ArticleEcology and evolution2018
Estimating mortality rates among passerines caught for ringing with mist nets using data from previously ringed birds.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minor mist-net injuries do not affect apparent annual survival in Cliff Swallows (The Wilson journal of ornithology · 2025Article
- Global review and guidelines to avoid opportunistic predation of birds and bats in mist nets.Ecology and evolution · 2023Review
- Hinfluences severe disease-mediated population declines in two of the most common garden bird species in Great Britain.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Puncture versus capture: which stresses animals the most?Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology · 2020Article
- Estimating mortality rates among passerines caught for ringing with mist nets using data from previously ringed birds.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mist netting is the most commonly used method for catching birds for scientific ringing, but despite decades of use, there have been few attempts to quantify the associated potential risks to the individuals caught. Any incidence of mortality through capture and handling, however low, is of potential ethical concern and may also introduce biases into the data. We estimate the mortality rate associated with capture of previously ringed (recaptured) passerines from the British and Irish Ringing Scheme (c. 1.5 million records) caught using mist nets. The importance of species, age, mass, month, time, previous captures, and an index of predator occurrence was tested using generalized linear mixed-effects models. The average mortality rate was 0.0011, most of which was reported to occur before the individuals had been extracted from the nets (c. 70% of incidents). Juveniles appeared to be at higher risk and the incidence of predation from mist nets was seasonal, with increased risk during the winter. Species differed in their reported mortality rates with the apparent risk being greatest for Chiffchaff
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.