Geology topics

Mary Jo Casalena

Publications and source records attributed to Mary Jo Casalena.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

A framework for analyzing wild turkey summer sighting data.

Wildlife agencies collect data on productivity (e.g., proportion of hens with poults and number of poults per hen) of wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ) to monitor population status and trends. However, sampling protocols to collect productivity data rely on opportunistic observations reported by wildlife agency personnel and the public and have changed over time and differed among agencies. A protocol to standardize data collection was adopted by most state wildlife agencies in 2019, but long-term historical datasets exist that cannot be analyzed readily to make inferences about spatial and temporal patterns in wild turkey productivity. We developed statistical models to allow comparisons and model trends in productivity among and within states even though data collection protocols changed over time and differed among states. We found greater spatial variation in the proportion of hens with poults than the number of poults per brood, which may reflect how environmental factors influence wild turkey productivity. Our models can also provide inferences about productivity when data are limited or temporally discontinuous for some spatial units. Additionally, we found that temporal and spatial variation in data collection, even under the new protocol, can affect inferences about trends in productivity. The statistical models we developed address the uncontrolled nature of when and where data are collected and offer the ability to investigate long-term patterns of productivity in relation to factors such as changing climate or habitat conditions.

Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania↗

USGS2024

Multistage time-to-event models improve survival inference by partitioning mortality processes of tracked organisms

Advances in tagging technologies are expanding opportunities to estimate survival of fish and wildlife populations. Yet, capture and handling effects could impact survival outcomes and bias inference about natural mortality processes. We developed a multistage time-to-event model that can partition the survival process into sequential phases that reflect the tagged animal experience, including handling and release mortality, post-release recovery mortality, and subsequently, natural mortality. We demonstrate performance of multistage survival models through simulation testing and through fish and bird telemetry case studies. Models are implemented in a Bayesian framework and can accommodate left, right, and interval censorship events. Our results indicate that accurate survival estimates can be achieved with reasonable sample sizes ( n ≈ 100 + ) "> 𝑛≈100+) and that multimodel inference can inform hypotheses about the configuration and length of survival stages needed to adequately describe mortality processes for tracked specimens. While we focus on survival estimation for tagged fish and wildlife populations, multistage time-to-event models could be used to understand other phenomena of interest such as migration, reproduction, or disease events across a range of taxa including plants and insects.

Scientific Reports↗

USGS2016

Retention of riveted aluminum leg bands by wild turkeys

In order for mark–recapture models to provide unbiased estimates of population parameters, it is critical that uniquely identifying tags or marks are not lost. We double-banded male and female wild turkeys with aluminum rivet bands and estimated the probability that a bird would be recovered with both bands <1–225 wk since banding (mean = 51.2 wk, SD = 44.0). We found that 100% of females ( n = 37) were recovered with both bands. For males, we recovered 6 of 188 turkeys missing a rivet band for a retention probability of 0.984 (95% CI = 0.96–0.99). If male turkeys are double-banded with rivet bands the probability of recovering a turkey without any marks is <0.001. We failed to detect a change in band retention over time or differences between adults and juveniles. Given the low cost and high retention rates of rivet aluminum bands, we believe they are an effective marking technique for wild turkeys and, for most studies, will minimize any concern about the assumption that marks are not lost.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗

USGS2016

Timing of spring wild turkey hunting in relation to nest incubation

State wildlife agencies are often requested to open spring wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ; hereafter, turkey) hunting seasons earlier to increase hunter satisfaction by hunters hearing more gobbling male turkeys. Timing of spring turkey hunting season in several states, including Pennsylvania, has been established to open, on average, near median date of incubation initiation of turkey nests. This is believed to reduce illegal and undesired hen harvest and possibly nest abandonment, while maintaining hunter satisfaction of hearing male turkeys when most hens are incubating eggs. However, Pennsylvania’s spring season structure was established in 1968. Given earlier spring phenology, and potentially more variation in spring weather due to climate change, there is concern that timing of nest incubation for turkeys in Pennsylvania could be changing. Therefore, our objective was to determine if nest incubation and opening of spring turkey hunting in Pennsylvania have continued to coincide. We attached satellite transmitters to 254 female turkeys during 2010–2014 and estimated median incubation initiation date to be 2 May, which was 2 days earlier than median date during a statewide study during 1953–1963 and 9 days earlier than during a smaller scale study in south–central Pennsylvania during 2000–2001. However, incubation initiation varied greatly among years and individual hens during all 3 studies. During 4 of 5 years of our study, Pennsylvania’s spring season opened 3 to 8 days prior to median date of incubation initiation. Over the 5 years, estimated initiation of incubation for first nesting attempts, measured from earliest date of incubation initiation to latest, was >2 months and maximum proportion of hens beginning incubation at any one time differed by several days to >1 week. Consequently, in years of late incubation, a constant season opening date set near the long-term median date of incubation initiation exposes few additional hens to risk and hunter satisfaction is likely maintained at greater levels than would be seen with a more conservative approach of opening the season later. Long-term and large scale studies using GPS transmitters that provide precise determination of incubation initiation will be useful to study environmental influences on initiation of incubation.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2014

