Effects of Abdominally Implanted Radiotransmitters with Percutaneous Antennas on Migration, Reproduction, and Survival of Canada Geese

Abdominally implanted radiotransmitters with percutaneous antennas are increasingly used to monitor movements, survival, and reproduction of waterbirds. However, there has been relatively little assessment of the effects of such radios on avian demographic parameters or migration. We implanted eithe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of wildlife management 2006-06, Vol.70 (3), p.812-822
Hauptverfasser: HUPP, JERRY W, PEARCE, JOHN M, MULCAHY, DANIEL M, MILLER, DAVID A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 822
container_issue 3
container_start_page 812
container_title The Journal of wildlife management
container_volume 70
creator HUPP, JERRY W
PEARCE, JOHN M
MULCAHY, DANIEL M
MILLER, DAVID A
description Abdominally implanted radiotransmitters with percutaneous antennas are increasingly used to monitor movements, survival, and reproduction of waterbirds. However, there has been relatively little assessment of the effects of such radios on avian demographic parameters or migration. We implanted either a 26- or 35-g abdominal transmitter with percutaneous antenna in 198 adult female lesser Canada geese (Branta canadensis parvipes) in Anchorage, Alaska during 2000 and 2001. We compared migration chronology, reproductive effort, and survival of radiomarked females to 118 control females marked with leg bands. Arrival dates following spring migration were similar among females in different treatments in 2001. However, in 2002, wind direction during late migration was less favorable, and arrival of females with 35-g radiotransmitters lagged 1–2 days behind that of control females. Nest initiation dates, clutch size, and mean egg volume were similar for 152 nests of females that lacked radios and 62 nests of radiomarked females. Estimated nesting propensity for females with operable radiotransmitters was 61% and 72% in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Apparent annual survival (φ = 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 0.87) was similar among treatments in the first year after geese were marked. In the second and third years after marking, model-averaged estimates for survival of females with large radiotransmitters were 10% lower than estimates for control females. However, the effect of large radios on long-term survival was equivocal because of uncertainty surrounding treatment estimates. We conclude that abdominally implanted radiotransmitters with percutaneous antennas had small effects on migration chronology but no apparent effects on fecundity. Abdominal transmitters can provide unbiased estimates of anserine survival in the first year after deployment. Because of the potentially greater effects of larger transmitters on migration and long-term survival, we recommend that biologists minimize the size of implanted transmitters and deploy radios with caution if long-term survival of marked birds is a concern.
doi_str_mv 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[812:EOAIRW]2.0.CO;2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19977422</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3803437</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3803437</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b5293-2047d24d6cb8a4bd713ada3d5a58651b63d64f43e48365a528ba6e7c2c13644d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkcuO0zAUhiMEEmXgDVhYLBBIpPgWO2VWVdQpHc1QVC5FQshyYgdcUrvYzgx9AZ4bR0FdsJyVZZ_P37H_k2U5glOMZuQ1hBjnBUVfXmAI2UsOv5YIv1ms56vN9huewmm1Psf3sklieY5LxO9nk9Odh9mjEHYQEoRKNsn-LNpWNzEA14J5rdzeWNl1R7DaHzppo1ZgI5Vx0Usb9iZG7QO4NfEHeK9900dptesDmCfSWpksFlyb715G4-wrsNEH71TfjDtpFfjQ-xtzI7uhXSWtVBIstQ76cfaglV3QT_6tZ9mni8XH6m1-tV6uqvlVXhd4RnIMKVeYKtbUpaS14ogkBVGFLEpWoJoRxWhLiaYlYekQl7Vkmje4QYRRqshZ9nz0pof96nWIYm9Co7tu_IhAsxnnFOMEPvsP3Lnep2yCwISikuMZS9BihBrvQvC6FQdv9tIfBYJiGJUYYhdD7GIYleBQpFGJcVQCCyiqtRiaXY6eW9Pp490k4nJ7veSEJNnTUbYL0fmTjJSQUMJTOR_LJkT9-1SW_qdgnPBCbN8txebzJmXALwRKfDXytXHO6jv-8C_HUc5v</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234187296</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of Abdominally Implanted Radiotransmitters with Percutaneous Antennas on Migration, Reproduction, and Survival of Canada Geese</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>HUPP, JERRY W ; PEARCE, JOHN M ; MULCAHY, DANIEL M ; MILLER, DAVID A</creator><creatorcontrib>HUPP, JERRY W ; PEARCE, JOHN M ; MULCAHY, DANIEL M ; MILLER, DAVID A</creatorcontrib><description>Abdominally implanted radiotransmitters with percutaneous antennas are increasingly used to monitor movements, survival, and reproduction of waterbirds. However, there has been relatively little assessment of the effects of such radios on avian demographic parameters or migration. We implanted either a 26- or 35-g abdominal transmitter with percutaneous antenna in 198 adult female lesser Canada geese (Branta canadensis parvipes) in Anchorage, Alaska during 2000 and 2001. We compared migration chronology, reproductive effort, and survival of radiomarked females to 118 control females marked with leg bands. Arrival dates following spring migration were similar among females in different treatments in 2001. However, in 2002, wind direction during late migration was less favorable, and arrival of females with 35-g radiotransmitters lagged 1–2 days behind that of control females. Nest initiation dates, clutch size, and mean egg volume were similar for 152 nests of females that lacked radios and 62 nests of radiomarked females. Estimated nesting propensity for females with operable radiotransmitters was 61% and 72% in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Apparent annual survival (φ = 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 0.87) was similar among treatments in the first year after geese were marked. In the second and third years after marking, model-averaged estimates for survival of females with large radiotransmitters were 10% lower than estimates for control females. However, the effect of large radios on long-term survival was equivocal because of uncertainty surrounding treatment estimates. We conclude that abdominally implanted radiotransmitters with percutaneous antennas had small effects on migration chronology but no apparent effects on fecundity. Abdominal transmitters can provide unbiased estimates of anserine survival in the first year after deployment. Because of the potentially greater effects of larger transmitters on migration and long-term survival, we recommend that biologists minimize the size of implanted transmitters and deploy radios with caution if long-term survival of marked birds is a concern.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[812:EOAIRW]2.0.CO;2</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JWMAA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>abdominal radiotransmitters ; Animal migration ; Animal reproduction ; Antennas ; Aquatic birds ; Biotelemetry ; Bird migration ; Bird nesting ; Branta canadensis ; Branta canadensis parvipes ; Canada goose ; Clutch size ; Effects ; Eggs ; Fecundity ; Female animals ; Females ; Geese ; migration ; Nesting ; Nests ; Radio ; radio telemetry ; Radio transmitters ; Survival ; Survival analysis ; transmitter effects ; Waterfowl ; Wildfowl ; Wildlife management ; Wildlife observation</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2006-06, Vol.70 (3), p.812-822</ispartof><rights>The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright 2006 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>2006 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright Alliance Communications Group, A Division of Allen Press, Inc. Jun 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b5293-2047d24d6cb8a4bd713ada3d5a58651b63d64f43e48365a528ba6e7c2c13644d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b5293-2047d24d6cb8a4bd713ada3d5a58651b63d64f43e48365a528ba6e7c2c13644d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3803437$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3803437$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574,58016,58249</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>HUPP, JERRY W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PEARCE, JOHN M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MULCAHY, DANIEL M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MILLER, DAVID A</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of Abdominally Implanted Radiotransmitters with Percutaneous Antennas on Migration, Reproduction, and Survival of Canada Geese</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>Abdominally implanted radiotransmitters with percutaneous antennas are increasingly used to monitor movements, survival, and reproduction of waterbirds. However, there has been relatively little assessment of the effects of such radios on avian demographic parameters or migration. We implanted either a 26- or 35-g abdominal transmitter with percutaneous antenna in 198 adult female lesser Canada geese (Branta canadensis parvipes) in Anchorage, Alaska during 2000 and 2001. We compared migration chronology, reproductive effort, and survival of radiomarked females to 118 control females marked with leg bands. Arrival dates following spring migration were similar among females in different treatments in 2001. However, in 2002, wind