Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Are instrumented animals representative of the population, given the potential bias caused by selective sampling and the influence of capture, handling and wearing bio-loggers? The answer is elusive owing to the challenges of obtaining comparable data from individuals with and without bio-loggers. Using non-invasive genetic data of a large carnivore, the wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Scandinavia, and an open-population spatial capture–recapture model, we found a 16 (credible interval: 4–30) percentage points lower mortality probability for GPS-collared individuals compared with individuals without GPS collars. While the risk of dying from legal culling was comparable for collared and non-collared wolverines, the former experienced lower probability of mortality due to causes other than legal culling. The aforementioned effect was pronounced despite a potentially lower age—and therefore likely higher natural mortality—of collared individuals. Reports of positive effects of bio-loggers on the survival of individuals are uncommon and we argue that GPS collars could shield animals from poaching. Our results highlight the challenges of drawing population-level inferences for populations subjected to poaching when using data from instrumented individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Milleret et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: