Combining capture–recapture data and known ages allows estimation of age‐dependent survival rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many animal populations, demographic parameters such as survival and recruitment vary markedly with age, as do parameters related to sampling, such as capture probability. Failing to account for such variation can result in biased estimates of population-level rates. However, estimating age-dependent survival rates can be challenging because ages of individuals are rarely known unless tagging is done at birth. For many species, it is possible to infer age based on size. In capture-recapture studies of such species, it is possible to use a growth model to infer the age at first capture of individuals. We show how to build estimates of age-dependent survival into a capture-mark-recapture model based on data obtained in a capture-recapture study. We first show how estimates of age based on length increments closely match those based on definitive aging methods. In simulated analyses, we show that both individual ages and age-dependent survival rates estimated from simulated data closely match true values. With our approach, we are able to estimate the age-specific apparent survival rates of Murray and trout cod in the Murray River, Australia. Our model structure provides a flexible framework within which to investigate various aspects of how survival varies with age and will have extensions within a wide range of ecological studies of animals where age can be estimated based on size.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".