IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0151683.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Mark-Recapture Sampling Effort on Estimates of Rock Lobster Survival

Author

Listed:
  • Ziya Kordjazi
  • Stewart Frusher
  • Colin Buxton
  • Caleb Gardner
  • Tomas Bird

Abstract

Five annual capture-mark-recapture surveys on Jasus edwardsii were used to evaluate the effect of sample size and fishing effort on the precision of estimated survival probability. Datasets of different numbers of individual lobsters (ranging from 200 to 1,000 lobsters) were created by random subsampling from each annual survey. This process of random subsampling was also used to create 12 datasets of different levels of effort based on three levels of the number of traps (15, 30 and 50 traps per day) and four levels of the number of sampling-days (2, 4, 6 and 7 days). The most parsimonious Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) model for estimating survival probability shifted from a constant model towards sex-dependent models with increasing sample size and effort. A sample of 500 lobsters or 50 traps used on four consecutive sampling-days was required for obtaining precise survival estimations for males and females, separately. Reduced sampling effort of 30 traps over four sampling days was sufficient if a survival estimate for both sexes combined was sufficient for management of the fishery.

Suggested Citation

  • Ziya Kordjazi & Stewart Frusher & Colin Buxton & Caleb Gardner & Tomas Bird, 2016. "The Influence of Mark-Recapture Sampling Effort on Estimates of Rock Lobster Survival," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-10, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151683
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151683
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151683&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0151683?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151683. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.