蜡烛法和浮法估算水鸟卵胚龄的可比性和可重复性

IF 0.7 4区 生物学 Q3 ORNITHOLOGY Waterbirds Pub Date : 2023-02-08 DOI:10.1675/063.045.0208
Anastasia M. Maliguine, Christopher J. Latty, Elyssa M. Watford, T. Hollmen
{"title":"蜡烛法和浮法估算水鸟卵胚龄的可比性和可重复性","authors":"Anastasia M. Maliguine, Christopher J. Latty, Elyssa M. Watford, T. Hollmen","doi":"10.1675/063.045.0208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Determining embryo age is important for predicting hatch dates, planning nest visitation schedules, and as a model covariate examining factors affecting nest survival and behavior. Two common methods of estimating embryo age are egg candling and egg flotation (floating). Despite the reliance on these methods, there is little information regarding the repeatability of these techniques between multiple observers, or whether these techniques produce equivalent estimates. To determine how these methods compare and if precision of each method is biased by individual observers, paired observers candled and floated the same Common Eider (Somateria mollissima) eggs. We compared differences in embryo-age estimates across incubation between (1) candling and floating, (2) paired observers candling eggs, and (3) paired observers floating eggs. Floating and candling produced different embryo-age estimates during some periods of incubation. Although most estimates deviated by a few days, inconsistencies could impact results and statistical power when methods are interchanged between projects or across years. Observers derived different embryo-age estimates for candling, but not for floating, suggesting flotation may be more reliable. Our results suggest caution when combining candling and floating-derived data when collected across incubation stages. Investigators should consider how data collected by multiple observers may affect their research question.","PeriodicalId":54408,"journal":{"name":"Waterbirds","volume":"14 1","pages":"183 - 188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparability and Repeatability of Candling and Floating Methods for Estimating Embryo Age of Waterbird Eggs\",\"authors\":\"Anastasia M. Maliguine, Christopher J. Latty, Elyssa M. Watford, T. Hollmen\",\"doi\":\"10.1675/063.045.0208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Determining embryo age is important for predicting hatch dates, planning nest visitation schedules, and as a model covariate examining factors affecting nest survival and behavior. Two common methods of estimating embryo age are egg candling and egg flotation (floating). Despite the reliance on these methods, there is little information regarding the repeatability of these techniques between multiple observers, or whether these techniques produce equivalent estimates. To determine how these methods compare and if precision of each method is biased by individual observers, paired observers candled and floated the same Common Eider (Somateria mollissima) eggs. We compared differences in embryo-age estimates across incubation between (1) candling and floating, (2) paired observers candling eggs, and (3) paired observers floating eggs. Floating and candling produced different embryo-age estimates during some periods of incubation. Although most estimates deviated by a few days, inconsistencies could impact results and statistical power when methods are interchanged between projects or across years. Observers derived different embryo-age estimates for candling, but not for floating, suggesting flotation may be more reliable. Our results suggest caution when combining candling and floating-derived data when collected across incubation stages. Investigators should consider how data collected by multiple observers may affect their research question.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Waterbirds\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"183 - 188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Waterbirds\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1675/063.045.0208\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORNITHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Waterbirds","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1675/063.045.0208","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORNITHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要确定胚胎年龄对于预测孵化日期,规划巢访计划以及作为影响巢生存和行为的协变量模型检查因素非常重要。估计胚胎年龄的两种常用方法是卵烛法和卵浮法。尽管依赖于这些方法,但很少有关于这些技术在多个观察者之间的可重复性的信息,或者这些技术是否产生等效的估计。为了确定这些方法的比较,以及每个方法的精度是否受到个人观察者的偏差,成对的观察者点燃并漂浮相同的绒鸭(Somateria mollissima)卵。我们比较了(1)烛化和漂浮孵育期间胚胎年龄估计的差异,(2)成对观察者烛化鸡蛋,(3)成对观察者漂浮鸡蛋。漂浮法和蜡烛法在孵育的某些时期产生了不同的胚胎年龄估计。虽然大多数估计会有几天的偏差,但当方法在项目之间或跨年交换时,不一致性可能会影响结果和统计能力。观察人员对蜡烛法得出了不同的胚胎年龄估计,但对漂浮法却没有,这表明漂浮法可能更可靠。我们的结果表明,当在孵化阶段收集蜡烛和浮动衍生数据时,要谨慎。研究者应该考虑由多个观察者收集的数据如何影响他们的研究问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparability and Repeatability of Candling and Floating Methods for Estimating Embryo Age of Waterbird Eggs
Abstract. Determining embryo age is important for predicting hatch dates, planning nest visitation schedules, and as a model covariate examining factors affecting nest survival and behavior. Two common methods of estimating embryo age are egg candling and egg flotation (floating). Despite the reliance on these methods, there is little information regarding the repeatability of these techniques between multiple observers, or whether these techniques produce equivalent estimates. To determine how these methods compare and if precision of each method is biased by individual observers, paired observers candled and floated the same Common Eider (Somateria mollissima) eggs. We compared differences in embryo-age estimates across incubation between (1) candling and floating, (2) paired observers candling eggs, and (3) paired observers floating eggs. Floating and candling produced different embryo-age estimates during some periods of incubation. Although most estimates deviated by a few days, inconsistencies could impact results and statistical power when methods are interchanged between projects or across years. Observers derived different embryo-age estimates for candling, but not for floating, suggesting flotation may be more reliable. Our results suggest caution when combining candling and floating-derived data when collected across incubation stages. Investigators should consider how data collected by multiple observers may affect their research question.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Waterbirds
Waterbirds 生物-鸟类学
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Waterbirds is an international scientific journal of the Waterbird Society. The journal is published four times a year (March, June, September and December) and specializes in the biology, abundance, ecology, management and conservation of all waterbird species living in marine, estuarine and freshwater habitats. Waterbirds welcomes submission of scientific articles and notes containing the results of original studies worldwide, unsolicited critical commentary and reviews of appropriate topics.
期刊最新文献
Black Rail Occupancy and Detectability in the Texas Mid-Coast National Wildlife Refuge Ranging Behaviour and Habitat Selection of Sedentary Western Marsh Harriers (Circus aeruginosus) in the Mediterranean Estuarine Landscape. Satellite Tracking Reveals an Exploration of Migration Routes by White-Naped Cranes (Antigone vipio) Seasonal Patterns of Least Tern Distribution along the Atlantic Coasts of North, Central, and South America Editorial: Will 2023-24 be Remembered for Avian Influenza?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1