Data for Evaluating Efficacy of 1- versus 2-prong Radio Transmitter Attachment for Scoters in Alaska and Washington, 2008-2010

Metadata Updated: November 12, 2020

A major challenge of wildlife telemetry is choosing an attachment technique that maximizes transmitter retention while minimizing negative side effects. For waterbirds, attachment of transmitters with subcutaneous anchors has been an effective and well-established technique, having been used on >40 species. This method was recently modified to include a second subcutaneous anchor, presumably increasing transmitter retention beyond that of single-anchor attachments. This putative benefit may be offset, however, by increased health risks related to additional incisions and subcutaneous protrusions. To test this potential trade-off, we attached radio transmitters to surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata) and white-winged scoters (M. fusca) during the flightless remigial molt and winter using single- (121 scoters) and double-anchor (128 scoters) attachment techniques. The data described here are generated by this research project. Results of this work are published in the journal Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Access & Use Information

License: No license information was provided. If this work was prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties it is considered a U.S. Government Work.

Downloads & Resources

Dates

Metadata Date January 24, 2018
Metadata Created Date November 12, 2020
Metadata Updated Date November 12, 2020
Reference Date(s) January 1, 2018 (publication)
Frequency Of Update notPlanned

Metadata Source

Harvested from DOI Open Data

Additional Metadata

Resource Type Dataset
Metadata Date January 24, 2018
Metadata Created Date November 12, 2020
Metadata Updated Date November 12, 2020
Reference Date(s) January 1, 2018 (publication)
Responsible Party (Point of Contact)
Contact Email
Guid
Access Constraints Use Constraints: None. Users are advised to read the data set's metadata thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations. Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty., Access Constraints: None.
Bbox East Long -122.0
Bbox North Lat 60.0
Bbox South Lat 47.0
Bbox West Long -138.0
Coupled Resource
Frequency Of Update notPlanned
Licence Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
Metadata Language
Metadata Type geospatial
Progress completed
Spatial Data Service Type
Spatial Reference System
Spatial Harvester True
Temporal Extent Begin 2008-01-01
Temporal Extent End 2010-01-01

Didn't find what you're looking for? Suggest a dataset here.