R Code and Output Supporting: Do Capture and Survey Methods Influence Whether Marked Animals are Representative of Unmarked Animals?

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Statistics
View Statistics

Collection period

2004
2007

Date completed

2015

Date updated

Time period coverage

Geographic coverage

Northeastern Minnesota
Eastern Lynn Canal, Alaska (59 N, 135 W)
Cascade Range, Washington
Olympic Range, Washington
Whatcom County, Washington
Skagit County, Washington
Snohomish County, Washington
Southwestern Washington

Source information

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Title

R Code and Output Supporting: Do Capture and Survey Methods Influence Whether Marked Animals are Representative of Unmarked Animals?

Published Date

2015-03-27

Group

Author Contact

Fieberg, John R
jfieberg@umn.edu

Type

Dataset
Map
Software Code
Field Study Data

Abstract

These files contain R code (along with associated output from running the code) supporting all results reported in "Do Capture and Survey Methods Influence Whether Marked Animals are Representative of Unmarked Animals?" in Wildlife Society Bulletin. The lead author wrote this code to analyze multi-year re-sighting data collected from moose (Alces alces) in Minnesota, elk (Cervus elaphus) in Washington, and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) in Washington and Alaska, to evaluate whether detection probabilities increased or decreased as a function of time since animals were captured.

Description

The archive consists of 9 files: 1. WA_elk.R = R code used to analyze elk resighting data. 2. WA_elk.html = html output resulting from running the R code in WA_elk.R. 3. Mtg_AK_WA.R = R code used to analyze mountain goat resighting data. 4. Mtg_AK_WA.html = html output resulting from running the R code in Mtg_AK_WA.R. 5. Moose_MN.R = R code used to analyze moose resighting data. 6. Moose_MN.html = html output resulting from running the R code in Moose_MN.R. 7. sightdat.csv = resighting data collected from moose in Minnesota between 2004 and 2007. 8. MTG_Sight_Alaska.csv = resighting data collected from mountain goats in Alaska. 9. NE_MN_Map.pdf = map of collection region for moose resighting data.

Referenced by

Fieberg, J., K. Jenkins, S. McCorquodale, C. G. Rice, G. C. White, and K. White. (2015). Do Capture and Survey Methods Influence Whether Marked Animals are Representative of Unmarked Animals? Wildlife Society Bulletin.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wsb.591

Related to

Replaces

item.page.isreplacedby

Publisher

Funding information

item.page.sponsorshipfunderid

item.page.sponsorshipfundingagency

item.page.sponsorshipgrant

Previously Published Citation

Other identifiers

Suggested citation

Fieberg, John R; White, Kevin S. (2015). R Code and Output Supporting: Do Capture and Survey Methods Influence Whether Marked Animals are Representative of Unmarked Animals?. Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota (DRUM), http://dx.doi.org/10.13020/D6Z597.

Content distributed via the University Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor. By using these files, users agree to the Terms of Use. Materials in the UDC may contain content that is disturbing and/or harmful. For more information, please see our statement on harmful content in digital repositories.