Using novel spatial mark–resight techniques to monitor resident Canada geese in a suburban environment
M. Elizabeth Rutledge A C , Rahel Sollmann A , Brian E. Washburn B , Christopher E. Moorman A and Christopher S. DePerno AA Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Campus Box 7646, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA.
B U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, Ohio, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: merutled@ncsu.edu
Wildlife Research 41(5) 447-453 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14069
Submitted: 11 April 2014 Accepted: 18 October 2014 Published: 20 February 2015
Abstract
Context: Over the past two decades, an increase in the number of resident (non-migratory) Canada geese (Branta canadensis) in the United States has heightened the awareness of human–goose interactions.
Aims: Accordingly, baseline demographic estimates for goose populations are needed to help better understand the ecology of Canada geese in suburban areas.
Methods: As a basis for monitoring efforts, we estimated densities of adult resident Canada geese in a suburban environment by using a novel spatial mark–resight method. We resighted 763 neck- and leg-banded resident Canada geese two to three times per week in and around Greensboro, North Carolina, over an 18-month period (June 2008 – December 2009). We estimated the density, detection probabilities, proportion of male geese in the population, and the movements and home-range radii of the geese by season ((post-molt I 2008 (16 July – 31 October), post-molt II 2008/2009 (1 November – 31 January), breeding and nesting 2009 (1 February – 31 May), and post-molt I 2009). Additionally, we used estimates of the number of marked individuals to quantify apparent monthly survival.
Key results: Goose densities varied by season, ranging from 11.10 individuals per km2 (s.e. = 0.23) in breeding/nesting to 16.02 individuals per km2 (s.e. = 0.34) in post-molt II. The 95% bivariate normal home-range radii ranged from 2.60 to 3.86 km for males and from 1.90 to 3.15 km for females and female home ranges were smaller than those of male geese during the breeding/nesting and post-molt II seasons. Apparent monthly survival across the study was high, ranging from 0.972 (s.e. = 0.005) to 0.995 (s.e. = 0.002).
Conclusions: By using spatial mark–resight models, we determined that Canada goose density estimates varied seasonally. Nevertheless, the seasonal changes in density are reflective of the seasonal changes in behaviour and physiological requirements of geese.
Implications: Although defining the state–space of spatial mark–resight models requires careful consideration, the technique represents a promising new tool to estimate and monitor the density of free-ranging wildlife. Spatial mark–resight methods provide managers with statistically robust population estimates and allow insight into animal space use without the need to employ more costly methods (e.g. telemetry). Also, when repeated across seasons or other biologically important time periods, spatial mark–resight modelling techniques allow for inference about apparent survival.
Additional keywords: Branta canadensis, density estimation, goose movements, home range, survival, urbanisation.
References
Allan, J. R., Kirby, J. S., and Feare, C. J. (1995). The biology of Canada geese Branta canadensis in relation to the management of feral populations. Wildlife Biology 1, 129–143.Balkcom, G. D. (2010). Demographic parameters of rural and urban adult resident Canada geese in Georgia. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 120–123.
| Demographic parameters of rural and urban adult resident Canada geese in Georgia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Borchers, D. (2012). A non-technical overview of spatially explicit capture–recapture models. Journal fur Ornithologie 152, 435–444.
| A non-technical overview of spatially explicit capture–recapture models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chandler, R. B., and Royle, J. A. (2013). Spatially-explicit models for inference about density in unmarked or partially marked populations. The Annals of Applied Statistics 7, 936–954.
| Spatially-explicit models for inference about density in unmarked or partially marked populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
City of Greensboro, North Carolina Demographics (2013). ‘300 West Washington Street, Greensboro, North Carolina 27401.’ Available at http://www.greensboro-nc.gov. [Verified 10 April 2014]
Dolbeer, R. A. (2011). Increasing trend of damaging bird strikes with aircraft outside the airport boundary: implications for mitigation measures. Human–Wildlife Interactions 5, 235–248.
Dolbeer, R. A., Wright, S. E., Weller, J., and Begier, M. J. (2013). Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990−2012. Federal Aviation Administration, National Wildlife Strike Database. Serial Report Number 19. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC.
Dunton, E. M., and Combs, D. L. (2010). Movements, habitat selection, associations, and survival of giant Canada goose broods in central Tennessee. Human–Wildlife Interactions 4, 192–201.
Efford, M. (2004). Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106, 598–610.
| Density estimation in live-trapping studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., and Rubin, D. B. (2004). ‘Bayesian Data Analysis.’ 2nd edn. (CRC/Chapman and Hall: Boca Raton, FL.)
Graczyk, T. K., Fayer, R., Trout, J. M., Lewis, E. J., Farley, C. A., Sulaiman, I., and Lal, A. A. (1998). Giardia sp. cysts and infectious Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in the feces of migratory Canada geese (Branta canadensis). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64, 2736–2738.
| 1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXkt1OgsLc%3D&md5=42fd42730cf6867cfc1739cdc4a1bb5aCAS | 9647860PubMed |
Groepper, S. R., Gabig, P. J., Vrtiska, M. P., Gilsdorf, J. M., Hygnstrom, S. E., and Powell, L. A. (2008). Population and spatial dynamics of resident Canada geese in southeastern Nebraska. Human–Wildlife Conflicts 2, 270–276.
