Background Age-at-harvest data are among the most commonly collected, yet neglected, demographic data gathered by wildlife agencies. Statistical population construction techniques can use this information to estimate the abundance of wild populations over wide geographic areas and concurrently estimate recruitment, harvest, and natural survival rates. Although current reconstruction techniques use full age-class data (0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, … years), it is not always possible to determine an animal's age due to inaccuracy of the methods, expense, and logistics of sample collection. The ability to inventory wild populations would be greatly expanded if pooled adult age-class data (e.g., 0.5, 1.5, 2.5+ years) could be successfully used in statistical population reconstruction. Methodology/Principal Findings We investigated the performance of statistical population reconstruction models developed to analyze full age-class and pooled adult age-class data. We performed Monte Carlo simulations using a stochastic version of a Leslie matrix model, which generated data over a wide range of abundance levels, harvest rates, and natural survival probabilities, representing medium-to-big game species. Results of full age-class and pooled adult age-class population reconstructions were compared for accuracy and precision. No discernible difference in accuracy was detected, but precision was slightly reduced when using the pooled adult age-class reconstruction. On average, the coefficient of variation increased by 0.059 when the adult age-class data were pooled prior to analyses. The analyses and maximum likelihood model for pooled adult age-class reconstruction are illustrated for a black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) population in Washington State. Conclusions/Significance Inventorying wild populations is one of the greatest challenges of wildlife agencies. These new statistical population reconstruction models should expand the demographic capabilities of wildlife agencies that have already collected pooled adult age-class data or are seeking a cost-effective method for monitoring the status and trends of our wild resources.
References
[1]
Rupp SP, Ballard WB, Wallace MC (2000) A nationwide evaluation of deer hunter harvest survey techniques. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 570–578.
[2]
Diefenbach DR, Laake JL, Alt GL (2004) Spatio-temporal and demographic variation in the harvest of black bears: Implications for population estimation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 947–959.
[3]
Biederbeck HH, Boulay MC, Jackson DH (2001) Effects of hunting regulations on bull elk survival and age structure. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 1271–1277.
[4]
Willey CH (1974) Aging black bears from first premolar tooth sections. Journal of Wildlife Management 38: 97–100.
[5]
Hamlin KL, Pac DF, Sime CA, DeSimone RM, Dusek GL (2000) Evaluating the accuracy of ages obtained by two methods for Montana ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 441–449.
[6]
Harshyne WA, Diefenbach DR, Alt GL, Matson GM (1998) Analysis of error from cementum-annuli age estimates of known-age Pennsylvania black bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 1281–1291.
[7]
Hewison AJ, Vincent JP, Angiault JM, Delorme D, Van Laere G, et al. (1999) Tests of estimation of age from tooth wear on roe deer of known age: variation within and among populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 58–67.
[8]
Costello CM, Inman KH, Jones DE, Inman RM, Thompson BC, et al. (2004) Reliability of the cementum annuli technique for estimating age of black bears in New Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 169–176.
[9]
Severinghaus CW (1949) Tooth development and wear as criteria of age in white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 13: 195–215.
[10]
Quimby DC, Gaab JE (1957) Mandibular dentition as an age indicator in Rocky Mountain elk. The Journal of Wildlife Management 21: 435–451.
[11]
Dimmick RW, Pelton MR (1994) Criteria of sex and age. In: Bookhout TA, editor. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth ed. Bethesda, Maryland, USA: The Wildlife Society. pp. 169–214.
[12]
Gee KL, Holman JH, Causey MK, Rossi AN, Armstrong JB (2002) Aging white-tailed deer by tooth replacement and wear: A critical evaluation of a time-honored technique. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 387–393.
[13]
Kuehn DW, Berg WE (1983) Use of radiographs to age otters. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11: 68–70.
[14]
Jenks JA, Bowyer RT, Clark AG (1984) Sex and age-class determination for fisher using radiographs of canine teeth. Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 626–628.
[15]
Skalski JR, Ryding KE, Millspaugh JJ (2005) Wildlife demography: Analysis of sex, age, and count data. San Diego, California, USA: Academic Press. 636 p.
[16]
Millspaugh JJ, Skalski JR, Townsend RL, Diefenbach DR, Boyce MS, et al. (2009) An evaluation of the sex-age-kill (SAK) model performance. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 442–451.
[17]
Gove NE, Skalski JR, Zager P, Townsend RL (2002) Statistical models for population reconstruction using age-at-harvest data. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 310–320.
[18]
Skalski JR, Townsend RL, Gilbert BA (2007) Calibrating population reconstruction models using catch-effort and index data. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 1309–1316.
[19]
Gilbert BA, Raedeke KJ, Skalski JR, Stringer AB (2007) Modeling black-tailed deer population dynamics using structured and unstructured approaches. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 144–154.
[20]
Kelly G (1975) Indexes for aging eastern wild turkeys. Proceedings of the Third National Wild Turkey Symposium 3: 205–209.
[21]
Broms KM, Skalski JR, Millspaugh JJ, Hagen CA, Schulz JH (2010) Using statistical population reconstruction to estimate demographic trends in small game populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 310–317.
[22]
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. New York, New York, USA: Springer-Verlag. 488 p.
[23]
Anscombe FJ (1953) Contribution to the discussion of H. Hotelling's paper. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 15: 165–173.
