Are opportunistic captures of neonate ungulates biasing relative estimates of litter size?

• Published in: Animal biotelemetry 2022-12, Vol.10 (1), p.1-8, Article 38
• Main Authors: Turnley, Matthew T, Larsen, Randy T, Hughes, Tabitha A, Hinton, Morgan S, Sallee, Daniel W, Lamb, Sydney, Hersey, Kent R, McMillan, Brock R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Capture methods; Infants (Newborn); Litter size; Mule deer; Neonates; Odocoileus hemionus; Sampling bias
• ISSN: 2050-3385; 2050-3385
• DOI: 10.1186/s40317-022-00311-0

The capture of neonate ungulates allows for the collection of valuable ecological data, including estimates of litter size. However, varied methods used to capture neonate ungulates can result in sampling biases. Our objective was to determine if opportunistic captures of neonate ungulates (i.e., locating neonates by visually scanning for adult females displaying postpartum behaviors) bias relative estimates of litter size and investigate potential causes if a bias does exist. We analyzed data from 161 litters of mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) sampled using three different capture methods during 2019–2021 in Utah, USA. Estimates of litter size derived from opportunistic captures were smaller than estimates derived from movement-based captures or captures completed with the aid of vaginal implant transmitters (VITs). Age at capture was inversely related to estimates of litter size and likely influenced the detection bias associated with opportunistic captures. Neonates captured opportunistically were not older than neonates captured using movement-based methods, but were older than neonates captured with the aid of VITs. Distance between neonates from the same litter did not influence estimates of litter size. Researchers should be aware of the biases associated with different capture methods and use caution when interpreting data among multiple capture methods. Estimates of litter size derived from opportunistic captures should not be compared to estimates of litter size derived from alternative capture methods without accounting for the detection bias we observed.