2024-03-29T11:54:42Zhttp://digital.csic.es/dspace-oai/requestoai:digital.csic.es:10261/410772021-10-01T12:27:42Zcom_10261_13com_10261_8col_10261_266
Survival of Marbled Teal (Marmaronetta angustirostris) released back into the wild
Green, Andy J.
Fuentes, Cristina
Figuerola, Jordi
Viedma, Covadonga
Ramón, Natalia
Mortality
Re-enforcement
Reintroduction
Release methods
Wing tags
Reintroduction or re-enforcement programmes are major tools in species conservation, but there is a need for more studies that assess the influence of different husbandry and release methods on the survival of released animals. We investigated the survival of globally threatened Marbled Teal (Marmaronetta angustirostris) taken into captivity as ducklings when they became trapped in an irrigation channel, then released again after fledging. We used wing tags and mark–recapture models to estimate the survival of re- leased teal. Ducklings rescued in 1996 (n = 53) were released soon after fledging in September and their survival was modelled for seven months until April 1997. Their apparent monthly survival rate (lower than true survival owing to loss of wing tags) was
0.85 ± 0.12 (±s.e.). Ducklings rescued in 1997 (n = 44) were released together in February 1998 over five months after fledging, and their survival was modelled for six months from February until August. Their apparent monthly survival rate was
0.54 ± 0.06. Ducklings rescued in 1998 (n = 159) were released in August–September soon after fledging and their survival was modelled for 10 months from August until June. Their apparent monthly survival rate was 0.83 ± 0.07. Monthly survival was sig- nificantly higher for the 1996 and 1998 cohort, suggesting that retaining birds in captivity after fledging had a negative impact on post-release survival. When birds were released in February, a lower proportion survived until the breeding season three months later than when they were released five months earlier in September.
2011-10-14T06:55:43Z
2011-10-14T06:55:43Z
2005-02
artículo
Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 595–601
http://hdl.handle.net/10261/41077
10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.010
eng
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.010
openAccess
Elsevier