Hestbeck, J. B., Nichols, J. D., and Malecki, R. A. (1991). Estimates of movement and site fidelity using mark-resight data of wintering Canada geese. Ecology 72, 523–533.
| Estimates of movement and site fidelity using mark-resight data of wintering Canada geese.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Karanth, K. U., and Nichols, J. D. (1998). Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79, 2852–2862.
| Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kendall, W. L., Conn, P. B., and Hines, J. E. (2006). Combining multistate capture-recapture data with tag recoveries to estimate demographic parameters. Ecology 87, 169–177.
| Combining multistate capture-recapture data with tag recoveries to estimate demographic parameters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16634308PubMed |
Kullas, H., Coles, M., Rhyan, J., and Clark, L. (2002). Prevalence of Escherichia coli serogroups and human virulence factors in faeces of urban Canada geese (Branta canadensis). International Journal of Environmental Health Research 12, 153–162.
| Prevalence of Escherichia coli serogroups and human virulence factors in faeces of urban Canada geese (Branta canadensis).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12396532PubMed |
Manny, B. A., Johnson, W. C., and Wetzel, R. G. (1994). Nutrient additions by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: predicting their effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiologia 279-280, 121–132.
| Nutrient additions by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: predicting their effects on productivity and water quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK2cXks1Cru7Y%3D&md5=efe5d14f68c8f1cd4584e81254d9e4c9CAS |
McClintock, B. T., White, G. C., Antolin, M. F., and Tripp, D. W. (2009). Estimating abundance using mark-resight when sampling is with replacement or the number of marked individuals is unknown. Biometrics 65, 237–246.
| Estimating abundance using mark-resight when sampling is with replacement or the number of marked individuals is unknown.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18479484PubMed |
Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C., and Anderson, D. R. (1978). Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62, 1–135.
R Development Core Team (2011). ‘R: a Language and Environment for Satistical Computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna.)
Reppucci, J., Gardner, B., and Lucherini, M. (2011). Estimating detection and density of the Andean cat in the high Andes. Journal of Mammalogy 92, 140–147.
| Estimating detection and density of the Andean cat in the high Andes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Royle, J. A., and Dorazio, R. M. (2012). Parameter-expanded data augmentation for Bayesian analysis of capture–recapture models. Journal fur Ornithologie 152, 521–537.
| Parameter-expanded data augmentation for Bayesian analysis of capture–recapture models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Royle, J. A., and Young, K. V. (2008). A hierarchical model for spatial capture–recapture data. Ecology 89, 2281–2289.
| A hierarchical model for spatial capture–recapture data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18724738PubMed |
Royle, J. A., Dorazio, R. M., and Link, W. A. (2007). Analysis of multinomial models with unknown index using data augmentation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16, 67–85.
| Analysis of multinomial models with unknown index using data augmentation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Royle, J. A., Chandler, R. B., Sollmann, R., and Gardner, B. (2014a). Spatial mark–resight models. In ‘Spatial Capture–Recapture’. pp. 497–526. (Academic Press: Waltham, MA.)
Royle, J. A., Chandler, R. B., Sollmann, R., and Gardner, B. (2014b). Fully spatial capture–recapture models. In ‘Spatial Capture–Recapture’. pp. 125–170. (Academic Press: Waltham, MA.)
Rutledge, M. E. (2013). Impacts of resident Canada goose movements on zoonotic disease transmission and human safety at suburban airports. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Rutledge, M. E., Siletzky, R. M., Gu, W., Degernes, L. A., Moorman, C. E., DePerno, C. S., and Kathariou, S. (2013). Characterization of Campylobacter from resident Canada geese in an urban environment. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 49, 1–9.
| Characterization of Campylobacter from resident Canada geese in an urban environment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXisVGhsbo%3D&md5=37877681be4ae59cb557af8eb670bb79CAS | 23307366PubMed |
Smith, A. E., Craven, S. R., and Curtis, P. D. (1999). ‘Managing Canada Geese in Urban Environments.’ (Jack Berryman Institute Publication 16, and Cornell University Cooperative Extension: Ithaca, NY.)
Sollmann, R., Gardner, B., Chandler, R. B., Shindle, D. B., Onorato, D. P., Royle, J. A., and O’Connell, A. F. (2013a). Using multiple data sources provides density estimates for endangered Florida panther. Journal of Applied Ecology 50, 961–968.
| Using multiple data sources provides density estimates for endangered Florida panther.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sollmann, R., Gardner, B., Parsons, A. W., Stocking, J. J., McClintock, B. T., Simons, T. R., Pollock, K. H., and O’Connell, A. F. (2013b). A spatial mark–resight model augmented with telemetry data. Ecology 94, 553–559.
| A spatial mark–resight model augmented with telemetry data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23687880PubMed |
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2012). ‘Final Environmental Impact Statement: Resident Canada Goose Management.’ Available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/currentbirdissues/management/cangeese/finaleis.htm. [Verified 10 April 2014]
White, G. C., and Shenk, T. M. (2001). Population estimation with radio-marked individuals. In ‘Radio Tracking and Animal Populations’. (Eds J. Millspaugh and J. M. Marzluff.) pp. 329–350. (Academic Press: San Diego, CA.)