Accounting for tagging-to-harvest mortality in a Brownie tag-recovery model by incorporating radio-telemetry data

The Brownie tag-recovery model is useful for estimating harvest rates but assumes all tagged individuals survive to the first hunting season; otherwise, mortality between time of tagging and the hunting season will cause the Brownie estimator to be negatively biased. Alternatively, fitting animals with radio transmitters can be used to accurately estimate harvest rate but may be more costly. We developed a joint model to estimate harvest and annual survival rates that combines known-fate data from animals fitted with transmitters to estimate the probability of surviving the period from capture to the first hunting season, and data from reward-tagged animals in a Brownie tag-recovery model. We evaluated bias and precision of the joint estimator, and how to optimally allocate effort between animals fitted with radio transmitters and inexpensive ear tags or leg bands. Tagging-to-harvest survival rates from >20 individuals with radio transmitters combined with 50–100 reward tags resulted in an unbiased and precise estimator of harvest rates. In addition, the joint model can test whether transmitters affect an individual's probability of being harvested. We illustrate application of the model using data from wild turkey, Meleagris gallapavo, to estimate harvest rates, and data from white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, to evaluate whether the presence of a visible radio transmitter is related to the probability of a deer being harvested. The joint known-fate tag-recovery model eliminates the requirement to capture and mark animals immediately prior to the hunting season to obtain accurate and precise estimates of harvest rate. In addition, the joint model can assess whether marking animals with radio transmitters affects the individual's probability of being harvested, caused by hunter selectivity or changes in a marked animal's behavior.

Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2011

Variation in spring harvest rates of male wild turkeys in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

Spring harvest rates of male wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallapavo ) influence the number and proportion of adult males in the population and turkey population models have treated harvest as additive to other sources of mortality. Therefore, hunting regulations and their effect on spring harvest rates have direct implications for hunter satisfaction. We used tag recovery models to estimate survival rates, investigate spatial, temporal, and demographic variability in harvest rates, and assess how harvest rates may be related to management strategies and landscape characteristics. We banded 3,266 male wild turkeys throughout New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania during 2006–2009. We found little evidence that harvest rates varied by year or management zone. The proportion of the landscape that was forested within 6.5 km of the capture location was negatively related to harvest rates; however, even though the proportion forested ranged from 0.008 to 0.96 across our study area, this corresponded to differences in harvest rates of only 2–5%. Annual survival was approximately twice as high for juveniles as adults . In turn, spring harvest rates for adult turkeys were greater for adults than juveniles . We estimated the population of male turkeys in New York and Pennsylvania ranged from 104,000 to 132,000 in all years and ranged from 63,000 to 75,000 in Ohio. Because of greater harvest rates for adult males, the proportion of adult males in the population was less than in the harvest and ranged from 0.40 to 0.81 among all states and years. The high harvest rates observed for adults may be offset by greater recruitment of juveniles into the adult age class the following year such that these states can sustain high harvest rates yet still maintain a relative high proportion of adult males in the harvest and population.

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania↗

USGS2010

Loss of butt-end leg bands on male wild turkeys

We estimated loss of butt-end leg bands on male wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallapavo ) captured in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (USA) during December–March, 2006–2008. We used aluminum rivet leg bands as permanent marks to estimate loss of regular aluminum, enameled aluminum, anodized aluminum, and stainless steel butt-end leg bands placed below the spur. We used band loss information from 887 turkeys recovered between 31 days and 570 days after release ( x¯ = 202 days). Band loss was greater for turkeys banded as adults (>1 yr old) than juveniles and was greater for aluminum than stainless steel bands. We estimated band retention was 79–96%, depending on age at banding and type of band, for turkeys recovered 3 months after release. Band retention was <50% for all age classes and band types 15 months after banding. We concluded that use of butt-end leg bands on male wild turkeys is inappropriate for use in mark–recapture studies.

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania↗