, Paul Acker [paul.acker@ntnu.no] suggested: Sorry for this but I came back from vacation today, received a lot of demands for review while I was away, and just accepted another one. I would have been delighted to accept, but unfortunately I won't have time these days for more. For potential reviewers, I guess the ones I would suggest are certainly some you would also think about. But just on the top of my head: , Paul Acker [paul.acker@ntnu.no] suggested: Cyril Milleret (cyril.milleret@gmail.com), , Paul Acker [paul.acker@ntnu.no] suggested: Pierre Dupont (pierre.dupont@nmbu.noa), , Paul Acker [paul.acker@ntnu.no] suggested: Rémi Fay (fay.remi@gmail.com)., Paul Acker [paul.acker@ntnu.no] suggested: All the best, and Bonne année!, Paul Acker [paul.acker@ntnu.no] suggested: Paul, Rémi Fay suggested: Pierre Dupont (pierre.dup@live.fr) No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-12-22 22:31:07

Matthieu Paquet