Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Sept 2015

Recouping Lost Information when Mark-Recapture Data are Pooled: A Case Study of Milksnakes (Lampropeltis triangulum) in the Upper Midwestern United States

,
,
, and
Page Range: 428 – 436
DOI: 10.1670/13-217
Save
Download PDF

Abstract

There is a surprising lack of data available on snake demography. This is largely because snakes are cryptic and difficult to detect. To address this problem, researchers often use nonrandom sampling methods (which can result in sampling artifacts) or pool capture occasions (which results in a loss of information). We conducted two spatially and temporally overlapping mark–recapture studies on Milksnakes (Lampropeltis triangulum). Both studies used fixed trap locations (artificial cover objects) but varied in their sampling duration and intensity. We used multimodel inference within an information-theoretic approach to estimate adult annual survival (0.72 ± 0.160 standard error [SE]) and abundance (N = 85 ± 35.2 SE). To estimate density, we used a spatially explicit model (1.19 individuals/ha ± 0.331 SE). We applied a novel approach to address sampling bias that resulted from the use of fixed trap locations. This involved modeling maximum detection frequency as a covariate, which better accounted for individual heterogeneity in detection probabilities than did mixtures, sex, behavior, or month. This approach allowed for the recovery of information that was lost when capture occasions were pooled to account for low detection. We found support for this technique via reanalysis of datasets of known population size. This approach may be useful for mark–recapture studies that rely on fixed trap locations.

Copyright: Copyright 2015 Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles 2015
<sc>Fig. 1</sc>
. 
Fig. 1 . 

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Field Station in the Cedarburg Bog State Natural Area (Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, USA). High-intensity, short-term surveys included 610 ACOs (yellow circles, mean intertrap distance = 15.08 M) distributed over suitable habitat spanning 37.3 ha (convex polygon). Low-intensity, long-term surveys were conducted within the 6.1-ha study area (shaded brown). Colored circles and lines (excluding yellow and red) represent unique adult individual captures and movements, respectively. Red circles represent adults captured only once. Data shown include 2008 and 2009 captures. Only 2009 data were used to estimate abundance and density. Habitat includes restored prairie, old-field (smooth brome, Bromus inermis and goldenrod, Solidago spp.), wetlands, and some upland areas. Scattered trees occur westward along with dense patches of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and a narrow stream intersects the central-western habitat.


<sc>Fig. 2</sc>
. 
Fig. 2 . 

Adult 2009 capture frequencies (gray histograms) of 30 individuals, captured 58 times, used to model abundance. Blue line represents adult detection probability as explained by the maximum detection frequency covariate used in the top-ranked Huggins closed capture model (Table 1). Blue shaded area represents the upper and lower 95% CIs.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author. E-mail: hileman.et@gmail.com
Accepted: 30 Jul 2014
  • Download PDF