direction during late migration was less favorable, and arrival of females with 35-g radiotransmitters lagged 1–2 days behind that of control females. Nest initiation dates, clutch size, and mean egg volume were similar for 152 nests of females that lacked radios and 62 nests of radiomarked females. Estimated nesting propensity for females with operable radiotransmitters was 61% and 72% in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Apparent annual survival (φ = 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 0.87) was similar among treatments in the first year after geese were marked. In the second and third years after marking, model-averaged estimates for survival of females with large radiotransmitters were 10% lower than estimates for control females. However, the effect of large radios on long-term survival was equivocal because of uncertainty surrounding treatment estimates. We conclude that abdominally implanted radiotransmitters with percutaneous antennas had small effects on migration chronology but no apparent effects on fecundity. Abdominal transmitters can provide unbiased estimates of anserine survival in the first year after deployment. Because of the potentially greater effects of larger transmitters on migration and long-term survival, we recommend that biologists minimize the size of implanted transmitters and deploy radios with caution if long-term survival of marked birds is a concern.</description><subject>abdominal radiotransmitters</subject><subject>Animal migration</subject><subject>Animal reproduction</subject><subject>Antennas</subject><subject>Aquatic birds</subject><subject>Biotelemetry</subject><subject>Bird migration</subject><subject>Bird nesting</subject><subject>Branta canadensis</subject><subject>Branta canadensis parvipes</subject><subject>Canada goose</subject><subject>Clutch size</subject><subject>Effects</subject><subject>Eggs</subject><subject>Fecundity</subject><subject>Female animals</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Geese</subject><subject>migration</subject><subject>Nesting</subject><subject>Nests</subject><subject>Radio</subject><subject>radio telemetry</subject><subject>Radio transmitters</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Survival analysis</subject><subject>transmitter effects</subject><subject>Waterfowl</subject><subject>Wildfowl</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><subject>Wildlife observation</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqdkcuO0zAUhiMEEmXgDVhYLBBIpPgWO2VWVdQpHc1QVC5FQshyYgdcUrvYzgx9AZ4bR0FdsJyVZZ_P37H_k2U5glOMZuQ1hBjnBUVfXmAI2UsOv5YIv1ms56vN9huewmm1Psf3sklieY5LxO9nk9Odh9mjEHYQEoRKNsn-LNpWNzEA14J5rdzeWNl1R7DaHzppo1ZgI5Vx0Usb9iZG7QO4NfEHeK9900dptesDmCfSWpksFlyb715G4-wrsNEH71TfjDtpFfjQ-xtzI7uhXSWtVBIstQ76cfaglV3QT_6tZ9mni8XH6m1-tV6uqvlVXhd4RnIMKVeYKtbUpaS14ogkBVGFLEpWoJoRxWhLiaYlYekQl7Vkmje4QYRRqshZ9nz0pof96nWIYm9Co7tu_IhAsxnnFOMEPvsP3Lnep2yCwISikuMZS9BihBrvQvC6FQdv9tIfBYJiGJUYYhdD7GIYleBQpFGJcVQCCyiqtRiaXY6eW9Pp490k4nJ7veSEJNnTUbYL0fmTjJSQUMJTOR_LJkT9-1SW_qdgnPBCbN8txebzJmXALwRKfDXytXHO6jv-8C_HUc5v</recordid><startdate>200606</startdate><enddate>200606</enddate><creator>HUPP, JERRY W</creator><creator>PEARCE, JOHN M</creator><creator>MULCAHY, DANIEL M</creator><creator>MILLER, DAVID A</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>The Wildlife Society</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200606</creationdate><title>Effects of Abdominally Implanted Radiotransmitters with Percutaneous Antennas on Migration, Reproduction, and Survival of Canada Geese</title><author>HUPP, JERRY W ; PEARCE, JOHN M ; MULCAHY, DANIEL M ; MILLER, DAVID A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b5293-2047d24d6cb8a4bd713ada3d5a58651b63d64f43e48365a528ba6e7c2c13644d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>abdominal radiotransmitters</topic><topic>Animal migration</topic><topic>Animal reproduction</topic><topic>Antennas</topic><topic>Aquatic birds</topic><topic>Biotelemetry</topic><topic>Bird migration</topic><topic>Bird nesting</topic><topic>Branta canadensis</topic><topic>Branta canadensis parvipes</topic><topic>Canada goose</topic><topic>Clutch size</topic><topic>Effects</topic><topic>Eggs</topic><topic>Fecundity</topic><topic>Female animals</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Geese</topic><topic>migration</topic><topic>Nesting</topic><topic>Nests</topic><topic>Radio</topic><topic>radio telemetry</topic><topic>Radio transmitters</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Survival analysis</topic><topic>transmitter effects</topic><topic>Waterfowl</topic><topic>Wildfowl</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><topic>Wildlife