DOI: 10.5061/dryad.cvdncjt3x
title: Evaluating the potential effects of capturing and handling on subsequent observations of a migratory passerine through individual acoustic monitoring

description: Ringing is the most common technique used for individual marking of
 passerine birds, informing understanding of many aspects of their
 behaviour and ecology. Birds caught for ringing may also be substantially
 handled before release (e.g., to obtain biometric data, blood or feather
 samples), and all such procedures may affect the subsequent behaviour of a
 captured individual. Previous field studies that have assessed the
 potential effects of capturing and handling birds have nevertheless, to
 date, lacked an entirely independent unhandled control. In this study, we
 used individual acoustic monitoring to compare the apparent survival and
 re-encounter probabilities of male Tree Pipits (Anthus trivialis) that
 were captured with mist nets and intensively handled (measured,
 blood-sampled and ringed) with those of a control group of unhandled birds
 tracked solely by their vocalization. There were no differences between
 handled and unhandled birds in apparent survival rates, either in simple
 annual estimates, or in jointly estimated within- and between-breeding
 season survival estimates. Re-encounter probabilities in the latter
 analysis peaked at the start of the breeding season, when song activity
 would be expected to be greatest, but were higher for handled than
 unhandled birds in mid- to late May. Apart from demonstrating that Tree
 Pipits were not affected in the long-term by capture and associated
 handling, our study confirms that individual acoustic monitoring is a
 valuable non-intrusive method for long-term monitoring studies.
description: Indidivual acoustic monitoring (IAM) was used to track
 territorial Tree Pipit males and evaluate their apparent survival within
 and between seasons over nine years at a Central European locality. Part
 of these males were previously caught by mist netting (and further
 handled, including ringing and blood sampling), part was only tracked by
 IAM as a control group. No difference in apparent survival between groups
 was observed.
description: Three files described below are provided. This description is
 also included in README.TXT: male and observation
 info.xlsx This file in MS Excel format contains two
 sheets:<br> 1: bird info: summary information for each individual
 Tree Pipit male recorded at the studied locality. For each bird, the
 following information is provided: male ID, dates of first and last
 observation based on individual acoustic monitoring (IAM) within the study
 period (2011-2019), ringing date and ring number (if relevant), years in
 which the male was recorded at the locality, years and dates when a
 territory change was observed during the breeding season, and reasons why
 a particular male was excluded from further analysis (if
 relevant). 2: observation dates: list of all dates when
 a particular male was recorded at the locality through IAM.<br>
 ==============================================<br>
 MARK-annual.inp An input file for
 capture-mark–recapture Cormack–Jolly–Seber analyses in the MARK program,
 focusing on apparent annual survival. For each year, presence or absence
 of a particular male at the locality from April 21 to 9 July on is
 indicated; the males are divided into groups based on their handling
 status (unhandled/handled).<br>
 ==============================================<br>
 MARK-season.inp An input file for
 capture-mark–recapture Cormack–Jolly–Seber analyses in the MARK program,
 focusing on both apparent within-breeding season survival and apparent
 between-breeding season survival. For each year, presence or absence of a
 particular male at the locality in four 20-day blocks (21 April–10 May,
 11–30 May, 31 May–19 June, 20 June–9 July) is indicated; the males are
 divided into groups based on their handling status
 (unhandled/handled).