Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

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

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
     22a 0.55 − 0.38 0.68
  1. 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
  2. aFor this comparison, only the subset of control birds caught on the nest is used as a control group