The effect on model identifiability of allowing different relocation rates for live and dead animals in the combined analysis of telemetry and recapture data

  • Marlina D. Nasution
  • Cavell Brownie
  • Kenneth H. Pollock
  • Roger A. Powell
Editor’s Invited Article


Models are described for the joint analysis of live-trapping and radio telemetry data from a study on black bears (Ursus americanus) in which all animals received ear tags and a subset also received radio tags. Concerns about bias in survival estimates led to investigation of identifiability and estimator precision for a series of models that allowed differenttelemetry relocation rates for living and dead animals, in addition to emigration and seasonal variation in survival. Identifiability was determined by showing that the expected information matrix was nonsingular. Models with fidelity constant across time, and with the same degree of time specificity for survival rates and relocation rates for dead animals, were determined to be nonidentifiable. More general models, with a greater degree of time specificity for survival rates, were near-singular, and estimators under these near-singular models had poor precision. Analysis of data from the study on black bears illustrated that estimates of survival have poor precision when relocation rates are estimated separately for live and dead animals. It is recommended that the effort expended to relocate both living and dead animals be consistently high in each telemetry survey, so that relocation rates will be high and constant across time and mortality status.

Key Words

Caputre-recapture Near-singularity Overparameterization Radio telemetry Unequal catchability Wildlife studies 


  1. Azzalini, A. (1996), Statistical Inference Based On The Likelihood, New York: Chapman & Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennetts, R. E., Dreitz, V. J., Kitchens, W. M., Hines, J. E., and Nichols, J. D. (1999), “Annual Survival of Snail Kites in Florida: Comparisons Between Radio-Telemetry and Capture-Resighting Data,” Auk, 116, 435–447.Google Scholar
  3. Catchpole, E. A., Freeman, S. N., and Morgan, B. J. T. (1996), “Steps to Parameter Redundancy in Age-Dependent Recovery Models,” Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 58, 763–774.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Catchpole, E. A., Kgosi, P. M., and Morgan, B. J. T. (2001), “On the Near-Singularity of Models For Animal Recovery Data,” Biometrics, 57, 720–726.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Catchpole, E. A., and Morgan, B. J. T. (1997), “Detecting Parameter Redundancy,” Biometrika, 84, 187–196.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. — (2001), “Deficiency of Parameter-Redundant Models,” Biometrika, 88, 593–598.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Catchpole, E. A., Morgan, B. J. T., and Freeman, S. N. (1998), “Estimation in Parameter-Redundant Models,” Biometrika, 85, 462–468.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Hightower, J. E., Jackson, J. R., and Pollock, K. H. (2001), “Use of Telemetry Methods to Estimate Natural and Fishing Mortality of Striped Bass in Lake Gaston, North Carolina,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 130, 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries, Inc. (1987), User’s Mannual STAT/Library FORTRAN Subroutines for Statistical Analysis, Houston, TX: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Nasution, M. D. (2000), “Estimating Survival from Joint Analysis of Resighting and Radio-Telemetry Data in Wildlife Populations” unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Dept. of StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  11. Nasution, M. D., Brownie, C., and Pollock, K. H. (2001), “Estimating Survival. From Joint Analysis of Resighting and Radio-telemetry Capture-recapture Data For Wild Animals,” Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 6, 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pollock, K. H., Bunck, C. M., Winterstein, S. R. and Chen, C. L. (1995), “A Capture-Recapture Survival Analysis Model for Radio Tagged Animals,” Journal of Applied Statistics, 22, 661–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Searle, S. R. (1982), Matrix Algebra Useful For Statistics, New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Sorensen, V. A., and Powell, R. A. (1998), “Estimating Survival Rates of Black Bears,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76, 1335–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tsai, K., Pollock, K. H., and Brownie, C. (1999), “Effects of Violation of Assumptions for Survival Analysis methods in Radiotelemetry Studies,” Journal of Wildlife Management, 63, 1369–1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Viallefont, A., Lebreton, J. D., Reboulet, A. M., and Gory, G. (1998), “Parameter Identifiability and Model Selection in Capture Recapture Models: A Numerical Approach,” Biometrical Journal, 40, 313–325.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. White, G. C. (1983), “Numerical Estimation Of Survival Rates From Band-Recovery and Biotelemetry Data,” Journal of Wildlife Management, 47, 716–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marlina D. Nasution
    • 1
  • Cavell Brownie
    • 2
  • Kenneth H. Pollock
    • 2
  • Roger A. Powell
    • 3
  1. 1.Family Health International
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh

Personalised recommendations