ArticleEcology and evolution2021
Capture method affects survival estimates and subsequent interpretation of ecological covariates for a long-lived cervid.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Capture method affects survival estimates and subsequent interpretation of ecological covariates for a long-lived cervid.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding what variables affect ungulate neonate survival is imperative to successful conservation and management of the species. Predation is commonly cited as a cause-specific source of mortality, and ecological covariates often influence neonate survival. However, variation in survival estimates related to capture methodology has been documented with opportunistically captured neonates generally displaying greater survival than those captured via aid of vaginal implant transmitters (VITs), likely because of increased left truncation observed in the opportunistically captured datasets. Our goal was to assess whether 3- and 6-month survival estimates varied by capture method while simultaneously assessing whether capture method affected model selection and interpretation of ecological covariates for white-tailed deer neonates captured from three study sites from 2014 to 2015 in North Dakota and South Dakota, USA. We found survival varied by capture method for 3-month neonate survival with opportunistically captured neonates displaying up to 26% greater survival than their counterparts captured via VITs; however, this relationship was not present for 6-month survival. We also found model selection and subsequent interpretation of ecological covariates varied when analyzing datasets comprised of neonates captured via VITs, neonates captured opportunistically, and all neonates combined regardless of capture method. When interpreting results from our VIT-only analysis for 3-month survival, we found survival varied by three time intervals and was lowest in the first two weeks of life. Capture method did not affect 6-month survival, which was most influenced by total precipitation occurring during 3 - 8 weeks of a neonate's life and percent canopy cover found at a neonate's capture site. Our results support previous research that capture method must be accounted for when deriving survival estimates for ungulate neonates as it can impact derived estimates and subsequent interpretation of results.
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.