[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-326551-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-326551-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","analysis-of-two-mark-recapture-methods-to-estimate-the-fall-chinook-salmon-part-80-winter-1994","ANALYSIS OF TWO MARK-RECAPTURE METHODS TO ESTIMATE THE FALL CHINOOK SALMON - Part 80 - Winter 1994","","Carcass survey data from the 1981 Chinook salmon spawning run into Bogus Creek were analyzed using the Schaefer and Jolly-Seber mark-recapture methods and compared with the actual run size determined at a dam near the creek mouth. Age-2 fish (grilse) were recaptured as carcasses at a significantly lower rate than older adult fish. Both methods produced close estimates of the adult run, while the grilse run was not estimated by the Jolly-Seber method due to low sample size. Further study directions are provided.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/analysis-of-two-mark-recapture-methods-to-estimate-the-fall-chinook-salmon-part-80-winter-1994/326551/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/analysis-of-two-mark-recapture-methods-to-estimate-the-fall-chinook-salmon-part-80-winter-1994/326551.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Ava Thompson","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What data source was used for the analysis?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The study used carcass survey data from the 1981 Chinook salmon spawning run into Bogus Creek, collected via a tagging and recovery approach above a dam.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did the two mark-recapture methods perform for estimating the adult run?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The Schaefer and Jolly-Seber methods produced close estimates of the adult run when compared to the actual run size determined at a dam near the creek mouth.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why was the grilse run not estimated by the Jolly-Seber method?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The grilse run was not estimated by the Jolly-Seber method because the sample size was too low.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},326551,1790816297,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1649267921044,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/1800007509477c92dfb?_k=1786009248482753345","California Fish and Game is published quarterly by the California Department ofFish and Game.It is a journal devoted to the conservation and understanding of fishand wildlife.If its contents are reproduced elsewhere,the authors and the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game would appreciate being acknowledged.  \nSubscriptions may be obtained at the rate of $10 per year by placing an order withthe Editor,California Department of Fish and Game,1416 Ninth Street,Sacramento.CA 95814.Checks or money orders in U.S.dollars should be made out to:CaliforniaFish and Game.Inquiries regarding paid subscriptions should be directed to theEditor.Complimentary subscriptions are granted on an exchange basis.  \nCalifornia Department of Fish and Game employees may request complimentarysubscriptions to the journal.  \nPlease direct correspondence to:  \nDr.Eric R.Loft,Editor-in-ChiefCalifornia Fish and Game1416 Ninth StreetSacramento,California 95814  \nRLFDRNIH FSH HND GHME  \nVOLUME 80  \n      NUMBER1  \n       WINTER 1994  \nPublished Quarterly by  \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIATHE RESOURCES AGENCYDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME--LDA--  \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA  \nPETE WILSON, Govemor  \nTHE RESOURCES AGENCY  \nDOUGLASP.WHEELER, Secretary for Resources  \nFISH AND GAME COMMISSION  \nBenjamin F.Biaggini, Presiden………………………………………………………………SanFrancisco  \nAlbert C. Taucher,Member ……………………………………………………………………………LongBeach  \nFrank D.Boren,Member…………………………………………………………………………………Carpinteria  \nGus Owen, Member…………………………………………………………………………………………………DanaPoint  \nRobert R. Treanor, Executive Director  \nDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME  \nBOYD GIBBONS,Director  \nJohn H. Sullivan, Chief Deputy Director  \nA Petrovich Jr., Deputy Director  \nBanky E. Curtis, Deputy Director  \nPerry L.Herrgesell, Ph.D., Chief………………………………………………………Bay-DeltaDivision  \nRolf Mall, Chie………………………………………………………………………MarineResourcesDivision  \nTim Farley, Chief………………………………………………………………………InlandFisheriesDivision  \nTerry M. Mansfield, Chief…………………………………………………WildlifeManagementDivision  \nJohn Turner,Chief………………………………………………………………EnvironmentalServicesDivision  \nSusan A.Cochrane, Chief……………………………………………………NaturalHeritageDivision  \nDeWayne Johnston, Chief…………………………………………………WildlifeProtectionDivision  \nRichard Eliott, Regional Manager ………………………………………………………………………Redding  \nRyan Broddrick, Regional Manager……………………………………………………RanchoCordova  \nBrian F. Hunter, Regional Manager…………………………………………………………………Yountvlle  \nGeorge D. Nokes, Regional Manager………………………………………………………………Fresno  \nFred Worthley, Regional Manager………………………………………………………………LongBeach  \nCALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME  \n1994 EDITORIAL STAFF  \nEric R.Loft, Editor-in-Chief………………………………………………………WildlifeManagement  \nJack Hanson Betsy C.Bolster, Ralph Carpenter,  \nArthur C. Knutson, Jr…………………………………………………………………………………………nlandFisheries  \nDan Yparraguirre, Douglas R Updike …………………………………………WildlifeManagement  \nSteve Crooke, Doyle Hanan, Jerome D. Sprat …………………………MarineResources  \nDonald E. Steven……………………………………………………………………………………………………Bay-Delta  \nPeter T.Phillip……………………………………………………………………………EnvironmentalServices  \nCONTENTS  \nAnalysis of Two Mark-Recapture Methods to Estimate the FallChinook Salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)Spawning Run inBogus Creek,California…………   ……………LB Boydstun  \n1  \nSimulation Study of Salmon Carcass Survey by Capture-RecaptureMethod.……………  ………   ……    …Philip M.W.Law14  \nRecent Evidence for the Formation of Annual Growth Increments inthe Otoliths of Young Pacific Sardines(Sardinops sagax)…………………      ………J.Thomas Barnes and Terry J.Foreman29  \nAn EfficientTechnique for Capturing Swimming Dee.………………………………………………Brian B.Boroski and Patrick L.McGlaughlin36  \nNOTES  \nWaterfowl Killed by Lightning……………  ………  …Dale Whitmore43  \n# ANALYSIS OF TWO MARK-RECAPTURE METHODSTO ESTIMATE THE FALL CHINOOK SALMON(ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA)SPAWNINGRUN IN BOGUS CREEK,CALIFORNIA\n\nLB BOYDSTUN  \nCalifornia Department of Fish and GameMarine Resources Division1416 Ninth StreetSacramento,CA 95814  \nCarcass survey data f","cbCaitNcNaoKqjbk","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitNcNaoKqjbk","pdf",7763720,53,"English","# Contents\n## Analysis of Two Mark-Recapture Methods to Estimate the Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Spawning Run in Bogus Creek, California\n## Notes\n### Waterfowl Killed by Lightning","[{\"question\":\"What data source was used for the analysis?\",\"answer\":\"The study used carcass survey data from the 1981 Chinook salmon spawning run into Bogus Creek, collected via a tagging and recovery approach above a dam.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the two mark-recapture methods perform for estimating the adult run?\",\"answer\":\"The Schaefer and Jolly-Seber methods produced close estimates of the adult run when compared to the actual run size determined at a dam near the creek mouth.\"},{\"question\":\"Why was the grilse run not estimated by the Jolly-Seber method?\",\"answer\":\"The grilse run was not estimated by the Jolly-Seber method because the sample size was too low.\"}]","ANALYSIS OF TWO MARK-RECAPTURE METHODS TO ESTIMATE THE FALL CHINOOK SALMON - Part 80 - Winter 1994 | PDF",1789974539,134]