observation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>HUPP, JERRY W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PEARCE, JOHN M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MULCAHY, DANIEL M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MILLER, DAVID A</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>HUPP, JERRY W</au><au>PEARCE, JOHN M</au><au>MULCAHY, DANIEL M</au><au>MILLER, DAVID A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of Abdominally Implanted Radiotransmitters with Percutaneous Antennas on Migration, Reproduction, and Survival of Canada Geese</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>2006-06</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>812</spage><epage>822</epage><pages>812-822</pages><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><coden>JWMAA9</coden><abstract>Abdominally implanted radiotransmitters with percutaneous antennas are increasingly used to monitor movements, survival, and reproduction of waterbirds. However, there has been relatively little assessment of the effects of such radios on avian demographic parameters or migration. We implanted either a 26- or 35-g abdominal transmitter with percutaneous antenna in 198 adult female lesser Canada geese (Branta canadensis parvipes) in Anchorage, Alaska during 2000 and 2001. We compared migration chronology, reproductive effort, and survival of radiomarked females to 118 control females marked with leg bands. Arrival dates following spring migration were similar among females in different treatments in 2001. However, in 2002, wind direction during late migration was less favorable, and arrival of females with 35-g radiotransmitters lagged 1–2 days behind that of control females. Nest initiation dates, clutch size, and mean egg volume were similar for 152 nests of females that lacked radios and 62 nests of radiomarked females. Estimated nesting propensity for females with operable radiotransmitters was 61% and 72% in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Apparent annual survival (φ = 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 0.87) was similar among treatments in the first year after geese were marked. In the second and third years after marking, model-averaged estimates for survival of females with large radiotransmitters were 10% lower than estimates for control females. However, the effect of large radios on long-term survival was equivocal because of uncertainty surrounding treatment estimates. We conclude that abdominally implanted radiotransmitters with percutaneous antennas had small effects on migration chronology but no apparent effects on fecundity. Abdominal transmitters can provide unbiased estimates of anserine survival in the first year after deployment. Because of the potentially greater effects of larger transmitters on migration and long-term survival, we recommend that biologists minimize the size of implanted transmitters and deploy radios with caution if long-term survival of marked birds is a concern.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[812:EOAIRW]2.0.CO;2</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-541X
ispartof The Journal of wildlife management, 2006-06, Vol.70 (3), p.812-822
issn 0022-541X
1937-2817
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19977422
source JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects abdominal radiotransmitters
Animal migration
Animal reproduction
Antennas
Aquatic birds
Biotelemetry
Bird migration
Bird nesting
Branta canadensis
Branta canadensis parvipes
Canada goose
Clutch size
Effects
Eggs
Fecundity
Female animals
Females
Geese
migration
Nesting
Nests
Radio
radio telemetry
Radio transmitters
Survival
Survival analysis
transmitter effects
Waterfowl
Wildfowl
Wildlife management
Wildlife observation
title Effects of Abdominally Implanted Radiotransmitters with Percutaneous Antennas on Migration, Reproduction, and Survival of Canada Geese
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T22%3A27%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20Abdominally%20Implanted%20Radiotransmitters%20with%20Percutaneous%20Antennas%20on%20Migration,%20Reproduction,%20and%20Survival%20of%20Canada%20Geese&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=HUPP,%20JERRY%20W&rft.date=2006-06&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=812&rft.epage=822&rft.pages=812-822&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft.coden=JWMAA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70%5B812:EOAIRW%5D2.0.CO;2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3803437%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234187296&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3803437&rfr_iscdi=true