The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(1):50–57; 2014; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.647
Population Ecology
Band Reporting Probabilities of Mallards, American Black Ducks, and Wood Ducks in Eastern North America PAMELA R. GARRETTSON,1 Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708, USA ROBERT V. RAFTOVICH, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10815 Loblolly Pine Drive, Laurel, MD 20708, USA JAMES E. HINES, U. S. Geological Survey Biological Resource Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, MD 20708, USA GUTHRIE S. ZIMMERMAN, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3020 State University Drive East, Modoc Hall, Suite 2007, Sacramento, CA 95819, USA
ABSTRACT Estimates of band reporting probabilities are used for managing North American waterfowl to
convert band recovery probabilities into harvest probabilities, which are used to set harvest regulations. Band reporting probability is the probability that someone who has shot and retrieved a banded bird will report the band. This probability can vary relative to a number of factors, particularly the inscription on the band and the ease with which it can be reported. Other factors, such as geographic reporting region, and species and sex of the bird may also play a role. We tested whether reporting probabilities of wood ducks (Aix sponsa) and American black ducks (black ducks; Anas rubripes) differed from those of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and whether band reporting varied geographically or by the sex of the banded bird. In the analysis of spatially comparable wood duck and mallard data, a band reporting probability of 0.73 (95% CI ¼ 0.67–0.78) was appropriate for use across species, sex, and reporting region within the United States. In the black duck– mallard comparison, the band reporting probability of black ducks in Eastern Canada (0.50, 95% CI ¼ 0.44– 0.57) was lower than in the Eastern United States (0.73, 95% CI ¼ 0.62–0.83). These estimates reflected an increase in overall band reporting probability following the addition of a toll-free telephone number to band inscriptions. Lower reporting in Eastern Canada may be because of cultural, linguistic, or logistical barriers. Ó 2013 The Wildlife Society. KEY WORDS Aix sponsa, Anas platyrhynchos, Anas rubripes, band reporting probability, black duck, harvest rate, mallard, reward banding, wood duck.
Annual waterfowl harvest probabilities are used in the management of North American waterfowl, including wood ducks, black ducks, and mallards, to estimate the effects of hunting regulations on harvest. The ultimate goal is to ensure that harvest remains within sustainable limits. Harvest probability (h) is an estimate of the proportion of birds alive at the beginning of the hunting season that are shot and retrieved by hunters (Nichols et al. 1995). It is typically estimated from banding and recovery data, under the assumption that the sample of banded birds is representative of the population of interest. Band recovery probability (f) is an estimate of the proportion of birds alive at the beginning of the hunting season that are shot and
Received: 22 February 2012; Accepted: 28 September 2013 Published: 5 December 2013 1
E-mail:
[email protected]
50
retrieved by hunters and reported to the U.S. Geological Survey Bird Banding Lab (BBL). If all hunters who shot and retrieved a banded bird reported it to the BBL, the band reporting probability (l) would equal 1.0, and the band recovery probability and harvest probability would be equivalent. However, band reporting probabilities are typically . Accessed 4 Nov 2013. Conroy, M. J., and W. W. Blandin. 1984. Geographic and temporal differences in band reporting rates for American black ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:23–26. Francis, C. M., J. R. Sauer, and J. R. Serie. 1998. Effect of restrictive harvest regulations on survival and recovery rates of American black ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:1544–1557. Garrettson, P. R. 2007. A proposed assessment and decision-making framework to inform harvest management of wood ducks in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. < http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BySpecies/wodu draft harvest strategy with appendices.pdf >. Accessed 18 Oct 2013. Henny, C. J., and K. P. Burnham. 1976. A reward band study of mallards to estimate band reporting rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 40:1–14. Johnson, F. A., J. A. Dubovsky, M. C. Runge, and D. R. Eggeman. 2002. A revised protocol for the adaptive harvest management of eastern mallards. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior technical report, Washington, D.C., USA. < http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ NewReportsPublications/AHM/Year2002/emal-ahm-2002.pdf >. Accessed 18 Oct 2013. The Journal of Wildlife Management
78(1)
Kelley, J. R. 1997. Wood duck population monitoring initiative: final report. Atlantic Flyway Council, Mississippi Flyway Council, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Administrative Report, Laurel, Maryland, USA. Nichols, J. D., R. J. Blohm, R. E. Reynolds, R. E. Trost, J. E. Hines, and J. P. Bladen. 1991. Band reporting rates for mallards with reward bands of different dollar values. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:119–126. Nichols, J. D., R. E. Reynolds, R. J. Blohm, R. E. Trost, J. E. Hines, and J. P. Bladen. 1995. Geographic variation in band reporting rates for mallards based on reward banding. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:607–708. Otis, D. L. 2004. Mallard harvest distributions in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways during periods of restrictive and liberal hunting regulations. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:351–359. Raftovich, R. V., K. A. Wilkins, S. S. Williams, H. L. Spriggs, and K. D. Richkus. 2011. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2009 and 2010 hunting season. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. < http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/HIP/HuntingStatistics/migratory%20bird%20hunting%20activity%20and%20harvest%20during%20the%202009%20and%202010% 20hunting%20seasons.pdf >. Accessed 18 Oct 2013. Royle, J. A., and P. R. Garrettson. 2005. The effect of reward band value on mid-continent mallard band reporting rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:800–804. Sanders, T. A., and D. L. Otis. 2012. Mourning dove reporting probabilities for web-address versus toll-free bands. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:480–488.
Garrettson et al.
Band Reporting Rates in Eastern North America
Smith, G. W. 1997. Banding goals: an analysis of the black duck banding program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Maryland, USA. Teal Harvest Potential Working Group. 2013. An assessment of the harvest potential of North American teal. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. < http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/Teal/Final%20Teal%20Assessment%20Report%20Mar% 2012%202013.pdf >. Accessed 4 Nov 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Issuance of annual regulations permitting the hunting of migratory birds: final supplemental environmental impact statement. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA. White, G. C. 1992. PC SURVIV User’s Manual. Department of Forestry and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA. Zimmerman, G. S., T. J. Moser, W. L. Kendall, P. F. Doherty, G. C. White, and D. F. Caswell. 2009. Factors influencing reporting and harvest probabilities in North American Geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:710–719. Associate Editor: Joel Schmutz.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s web-site.
57
