Effects of harness-attached tracking devices on survival, migration, and reproduction in three species of migratory waterfowl

Table 1 Return rates of birds equipped with harness-attached tracking devices (tagged birds) compared to their control groups, equipped with colored legbands or neck collars

Species	Time frame of measurement	Sample size tagged birds	Return rate	Sample size control group	Return rate	Coefficient	Odds ratio
Greater White-fronted Goose (males)	Winter 2013/2014–winter 2014/2015 and winter 2014/2015–winter 2015/2016	7	0.43	13	0.62	− 0.37	0.69
Greater White-fronted Goose (females)	Winter 2013/2014–winter 2014/2015 and winter 2014/2015–winter 2015/2016	7	0.29	13	0.69	− 1.34	0.26
Greater White-fronted Goose (juveniles)	Winter 2013/2014–winter 2014/2015 and winter 2014/2015–winter 2015/2016	21	0.29	66	0.70	− 1.37	0.25
Brent goose (males)	May 2012–May 2013	21	0.52	37	0.78	− 0.81	0.44
Brent goose (females)	May 2014–May 2015	6	0.83	15	0.93	− 0.65	0.52
Barnacle goose (females)	June 2014–August 2015	40	0.45	40	0.55	− 0.40	0.67
				22^a	0.55	− 0.38	0.68

For each return rate, we give the time frame of the measurement over which the return rate has been measured, the coefficient value taken from logistic regression models (representing the change in log odds) and the odds ratio
^aFor this comparison, only the subset of control birds caught on the nest is used as a control group

ISSN: 2050-3385